That "video tape" effect is from a setting on the HDTVs that is called something like smooth motion or something else. I agree it's garbage. It's bumps the frame rate up to 30fps or higher by digitally interpolating frames. I really can't stand the look. It makes everything shot on film look like a 1980s video camera. It's a setting than can be turned off on all HDTVs I've seen.

This is why I fear my plasma TV ever dying, since they're not making them much anymore. Other HD TVs have what I call a "videotape effect." They over-sharpen things and add extra depth, which is okay for a movie that was shot digitally but they make older movies look "wrong." Blu-Ray also has a bad tendency to do that, but it's mostly the TV that causes it. Plasma is not quite as sharp and makes film look like film. HD's better for watching sports on playing video games, but older movies lose something on 'em. LED TVs are a little better about it, but I still lean to plasma.
One of the first things I tried watching on an HD TV was
Good The Bad and the Ugly
and it looked terrible, like some cheap BBC production. Then I tried watching Argento's
Deep Red
. Same thing. I've gotten a little more used to it over time, but will stick with plasma as long as it's an option.

Yeah, I haven't double dipped for anything released pre-1990s. Sometimes it can be hit or miss, distracting me, or there's just not enough that can be done in the first place, negating the need.
Jaws & Star Wars IV might get me one day, yet Jaws looks 'the way it should' with the 30th dvd, + until I can buy ANH standalone, I won't have SW.

This message has been deleted.

http://www.caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergleiche/multi_comparison.php?art=par t&x=538&y=413&action=1&image=0&hd_multiID=82&c ap1=4117&cap2=3565&disc1=398&disc2=341&lossless=#vergl eich
As you will see here, the Italian version does show significantly more image around the edges and has a smoother look with deeper colour. It seems to have had more DNR applied though. It's possible that the Italian disc was made from an original Techniscope negative , the MGM one is probably a recycled DVD master sourced from a 35mm blowup. It still looks damn good for a 51 year old film though.

Videophiles love to complain.
For starters, 'A Fistful of Dollars' is a low-budget Italian film shot in 1964. It's unrealistic to expect it to look like a post-2000 blu ray release. Common sense. There's going to be film grain. There's going to be a softer image. There's going to be print damage. In some cases, digital reparations
are
necessary like in the case of 'Dracula' for instance (1931).
If anyone is complaining about the way older movies look on blu ray - it's because they're expecting a pristine image like their copy of 'The Dark Knight' (2008) and that's just not possible or realistic.
Blu ray is
so
sharp that any film grain (that is
inherent
on the film itself) that was previously unnoticeable on standard TVs are now noticeable on blu ray.
The blu ray release for this film is an obvious upgrade over the DVD. If nothing else because of the very format. DVD still has slight pixelation (which becomes more apparent on HD televisions) so it's not as clear (nor are the colors as vivid) as blu ray. Close-ups in particular are as clear and sharp as they've probably ever been on the home market. Film grain is existent and the images can be soft (more so in longer shots - compared to modern blu ray release of course) but I think it just gives older films character.
The trade-off of removing film grain using DNR (digital noise reduction) is a "waxy", overly smooth picture - most true videophiles prefer none-to-minimal use of DNR to prefer a natural, truer image and simply accept film grain as something inherent in older films. Like I said, character.
If there's any overcropping, I'm not even sure how you'd detect that. I couldn't notice. All in all, I noticed almost no damage to the print so they cleaned up.
I'm not really keen on ordering things from overseas, paying higher shipping rates, having to buy a region free blu ray player and having cover art that isn't in English.I have a hard time believing the Italian blu ray would be that much better to make it worth it..it's the same film? It's the same film stock? It's going to have film grain, a softer image compared to modern releases, and etc.

This is the best version all around
http://www.amazon.it/Per-Pugno-Dollari-Versione-Restaurata/dp/B0041KW6E8/ref=sr_1_2?s=dvd&ie=UTF8&qid=1403485423&sr=1-2&keywords=Per+Un+Pugno+Di+Dollari
Avoid the MGM version, its horrible, the worst part is the cropping, its tasteless

