What's the point of seeing older films in a high-definition format such as Blu-ray?
Last week, I noted that the Criterion Collection planned to start releasing some of the vintage films in its catalog on Blu-ray, but I received unexpected reader feedback.
"So these will be high-def versions of the grainy originals? How does that work?" a reader named Chris asked on my blog.
I thought Chris was being sarcastic, but after another reader chided him, someone else thanked him for asking "a question that undoubtedly many nonfilm snobs were wondering as they read the article."
The issue is relevant now, because several older movies made from the 1960s to 1980s are coming out Tuesday on Blu-ray. They are a set of all of Clint Eastwood's "Dirty Harry" films (Warner, $130) and five World War II movies from Fox and MGM: "The Longest Day," "The Sand Pebbles," "Patton," "A Bridge Too Far" and "Battle of Britain" ($40 each).
The simple answer is that Blu-ray allows movies to be viewed essentially at film resolution. As good as standard DVDs look, they still aren't of the same image quality that you'd see of a properly projected film in a theater. Blu-ray offers comparable quality in image and sound.
For a more detailed answer, I called on film preservationist Robert Harris, who has restored classics such as "Lawrence of Arabia," "Vertigo" and "My Fair Lady."
His first reaction was to point readers to Warner's stunning presentations of "The Adventures of Robin Hood," "Casablanca" and "The Searchers" as evidence of how important high-def is to movies made as long as 70 years ago. (Only "The Searchers" is out on Blu-ray. The other two were released on the now-obsolete HD DVD format, but will be rereleased at some point on Blu-ray.)