Blue Ray & HDDVD - Old Movies

[AndreL]

You know the new BluRay& HDDVD, what about old movies can they release those old one on the new stuff. I think they can't cause of the reslution back then. Unless they have a way of filtering the move in some way where they can produce more pixels on old movies.

So tell me whats up when they put old movies on BluRay or HDDVD.

[FulciLives]

Since most movies (and even TV shows) were shot on film it is a non-issue as the "resolution" of film far surpasses that of 1080p HDTV.

My understanding is that for video to approach the "resolution" of film would require a video format with about 5 times the resolution of 1080p and even then it might not be enough.

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

[Bjs]

Its not that they cannot or wont release older titles on the new formats ... it's the commercial viability of doing so .

There's plenty of equipment used for upscaling , and filters for cleaning up the content prior to release ... most end users wouldnt even notice the difference ... you have to have seen the original material in order to compare the difference .

The only problem I have noticed with some dvd release's is when they go back to storage , only to find the master backup is so damaged from lack of care , that they use the best copy they can find that was released to theaters ... in some case's ... there's noticable damage as well .

[j1d10t]

My understanding is that for video to approach the "resolution" of film would require a video format with about 5 times the resolution o 1080p and even then it might not be enough.

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

And then wouldn't the mm of the film make a difference as well? A movie shot on 70mm would look a lot better (and therefor have a higher "resolution") than a movie shot on 35mm, correct?

[FulciLives]

I'm guessing BJ_M or maybe even edDV would know better than me ... I just know that 1080p is a long way from the digital equivalent of film be it 70mm or 35mm or even 16mm.

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

[edDV]

Most things released on DVD were shot on 35mm film. 35mm film normally is capable of 1080p to much better resolution when fresh.

Problem is film ages badly and red, green and blue age differently. Restoration efforts may or may not get to full 1080p quality.

Rent the restored version of Alfred Hitchcock's "Vertigo" and view the "extras" to see just how difficult this process can get. Vertigo was remastered for laserdisc and just survived that. I'm not sure they were thinking 1080p then.

Film restoration is an expensive and skill intensive art. Many films have been "restored" for each new format: 2"Quad or 1" Type C or D2 composite NTSC tape, D1 (Rec-601), HDCAM (1440x1080i) or now 2k/4kx4k Digital theater.

TV shows shot on tape also suffer deterioration but often need to be enhanced to just look good on current SD media. They aren't good enough for true HD conversion.

[Soopafresh]

I saw some early Bond features in 1080i. Not impressed. However, Lowry Digital has done their famous restoration on the series and it should be amazing when the remasters are out (I don't know if they've released it yet).

Just take a look at the job they did on the Lucas film THX-1138 from 1969 - It looks like a brand new movie. Especially impressive since most of the movie uses white "cinemascapes" for the futuristic feel.

Apparently, each uncompressed frame that Lowry works on during restoration is 2-4K in resolution and is 45MB in size ! That's a heck of a lot of disk space they're using.

Unlikely too many re-releases are going to get that kind of treatment for HD-DVD/BluRay, however. As long as the studios do a great job on Godfather I, II, and Apocalypse Now, I'll be happy I'll bet the first wave of HD releases will be in so-so quality so the studios can re-re-re-release the "Remastered especially for HD" versions again in the future.

Example of some bad mastering.

"Slow Times at Valley College" - More grain than health food store bread
example.jpg

[edDV]

In the last 15-20 years transfers were mostly mastered to D1 (720x480i) or HDCAM (1440x1080i) tape, both with telecine @29.97. D1 720x576i/24 or 25 was also done for PAL distribution.

Optimal 1080p transfers will need the film to be cleaned and loaded again. Expensive.

Recent 2kx4k or 4kx4k transfers are saved as digital data rather than recorded to tape.

[TBoneit]

Most things released on DVD were shot on 35mm film. 35mm film normally is capable of 1080p to much better resolution when fresh.

Problem is film ages badly and red, green and blue age differently. Restoration efforts may or may not get to full 1080p quality.

Rent the restored version of Alfred Hitchcock's "Vertigo" and view the "extras" to see just how difficult this process can get. Vertigo was remastered for laserdisc and just survived that. I'm not sure they were thinking 1080p then.

Film restoration is an expensive and skill intensive art. Many films have been "restored" for each new format: 2"Quad or 1" Type C or D2 composite NTSC tape, D1 (Rec-601), HDCAM (1440x1080i) or now 2k/4kx4k Digital theater.

TV shows shot on tape also suffer deterioration but often need to be enhanced to just look good on current SD media. They aren't good enough for true HD conversion.

Is that why the B&W Monster HD movies look so good in many cases. Rodan was not good though. I'm guessing that B&W film holds up better? Or can be restored easily?

If so then the early color releases that were done using B&W film with 3 images, one for each color, RGB, should be a easy restore? Or am I remembering wrong? Was it maybe Technicolor?

[edDV]

Most things released on DVD were shot on 35mm film. 35mm film normally is capable of 1080p to much better resolution when fresh.

Problem is film ages badly and red, green and blue age differently. Restoration efforts may or may not get to full 1080p quality.

Rent the restored version of Alfred Hitchcock's "Vertigo" and view the "extras" to see just how difficult this process can get. Vertigo was remastered for laserdisc and just survived that. I'm not sure they were thinking 1080p then.

