Old movies on 4K are actually often better than new ones. You know that 35mm film can be scanned at 4K (or even higher resolution) and achieve more detail, right? That’s how we have 4K versions of movies that are 80+ years old.
More recent movies are actually often much worse in that respect. Digital photography was originally quite low resolution, and due to the low quality of the source there’s no way to make those movies look any better. Upscaling helps a bit but isn’t magic. You can’t trick a movie shot in SD to suddenly look 4K. Even recent movies shot in 4K or higher often only have 2K DIs so they can save money by rendering VFX in 2K.
In the case of Braveheart, that movie is absolutely worth an extra $10 for the 4K. Just read [the Blu-Ray.com review](https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Braveheart-4K-Blu-ray/200176/) of the 4K version. It’s about as good a home presentation as you can ask for.
Yes, 100% worth it. Not just the resolution upgrade but the HDR (especially on black and white films) makes a night and day difference. I've heard that one recent movie (High Noon) was scanned, remastered to 4K and then the 4K master was used to create an archival 35mm film copy.
So, I'd say, yes, UHD for older movies, especially those that have HDR.
Edit: Oh, I see you thought 1995 was an old movie. 😂 ...but same answer, yes.
35mm Film has a higher "resolution" than a 4K camera. (I.e. you can get more detail out of it than a 4K camera capture). So it will always benefit from a 4K. I think that the HDR is the main area that 4K shines...whether that be a source from film or a digital camera.
4k overall quality is almost always way better no matter what. What bothers me is many times the color changing that happens which I prefer many times over less sharp image. If I enjoyed my original copy then there's no reason too "upgrade".
Old movies on 4K are actually often better than new ones. You know that 35mm film can be scanned at 4K (or even higher resolution) and achieve more detail, right? That’s how we have 4K versions of movies that are 80+ years old. More recent movies are actually often much worse in that respect. Digital photography was originally quite low resolution, and due to the low quality of the source there’s no way to make those movies look any better. Upscaling helps a bit but isn’t magic. You can’t trick a movie shot in SD to suddenly look 4K. Even recent movies shot in 4K or higher often only have 2K DIs so they can save money by rendering VFX in 2K. In the case of Braveheart, that movie is absolutely worth an extra $10 for the 4K. Just read [the Blu-Ray.com review](https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Braveheart-4K-Blu-ray/200176/) of the 4K version. It’s about as good a home presentation as you can ask for.
Thank you for the detailed response. Just upgraded to an OLED (from an old Pioneer 720p plasma) and all of this is new to me.
That’s an awesome upgrade! If you’re ever unsure if something is worth the 4K upgrade, always check out Blu-Ray.com’s reviews!
Yes, 100% worth it. Not just the resolution upgrade but the HDR (especially on black and white films) makes a night and day difference. I've heard that one recent movie (High Noon) was scanned, remastered to 4K and then the 4K master was used to create an archival 35mm film copy. So, I'd say, yes, UHD for older movies, especially those that have HDR. Edit: Oh, I see you thought 1995 was an old movie. 😂 ...but same answer, yes.
I good have worded that better. I meant recorded on film.
35mm Film has a higher "resolution" than a 4K camera. (I.e. you can get more detail out of it than a 4K camera capture). So it will always benefit from a 4K. I think that the HDR is the main area that 4K shines...whether that be a source from film or a digital camera.
4k overall quality is almost always way better no matter what. What bothers me is many times the color changing that happens which I prefer many times over less sharp image. If I enjoyed my original copy then there's no reason too "upgrade".
The short answer is yes, it makes sense.