That is a good question; let me put it this way, with 'THE GOOD, BAD, AND THE UGLY' there were HUGE complaints from the purists saying that they used way too much digital tampering. I just finished watching this one with my Dad on my 50" Plasma playing through a nice quality OPPO Blu-ray player, and in my lowly and wretched opinion it looked just wonderful. It had PLENTY of 'grain' in it, so please don't get too worked up over the fanatical 'purists'. However, I DO understand how DNR, etc., can indeed be over and misused, agreed
But, my one argument which NONE of these fanatics seem to think of is this:
IF
at the time of filming these movies they had had the bloody EXACT SAME technology that they have now, don't you frigg'n think that they would have chosen to have the films look clearer and sharper. And yeah, okay, all the LOVELY grain is so 'filmic' and 'organic' looking; uh huh well, I just don't buy so fully into that.
For what it's worth, I DO consider myself an Audio / Videophile (mostly Audio though, honestly) I have collected films for over 30 years, starting with BETA recordings, if you can believe that! And, as my somewhat boastful signature line states, I do indeed have over 5000 films of various kinds and qualities and probably over 500 Blu-rays of various kinds and from different countries. Now, I KNOW that that doesn't necessarily make me an expert; but, I'm just sayin' And to ME personally, as long as it is not overdone, I REALLY prefer my films to be clearer and sharper and without TOO much grain if possible.
Yes, YES, I KNOW, that the argument is that when you take some of the grain away, because it is captured naturally as a function of filming the material, that you are technically taking away some of the detail from the picture. But, I think that there is a point where your eye cannot tell the difference (IF it is not overdone) between a little detail that may in actuality be removed and a much clearer picture without it looking like swarms of gnats swimming around throughout the film and on all the clothes and walls. Just my opinion. (My GOD! Take the Criterion Blu-ray of 'THE THIRD MAN', for example [which is OOP and going for over $100 used, BTW - I happen to have a copy
] Anyway, EVERYONE was PRAISING how spectacular the picture quality is; to me, it almost looks like a CONSTANT snow blizzard going on throughout the film! GEEZ I'M SORRY, but that is NOT how I enjoy looking at films if it can be helped)
But, even with that said, THIS film is by NO means even frigg'n CLOSE to being a candidate to be accused of over zealous DNR or sharpening. Whereas, MANY people have had an issue with TGTBATU
A good example, if you are interested, is go to DVDBeaver . com and check out their review of the 2003 film 'ZATOICHI', which is a Japanese Action / Fantasy type film. They show comparison screen shots of the preferred 'natural' looking UK Blu-ray as opposed to the 'overly sharpened and saturated' U.S. Miramax version. Now, I HAVE the UK Blu-ray and it looks nice; but it is kind of washed out and muted looking (the 'original' intention supposedly of the film makers - uh huh, sure) BUT, I really frigg'n LOVE the US Miramax Blu-ray! The color and sharpness really takes my breath away. And, unfortunately that li'l B@stard is going for a LOT more used and is harder to find. I mean, THAT is how I personally want to see films if possible IF it doesn't take too much away or truly distract from the original version. But, I think that this is a bloody EXCELLENT example of precisely what I am talking about.
Anyway, the Love / Hate discussion over 'Grain' is just as polarized and divisive as the Pro-Choice / Pro-Life discussion. I guess that it will always be there If you REALLY wanna see this discussion passionately in action, take a look at Amazon. com's listing of the 'Hunter' Blu-ray version of 'PREDATOR'. Whoa! I personally found the discussion among the comments on the reviews there quite fascinating!
Cheers!
I have over 5000 films, many of them very rare and OOP. I LOVE to trade. PLEASE ASK!

Totally agree. I'm sure the person who wrote that post was just paraphrasing something he read somewhere else. 'Over-sharpening'??? Come on.
Anyway, to the OP. I came to this thread because I recently upgraded my old bare-bones DVD, to the special edition version. The special edition look utterly hideous!! Forget worrying about DNR, edge enhancement and 'over sharpening' (boo-effing-hoo), this version looks dark, murky, lacks colour, and the print is dirty. It looks about on par with my old VHS copy.
Sadly, I gave my bare bones version to my girlfriend and can't take it back. Ebay, here I come!
As for the Blu-rayFistful is still awaiting a full restoration, which The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly was given some years ago. And don't let the phrase 'digitally remastered' fool you; there is no more misleading a phrase in the home video industry.
Never defend crap with "It's just a movie"
http://www.youtube.com/user/BigGreenProds

seriously if you believe blu ray is a gimmick your living on another planet and very uninformed!
Fenton!! Fenton..Oh Jesus Christ..FENTOOON

The Italian BR is rated U and is of the shorter original not the 3.5m longer adult print.

There are a lot of problems wth the MGM/UA restoration, not least the overuse of DNR and overcropping the image in places. You're much better off with the Italian Region B blu-ray from Ripley's Home Video, which is an excellent restoration from the original neg and has both the original English mono (the MGM/UA BD has a particularly clumsy stereo remix) and Italian dubs. It knocks the MGM/UA BD out of the water.
"Security - release the badgers."

I picked up the blu-ray of this movie and For A Few Dollars More yesterday. Judging from the picture, Fistful of Dollars is a movie that has suffered significant damage to the negative. The restoration was done lovingly, and the movie looks about as good as it probably ever will look again.
On the other hand, For A Few Dollars More does not suffer the same problems, and looks almost like a new film on blu-ray. Both discs sport well-done remixes into 5.1 surround.

I have seen so many bad comments about Blu-ray releases on many old films that I've been happy to stick with my DVD boxed set for these films for now. I hope to be able to borrow a Blu-ray copy to see if it's really any good or not. I think they might have faked some better stereo sound quality on the Blu-rays, but it's not natural to the original films.
I have heard that the Blu-ray for Few Dollars More hasn't restored certain missing scenes, so that's another reason why I don't care to get the Blu-rays.

I just know that when I saw the restored 35mm version of Good, Bad, Ugly, it didn't look like this.

Blu-ray is mostly a gimmick of over-sharpening and overuse of noise reduction filters and edge enhancement. They could do the same for DVD images if they wanted to. They just want people to thing that Blu-ray is so much better. I've ripped Blu-ray discs before to computer and converted them to DVD format and when I watched them on TV with the DVD player, the picture still had that super sharp, Blu-ray look to it.