VideoHelp Forum
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 10 of 10
Thread
  1. Hi!!

    I was just wondering something.
    Old movies (2005-) that are sold in BlueRay or HDDVD formats, are they simply "resampled" so to meet the new width/height standard (1080i etc)?

    I mean, I havent seen one yet, since I dont have a player for either, but since I buy movies once in a while, I was wondering if I should just get the "new" format ones starting now for december or january that I buy the player, and completely ditch DVDs, since they are almost at the same price anyway.

    But if they are simply stretched, I'd give it a second thought.

    Just wondering because isnt movie format like "DV-like" or something? (Im talking pre-blueray era when there werent any Hi-def cameras)

    Thanks!!!
    Quote Quote  
  2. Always Watching guns1inger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Miskatonic U
    Search Comp PM
    Movies are, for the most part, shot on film. Film has no tradition resolution, as it is analogue, however when digitising film for effects work, the film is sampled at a much higher resolution that the resolution used for HD DVD/BluRay, and this is about half of what is required to get all the details. This holds true for pretty much any films shot in the last hundred years.

    That said, een modern films that have been re-mastered for high definition haven't all fared well. The HD version of the Fifth Element is substantially poorer that the DVD version.
    Read my blog here.
    Quote Quote  
  3. Member edDV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Northern California, USA
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by acid_burn

    ...
    Just wondering because isnt movie format like "DV-like" or something? (Im talking pre-blueray era when there werent any Hi-def cameras)

    Thanks!!!
    As guns1inger said, movies and most TV series pre-2004 were shot on film. Movies were editied to a film master and distributed on film. TV series were editied to NTSC/PAL, low compressed 720x480/576 (Digital Betacam) or low compressed 1440x1080i (HDCAM).

    Movie masters are transferred to video periodically as video technology improves. Each time the film is transferred to the latest TV resolution and "color corrected" to current TV standards. In recent years, the remastering process was done for both DVD release and creation of various TV broadcast versions of a film. Since the late 90's this was increasingly done at 1920x1080 with the output recorded to HDCAM (HD), Digital Betacam (SD) and to a DVD master tape.

    Blu-Ray and HD DVD can start with the 1440x1080 HDCAM master and h stretch (low ball) or be sourced from yet another fresh transfer from the original film master. Current trend is to transfer films at 2Kx1K or 4Kx2K to digital data. The data serves as source for digital theater presentation (at 4kx2k or 2kx1k), BluRay/HD DVD (at 1920x1080) and various TV resolutions and formats. A single movie can be ordered in more than a dozen formats for various uses.

    When they start releasing old TV series to BD/HD they have a choice of using the old TV formats (including SD or HD versions) or remastering the series from the original film. Remastering is very expensive so will only be done for high demand series (e.g. like Seinfeld or maybe the original Star Trek*).


    * problem is those old sets and props weren't designed with HD in mind so will look cheap.
    Quote Quote  
  4. My apologies guys, I didn't remember I made this question
    Thanks a lot for your replies!!!!

    It is interesting but at the same time confusing, to say film has no traditional resolution.
    So it means its infinite?

    Now, since it seems one can remaster the original infinite resolution tape and make it "current" or for HDTV use a mastered version at enough high resolution (CAMHD), then its a bit disheartening to know that the DVDs I'ev bought will be useless in the future since anyway they can always take the original tape and remaster it to meet the new standards so its not like to say, DVD format is the highest they could have gone for X movie, but in fact it seems I'd have to re-buy my entire collection every time there is a new kid on the block if I don't wanna feel left behind.

    Oh well
    Quote Quote  
  5. Member edDV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Northern California, USA
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by acid_burn
    My apologies guys, I didn't remember I made this question
    Thanks a lot for your replies!!!!

    It is interesting but at the same time confusing, to say film has no traditional resolution.
    So it means its infinite?

    Now, since it seems one can remaster the original infinite resolution tape and make it "current" or for HDTV use a mastered version at enough high resolution (CAMHD), then its a bit disheartening to know that the DVDs I'ev bought will be useless in the future since anyway they can always take the original tape and remaster it to meet the new standards so its not like to say, DVD format is the highest they could have gone for X movie, but in fact it seems I'd have to re-buy my entire collection every time there is a new kid on the block if I don't wanna feel left behind.

    Oh well
    Tapes or DVDs are recorded at a specific resolution. 35mm film has always been higher in resolution detail than tape or DVD. Remastering is done when tape or optical media are capable of a higher resolution.

    DVD is 720x480/576
    HD DVD or BluRay is 1920x1080.

    Film has higher resolution than that depending on the grain formula for the film. Current motion picture flim exceeds 4000x2000 equivalent (aka 4Kx2K) which is the current standard for digital cinema projectors. Already 4kx4k has been shown and 8kx4k is expected to replace IMAX film.

    You don't need to replace everything each time there is an advance.
    Quote Quote  
  6. It would be interesting to note that older films would probably have higher resolution then newer films, because they have never seen the world of digital.

    Nearly all Hollywood films go through a digital intermediate at 2k. One might argue that a film print has no where near this resolution. But, scanning a neg to a definite resolution of 2k would kill a significant amount of available resolution.

    For instance, if you look at the bond films, they were shot in the 60s and 70s. These films never saw the world of digital, and, when their remastering time came, all were done at 4k. Twice the amount of any new hollywood film.

    The transfers, even on the DVDs, look like they were shot yesturday. They look better then the inferiour 2k mastering process we see in this so-called perfect world of digital every film uses today.