Film restoration is an expensive and skill intensive art. Many films have been "restored" for each new format: 2"Quad or 1" Type C or D2 composite NTSC tape, D1 (Rec-601), HDCAM (1440x1080i) or now 2k/4kx4k Digital theater.

TV shows shot on tape also suffer deterioration but often need to be enhanced to just look good on current SD media. They aren't good enough for true HD conversion.

Is that why the B&W Monster HD movies look so good in many cases. Rodan was not good though. I'm guessing that B&W film holds up better? Or can be restored easily?

If so then the early color releases that were done using B&W film with 3 images, one for each color, RGB, should be a easy restore? Or am I remembering wrong? Was it maybe Technicolor?

Black and white lasts longer because there aren't the different dye layers that need separation or separate strips that need registration. Black and white just needs a scan and the computer can correct any linear or spherical distortion. Color can be separate film strips or dye layers on one strip.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/35_mm_film
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_film_%28motion_picture%29

http://www.broadcastpapers.com/whitepapers/da_Vinci_Revival%20White%20Paper_%20DigFilm...1064B106E3FA03

[vhelp]

Consider this..

You know, it's pretty remarkable at how Film Restoration works. I'm not
saying that I'm an expert in all this, cause I'm not. But, after dealing
inside this process (to an extent) has opened my eyes (and mind) to the
"belief" that many things are possible, in terms of Original_Video -> HD_Video

Where:

Original_Video can be any video considered, original. And, HD_Video, for
obvsious sake, of of the newest HD formats available.

In my line of this video hobby, I've done Flat Bed Scanning (of various
images; photos; etc) to Analog Video Camera, to Digital DV Camera video,
to Digital Photo Camera picture taking. And after a while, you begin to
realize (get a sense of) what is and is not possible.

Let me use an example.

As an artest, I could draw a series of images. They can be in Pencil or
Marker, or full color, etc. Next, we could make it so that the artwork
undergo a similation of "aging". The purpose of this excercise is to
review the possibility of taking this source and processing it to an
HD_Video source.

Then, the question (relating to the above topic) would probably go like
this, would the quality be any better, at HD specs, vs. SD specs ??

The point of all this, is that anything is possible, in terms of turning
an "old" (even if aged) into something new, like HD. Restoration is a
secondary process. If the source being considered for transfer to HD
requires cleaning up, then restoration is a part of that process.

So, when someone writes down here, (in so many words) "B/W film is not
possible" yada yada (I said, in so many words) its a mute point.
Resolution (HD'wise) is not the issue. It can be done. The issue(s)
is probably the finished video. How *well* did the people in charge
handle the transfer process, from start to finish.

Consider this..

If you can find some drawings, and use it as a source, and you have a
flat bed scanner, scan as many of these images as you can, and in a
meaningful layout such that would give the appearance of motion video.
Scan then at HD resolutions -- there are several to choose. And, create
your HD video.

Now then, ask the question that some of you have been asking:

--> Will it suck, in the long-run, quality'wise ??

The answer, is NO, but (as was hinted above) user error may vary.

(Those outfits that do such SD -> HD transfers, there Quality Levels
vary from Organization to Organization, thus (regarding the above) some
of these Cinema/Hollywood (including Old/New) video archives may come
out great; fiar; or poor; -- YMMV, as usual)

This (the above) is how you have to look at these things. It can be
done, but YMMV, pending Organization to Organization.

-vhelp 4181

*~*!*~*!~* HaPpY HoLiDaYs *~*!*~*!~*

[AndreL]

[quote]"resolution" of film far surpasses that of 1080p HDTV.[FulciLives=/quote]

I was thinking "Why" then I thought for the size of a theater screen which is huge and to make that a digital picture would take a "hell" of a lot of pixels even more than QXSVGA (2560x2048)

And Your right back then they didn't even consider the word "resolution"

[AndreL]

"resolution" of film far surpasses that of 1080p HDTV.

I was thinking "Why" then I thought for the size of a theater screen which is huge and to make that a digital picture would take a "hell" of a lot of pixels even more than QXSVGA (2560x2048)

And Your right back then they didn't even consider the word "resolution"[/quote]

[TBoneit]

Well I know that different B&W film stock has different levels of graininess. AFAIK low light B&W will have more pronounced grain than a highlight level stock. Thus a lowlight stock can not be blown up as big.

[edDV]

[quote="AndreL"]

"resolution" of film far surpasses that of 1080p HDTV.[FulciLives=/quote]

I was thinking "Why" then I thought for the size of a theater screen which is huge and to make that a digital picture would take a "hell" of a lot of pixels even more than QXSVGA (2560x2048)

And Your right back then they didn't even consider the word "resolution"

The standards for "Digital Cinema" distribution are now 2Kx4K and 4Kx4K is to be optional as a production standard. Already 4kx8k is being proposed for "ultra" Digital Cinema distribution.

Transfer of old films may be possible at 2kx4k but higher resolutions will be used more for new production.

Current electronic productions such as Star Wars III used HDCAM-SR RGB 4:4:4: 1920x1080p objects placed in 2kx4k screen space.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_cinema

[AndreL]

How long do think it'll take for either blu-ray or hddvd to make it down()become popular to us po' folks. Thats if it does make it way... Cause remember LaserDisc .. God do I fell sorry for who ever bought that.

[edDV]

How long do think it'll take for either blu-ray or hddvd to make it down()become popular to us po' folks.

These started far lower in price than CDR or DVDR. HD/BD or another format will be cheap before too long.