Wow, hard to believe Saving Private Ryan is 14 yrs old...

[YOyoYOhowsDAjello]

Back when it was the only thing, it was good quality, so figured that's all it was. They did have those been reels though but I did not figure those were such high res. I've never worked in the industry.

Well I never worked in the industry either.

One of the last blu-ray movies I watched was

The Shining (1980)
http://forum.blu-ray.com/753073-post121.html

Comparison of DVD to Blu-ray
http://forum.blu-ray.com/617171-post5.html
(The Shining link has a NSFW one)

Also on that list is 2001 from 1968

 

[herkulease]

Back when it was the only thing, it was good quality, so figured that's all it was. They did have those been reels though but I did not figure those were such high res. I've never worked in the industry.

Fair assumption. Lots of people don't know.

Of course its much easier now then back then. we can quickly can store the raw data it'll just takes tons of space, which has it draw backs too.

The difficulty with older movies is finding the original reels. Older the movie the harder it is and more likelihood there is some damage and degrading. Which make it longer/harder to restore.

Same applies with tv shows. Seinfeld for instance was filmed on 35mm, tbs is running HD versions now, cropped to 16:9 and some frames restored.

 

[Kalmah]

Is resolution even applicable when talking about film cameras? There are no pixels.. just light on film. I would guess the quality of the film itself is the major factor here.

Hmmm.. if you used a microscope on film, zooming in would you ever see anything that resembles a pixel?

 

[Red Squirrel]

Fair assumption. Lots of people don't know.

Of course its much easier now then back then. we can quickly can store the raw data it'll just takes tons of space, which has it draw backs too.

The difficulty with older movies is finding the original reels. Older the movie the harder it is and more likelihood there is some damage and degrading. Which make it longer/harder to restore.

Same applies with tv shows. Seinfeld for instance was filmed on 35mm, tbs is running HD versions now, cropped to 16:9 and some frames restored.

Disk space was pretty much my main assumption as well, back then they did not have much space. But guess if they store everything in "high def" analog format then I can see how they would be able to simply rescan at higher res.

Is resolution even applicable when talking about film cameras? There are no pixels.. just light on film. I would guess the quality of the film itself is the major factor here.

Hmmm.. if you used a microscope on film, zooming in would you ever see anything that resembles a pixel?

I would imagine there is no pixels with film but you do reach a point where it's blurry due to limitations of the lens and film etc...

I remember scanning regular photos and you can actually go pretty far in without losing quality. Guess that is the advantage of analog. This is probably also why records are considered higher quality. It's recorded vibrations, while digital is 0 and 1's so you can only have so much data in a second of play time.

 

[Fayd]

Back when it was the only thing, it was good quality, so figured that's all it was. They did have those been reels though but I did not figure those were such high res. I've never worked in the industry.

hint: film doesnt change much.

 

[The Stig]

"glory days, dun dun dun dun, bla blabla gloory days"

 

[Jinny]

LMAO! Guess imdb has a good sense of humor. That is hilarious.

And think the reason Jurassic park and this movie are not on bluray is because they came out before bluray even existed, so they were not even recorded in high enough quality to make it worthwhile. Doubt they even had HD cameras back then. You can only remaster to some extent, without CSI technology.

ahahhaha HD vs film?
puhlease...

 

[shortylickens]

You do realize that film negatives capture a HUGE amount of detail in them don't you? More than most digital recording technologies nowadays capture. All that's required to digitize them is to scan them in at a high enough resolution.

Even 35mm still negatives outdo most multi-megapixel cameras on the market in terms of the amount of detail captured.

MOST, not all.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond3x/

So basically if you wanna get the same resolution that film captures you would need a camera working at 6048 by 4032. In order to make a movie you'd need a video camera that does this 30 times per second and does not compress so much that it loses ANY image detail.
Good luck with that.

 

[Locut0s]

Is resolution even applicable when talking about film cameras? There are no pixels.. just light on film. I would guess the quality of the film itself is the major factor here.

Hmmm.. if you used a microscope on film, zooming in would you ever see anything that resembles a pixel?