    As for film res, there is no "pixel" res. But, it's measured by film size (75mm has more res then 35mm) and grain. Bigger film size, more res. Less grain = more res. More grain = less res.
    Quote Quote  
  7. Originally Posted by edDV
    You don't need to replace everything each time there is an advance.
    Unfortunately I think I do.
    Take DVDs, some people say they look terrible in a huge HDTV-capable TV.
    And I don't want to think what's gonna happen next

    You say current is 4Kx2K which is enormous. But now there is 8Kx4K which means someone is already working on a technology to replace blueray and HDDVD next year or maybe 2009, I guess it will be 4000x2000 (and even so it won't "catch up" with what you say will replace IMAX).
    What I have always wondered is when is size gonna stop. Like I dont think many people would consider buying a 60" TV set (for some of us wouldn't even fit on our homes!!), so anyway to be honest I can't imagine something better than blueray because then what size of TV sets would we have?

    But anyway like you see, DVD is really sucky nowadays compared to HD and so what's gonna happen tomorrow? Someone releases a remastered edition for all my movies @ 4000x2000 in the bluray successor and I think I'll be forced to buy them since DVD will look terrible in "future" TV sets

    Originally Posted by Guiboche
    It would be interesting to note that older films would probably have higher resolution then newer films, because they have never seen the world of digital.

    Nearly all Hollywood films go through a digital intermediate at 2k. One might argue that a film print has no where near this resolution. But, scanning a neg to a definite resolution of 2k would kill a significant amount of available resolution.

    For instance, if you look at the bond films, they were shot in the 60s and 70s. These films never saw the world of digital, and, when their remastering time came, all were done at 4k. Twice the amount of any new hollywood film.

    The transfers, even on the DVDs, look like they were shot yesturday. They look better then the inferiour 2k mastering process we see in this so-called perfect world of digital every film uses today.

    As for film res, there is no "pixel" res. But, it's measured by film size (75mm has more res then 35mm) and grain. Bigger film size, more res. Less grain = more res. More grain = less res.
    This reply is awesome but unfortunately its hard for me to understand all that sorry
    I dont understand where you compare digital world to analog world... isn't hollywood all analog using the "IMAX" cameras that edDV was talking about? And then digital is when they are mastered at a given "digital" resolution?
    So what does old bond films have to do with new ones? They are the same anyway since they are both analog @ 4Kx2K?

    And thanks again!!!!!
    Quote Quote  
  8. Member edDV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Northern California, USA
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by acid_burn
    Originally Posted by edDV
    You don't need to replace everything each time there is an advance.
    Unfortunately I think I do.
    Take DVDs, some people say they look terrible in a huge HDTV-capable TV.
    And I don't want to think what's gonna happen next
    DVD is fine today on "normal" size TV sets, say up to 34". Larger size and larger resolution TV sets are able to show off the advantages of HD/BluRay DVD. If you don't have a large screen say 46" or larger, you won't see much benefit to 1920x1080 HD/Bluray DVD. Resolution benefits also require sitting closer to the screen than most people do.

    Likewise, 1920x1080 looks marginal in your local Cinema so they are converting to 4000x2000 digital projectors to sharpen their picture for the long term.

    How large can home screens go? For most people that is limited by the floor to ceiling height so I suppose 12 ft x 7ft is about all that can be mounted. Such a screen viewed from 10 feet back would benefit from 4000x2000 resolution.

    Guiboche is referring to the recent trend in Hollywood to edit some films in 1920x1080 resolution video (stored as 1440x1080). While this is true for TV series, most major movies are currently processed at digital 4Kx2K so the "problem" is less than Guiboche indicated. Also "remastering" usually means re transferring the original film to digital rather than just going back to the prior digital intermediate.

    Since most major new films are being mastered at 4Kx2k and some at 4Kx4K, the image quality of standard definition DVD is also going up since it is being downscaled from these new high resolution masters.

    As I've said in other posts, people over estimate the importance of resolution as a picture quality factor. Amount of compression is the #1 issue for perceived quality, next is bit depth and then comes resolution. An upgrade to the HD/BluRay DVD format would first raise bit rate >25Mb/s and use 10 to 12 bits instead of 8 bits per component.
    Quote Quote  
  9. Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by acid_burn
    Originally Posted by edDV
    You don't need to replace everything each time there is an advance.
    Unfortunately I think I do.
    Take DVDs, some people say they look terrible in a huge HDTV-capable TV.
    And I don't want to think what's gonna happen next

    You say current is 4Kx2K which is enormous. But now there is 8Kx4K which means someone is already working on a technology to replace blueray and HDDVD next year or maybe 2009, I guess it will be 4000x2000 (and even so it won't "catch up" with what you say will replace IMAX).
    What I have always wondered is when is size gonna stop. Like I dont think many people would consider buying a 60" TV set (for some of us wouldn't even fit on our homes!!), so anyway to be honest I can't imagine something better than blueray because then what size of TV sets would we have?
    Well we can always cram more pixels per inch, 30 inch 2560x1600 monitors are out and beyond 1920x1080 screens

    so essentially we can get 2.5Kx1.6K with something that fits in almost every medium sized room
    Quote Quote  
  10. Member edDV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Northern California, USA
    Search Comp PM
    You can get resolution at 30" diagonal but will you sit at the recommended THX viewing distance (36 degree viewing angle) of 3.6 ft?

    http://www.myhometheater.homestead.com/viewingdistancecalculator.html

    Beyond 3.9 feet someone with 20/20 eyesight won't see the difference between 1920x1080 and 1280x720.
    Quote Quote  



Similar Threads

Visit our sponsor! Try DVDFab and backup Blu-rays!