So, these Universal Monsters Blurays....

[noelani72]

I got to see Frankenstein and Creature From the Black Lagoon.
I did a side-by-side comparison on my computer so I could see the video quality differences.
The Blurays are really clean, sharp and crisp - far better than any release to date.

However.
I noticed there no longer exists that flicker created by the projector's shutter.
Despite the super clear, crisp, and clean video - they probably have never been seen this way...they're too good.

Next, I haven't checked Frankenstein as closely as I did CFTBL, but they cropped CFTBL.
I'll take screenshots later to illustrate my meaning, but when the bluray and dvd are played side-by-side, you can clearly see the bluray is missing stuff at the top and bottom of the screen.

Anyone else notice this?

[megoapesnut]

I read somewhere that it is presented in the original 1.85:1 ratio. So what you are seeing on a 16:9 HDTV sounds like it should be what was seen in theaters. This is just a guess on my part but it's possible that it was opened up top and bottom for video. One famous case I can remember is T2. Video had opened up the frame top and bottom and shown more than what the director had intended when he shot the movie. When they released it on Laserdisc, it was a big to do as they had changed it back to the way it was shown in theaters, and the way the director intended it to be viewed. Probably not the case here, just a guess on my part.

[cjefferys]

Yep, CFTBL's original aspect ratio was 1.85:1 so I'm guessing that previous 1.33:1 releases of the film just had the upper and lower mattes removed, exposing dead space (assuming that the director was framing all the shots with 1.85:1 in mind). You'll actually notice this a lot in "full screen" to "widescreen" comparisons, depending on how the film was shot. It's especially noticable in films shot in Super 35, like the Terminator 2 example that Scott uses above. Just try not to think that you are "missing" any of the picture, you are seeing the film in the way the director intended, and the missing parts are just empty space that can throw off the intended composition of the scenes (or worse, expose things like boom mikes, etc) if they are shown.

[Werewolf]

35 mm film is much higher resolution than Blu-Ray. They are not better than they originally looked. The Blu-Rays are also in the correct aspect ratios.

[noelani72]

35 mm film is much higher resolution than Blu-Ray. They are not better than they originally looked. The Blu-Rays are also in the correct aspect ratios.

I think what I meant to say about how they've never been seen this way was; sure, 35mm is superior, but back in the 1930-1950 era, how'd they really look? surely the screens and their glass content or the sheer textiles evolved over time getting better and better so that the 35mm quality could really be seen. I have my grandmother's Super8 projector screen from the 60s and it looks horrible. Anything shot on it looks like you're viewing it from behind a screen door.

[Werewolf]

I think what I meant to say about how they've never been seen this way was; sure, 35mm is superior, but back in the 1930-1950 era, how'd they really look?

Same as today, It would have varied from theater to theater. A brand new pristine print of Dracula in higher end theater would have looked damn good in 1931. Dracula restored is still not in new condition. Just as close as they can get with the source materials and restoration available.

[mego73]

Robert Harris, a film restorer that worked on restoration of films like Vertigo talked about the potential of blu ray of older films looking better and sharper than original releases. The way prints were done back then meant that the theater wound up with a print that was third or forth generation from the original negative. When a blu ray goes back to the original negative you can potentially get a blu ray with more detail than the period release prints. This came up in a thread about me and other people complaining about how on the Wizard Of Oz, they went and digitally took out the wire that was attached to the lion's tale to wag it. we were arguing that if the wire was visable in theaters in the the 1930's it should stay on the blu ray. He talked about how the special effects people figured in about how the generations and the film grain would hide the wire in final release prints. So, that was a revelation to me.

[cjefferys]

I'd listen to Mr. Harris on this, he knows his stuff! IMO, the current Blu-ray releases would look better than most likely the majority of the original theatrical showings, due to how film prints were distributed and projected back in the day.

[madmarva]

The U.S. issue of the set has jumped up to $143.00 on Amazon. I should have struck more quickly. May just stick with my DVD versions, despite the upgrade.

[GlobalObserver]

$55.43 shipped from Amazon UK. It's region free so no worries.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Universal-Classic-Monsters-Essential-Collection/dp/B008H45YSO/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1350571255&sr=8-1

[noelani72]

I did watch CFTBL the other day and it just seemed off to me....I dunno, maybe I'm a weird breed.
It's too clean.
Even my 20yr old daughter commented how she prefers my old laserdisc Monster Squad rip compared to the shinny BluRay of Monster Squad...she says the BluRay is not how she remembers growing up with the show.

Maybe that's how our brains work when it comes to these shows and our memories.
I will retain my Legacy dvds that have been ripped into my iTunes library.
I'm just gonna have to pretend these BluRays don't exist.

I'd really prefer having a good ol fashioned 16mm projector with some buttered popcorn and spend a saturday afternoon watching them that way.

[madmarva]

Thanks. Just ordered it. Noticed the films are also available as single Blu rays outside the U.S.

[FETT1]

..yeah ,but what's up with the PHANTOM...it's not the true version ...LON CHANEY is and will always be the master of disquise ...his phantom was the best!