Yeah it's a bit of an apples to oranges comparison. However the point is still valid that there is more data captured on average on film than on digital. Digital breaks things down into discrete pixels and the pixel is the "atom" of detail so to speak, that is you can only represent things down to the scale of single pixels. The more pixels you can cram in a given area he more detail you can capture. With film it's obviously analogue but there's a point where continuing to zoom in on an area will not reveal any more detail (just a blown up blurrier version of what you have). The point is that the point at which this happens, the point where the analogue film medium maxes out in terms of detail, is much higher than most of the digital film cameras out there. There is absolutely no question that on average, if the film was shot correctly and preserved well, that blu-ray and higher levels of detail are captured on film.

 

[Locut0s]

MOST, not all.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond3x/

So basically if you wanna get the same resolution that film captures you would need a camera working at 6048 by 4032. In order to make a movie you'd need a video camera that does this 30 times per second and does not compress so much that it loses ANY image detail.
Good luck with that.

Exactly my point.

 

[techs]

How old does your kid have to be before you would let him watch it?

 

[jhu]

It is hard to believe because, as of 2010-02-21, it's only about 12 years old!

 

[grrl]

A good film but IMHO not the masterpiece people seem to think it is. Fantastic beginning, good ending but a mediocre and muddled middle act from what I remembver (been a long time since I saw it). And a bit too sentimental at times which is a problem with just about ALL Spielberg films.

Getting back on topic... Agreed, the beginning was amazing, but it pretty much went downhill from there.

 

[Mr. Lennon]

LMAO! Guess imdb has a good sense of humor. That is hilarious.

And think the reason Jurassic park and this movie are not on bluray is because they came out before bluray even existed, so they were not even recorded in high enough quality to make it worthwhile. Doubt they even had HD cameras back then. You can only remaster to some extent, without CSI technology.

My blu-ray version of 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) says you are wrong.

 

[aldamon]

Awesome movie. One of my favorite movies.
I've seen Band of Brothers twice in 2010 alone in anticipation of The Pacific. 3/14!!!

If you missed it, be sure to check out WWII in HD as well. It was on History Channel in November. It's out on Blu-Ray and DVD now.

 

[KDOG]

I wonder if they will be able to put this out in BluRay 3D when its available?

 

[meltdown75]

one of my favourite flicks of all time. 2 thumbs up

 

[mooncancook]

Waiting for its bluray release. I was glad to see Bravehearts finally released on bluray too. On a side note, Tom Hanks looks so much younger then

 

[Modelworks]

Is resolution even applicable when talking about film cameras? There are no pixels.. just light on film. I would guess the quality of the film itself is the major factor here.

Hmmm.. if you used a microscope on film, zooming in would you ever see anything that resembles a pixel?

Yes it is very applicable.
Film contains crystals. Those crystals are what hold the image information and are suspended in a glue. Once in the glue they call them grains. The more grains per inch the higher the detail. Now it gets confusing because there isn't a universal size for each grain. The larger the grain the more sensitive the film is to light but the less detail it will have .

When you compare film to pixels you have to consider what the formula of that specific film . ISO 400 will not have the same resolution as ISO 800 speed film because of the different layout of the grain. Even comparison between companies like kodak and agfa films of the same speed are not valid when talking about resolution.

 

[crownjules]

I stood up and applauded when the nazi shot Vin Diesel.
I started throwing chairs and breaking shit when Upham (punk bitch) let his Jew buddy get killed, while he wept on the stair case.
The "momma" scene ALMOST had me shed a tear...I was a kid when it came, what do you expect? :awe:

That is all.

I doubt the first part. Vin Diesel was a nobody actor at that point in his career, and his part was so small and Spielberg a good director that he pulled it off well. He didn't explode into popularity until the trifecta of Boiler Room, Pitch Black, and The Fast and the Furious in 2000/2001.

Anyway, SPR was awesome. It came out before movie theaters really started checking IDs for R-rated movies and I got to see opening night when I was 16.

 

[OutHouse]

I stood up and applauded when the nazi shot Vin Diesel.

lol

 

[IndyColtsFan]

It is a great movie, but it was released in 1998, not 1996.