• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Old Movies On HD DVD

olds

olds

Elite Member
How can they look good?
Don't they need to be filmed in HD?

I've always heard: "you can't make chicken salad out of chicken shit".
 
Casablanca is amazingly sharp, and it's black and white with a mono soundtrack. Yet it's an improvement over the DVD to be sure. I also rented the 1930's Robin Hood and the color was very impressive. The David Lean epics (Lawrence of Arabia, Bridge on the River Kwai, etc.) are what I look forward to seeing as HD releases.
 
Originally posted by: JAG87
Originally posted by: cubby1223
Film is analog, and has a higher "resolution" than 1920x1080.


Warner is restoring film to digital 4k (4320p) resolution:
http://www.hollywoodreporter.c...307f6dae7c87180fcf6017
Click to expand...

very true, but the downside is that analog film degrades over time 🙁
Click to expand...

yet can be restored to pristine quality.

actually, the classics are where HD transfers have seemed to shine the most. remember it all goes back to the source, and film stock has no true resolution in terms of a quantifiable number, but it was set at the 6MP standard when the digital folks were setting a goal for digital cameras reaching film quality. So, that translates to what, 3600x2800 or so? way better than 1920x1080. ...and that's 35mm film. so, what about a film shot in 70mm?

holy bajesus! go check out 2001 in HD and this whole idea of yours that classic film can't look good in HD will crumble into dust.

This is why I hope film will never die, b/c it still has so many qualities that digital can't seem to touch.
 
I don't know if it counts as "old", only being from 1982, but "John Carpenter's: The Thing" still looks pretty spiffy in HD.
 
Originally posted by: zinfamous
Originally posted by: JAG87
Originally posted by: cubby1223
Film is analog, and has a higher "resolution" than 1920x1080.


Warner is restoring film to digital 4k (4320p) resolution:
http://www.hollywoodreporter.c...307f6dae7c87180fcf6017
Click to expand...

very true, but the downside is that analog film degrades over time 🙁
Click to expand...

yet can be restored to pristine quality.

actually, the classics are where HD transfers have seemed to shine the most. remember it all goes back to the source, and film stock has no true resolution in terms of a quantifiable number, but it was set at the 6MP standard when the digital folks were setting a goal for digital cameras reaching film quality. So, that translates to what, 3600x2800 or so? way better than 1920x1080. ...and that's 35mm film. so, what about a film shot in 70mm?

holy bajesus! go check out 2001 in HD and this whole idea of yours that classic film can't look good in HD will crumble into dust.

This is why I hope film will never die, b/c it still has so many qualities that digital can't seem to touch.
Click to expand...


I never said that a classic film cant look good in HD, I just said that a very old film will degrade over time. So if you are looking forward to a 1960 or 1970 movie in super high def at 4096x2304 in the year 2014, sorry to disappoint you but its not gonna look that good. not because there isn't enough resolution, but because the texture and the colors will just fade away on the masters unfortunately. its the sadness of analog film, so good yet so fragile 🙂
 
Originally posted by: AVAFREAK182
i hate westerns. uggh
Click to expand...

very sad. you're missing out on one of the most significant genres in WORLD cinema. yeah, every freaking country has its western mythology, and it's a nice window into cultural dynamics. plus, westerns tend to lend themselves to the purest story telling. but yeah, I guess you wouldn't get that from watching xXx, or something similar.... 😀

this tells me you haven't seen the Searchers, Rio Bravo, The Good, The Bad, The Ugly (are you freaking kidding me?), Unforgiven, Tombstone....impossible for anyone to not like those flicks 😉
 
Originally posted by: JAG87
Originally posted by: zinfamous
Originally posted by: JAG87
Originally posted by: cubby1223
Film is analog, and has a higher "resolution" than 1920x1080.


Warner is restoring film to digital 4k (4320p) resolution:
http://www.hollywoodreporter.c...307f6dae7c87180fcf6017
Click to expand...

very true, but the downside is that analog film degrades over time 🙁
Click to expand...

yet can be restored to pristine quality.

actually, the classics are where HD transfers have seemed to shine the most. remember it all goes back to the source, and film stock has no true resolution in terms of a quantifiable number, but it was set at the 6MP standard when the digital folks were setting a goal for digital cameras reaching film quality. So, that translates to what, 3600x2800 or so? way better than 1920x1080. ...and that's 35mm film. so, what about a film shot in 70mm?

holy bajesus! go check out 2001 in HD and this whole idea of yours that classic film can't look good in HD will crumble into dust.

This is why I hope film will never die, b/c it still has so many qualities that digital can't seem to touch.
Click to expand...


I never said that a classic film cant look good in HD, I just said that a very old film will degrade over time. So if you are looking forward to a 1960 or 1970 movie in super high def at 4096x2304 in the year 2014, sorry to disappoint you but its not gonna look that good. not because there isn't enough resolution, but because the texture and the colors will just fade away on the masters unfortunately. its the sadness of analog film, so good yet so fragile 🙂
Click to expand...

ah, only the first statement was in direct response to you...the rest was meant to be general comments related to the overall topic.

Even so, analog film can still be restored to pristine--and better shape--so it only degrades if people let it degrade. classics are restored all the time, and the re-released around the country in special runs--like they recently did with Blade Runner. the Print was restored, then used as the master for the new HD Transfers (drools). the restored print (film stock) went on tour to theaters.

EDIT: also, considering the restoration techniques that is used on fine art, to keep centuries-old paintings looking like they did the day brush first touched canvas, it simply makes sense that the same can be done with film--and it is...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top