Not signed in (Sign In)
  1.  (1293.41)
    This conversation seems to be blurring the line between film and TV, arguing that films are being put into an artificially high resolution the same as TV is. Not sure where people are getting that.

    Most films, even cheap ones, look fine - and for that matter "correct" - in HD because they were shot to look good in theaters. Digital theaters, so common today, use 1080p. Old analog theaters actually have higher resolutions, and there is no reason to think that the films intended for analog projection will somehow be undermined by being presented in HD.
    •  
      CommentAuthorRadioGuy
    • CommentTimeMar 11th 2008
     (1293.42)
    @JTraub: Exactly.

    35mm film (depending on type of stock, type of projection, and a billion other factors) records detail at around [the analogue equivalent of] 4000 pixels of vertical resolution, possibly higher. However, according to a study I read (though I can't recall where to find it) an average person in an average theatre tends to only perceive detail to around 720p resolutions.

    That's certainly not to suggest higher resolutions are useless, but just an interesting anecdote that points (in my mind) to the law of diminishing returns. Personally, I find a standard DVD to be a completely acceptable medium (with respect to visual fidelity) and I won't be replacing my collection for HD except in specific instances. But for new releases, the HD versions are almost certainly a more faithful reproduction of what was seen in the theatre, and on those grounds I'm likely to buy them.
  2.  (1293.43)
    I won't be replacing my collection for HD except in specific instances. But for new releases, the HD versions are almost certainly a more faithful reproduction of what was seen in the theatre, and on those grounds I'm likely to buy them.


    Yeah thats the key, for most films there is no point to forking over $30 for another version for HD. The film is not worth it. Nobody needs to see Dodgeball in HD. However, if you don't own the movie yet the HD version will more directly represent the intended presentation. And if its a genuine visual classic or a favorite film - the HD version might be fine indeed. On the other hand HD is going to make a mess of TV shows as well discussed in this thread.
    •  
      CommentAuthortedcroland
    • CommentTimeMar 11th 2008 edited
     (1293.44)
    @Owsler: Oh, alright. I'm sorry, I just mistook what you said.

    I understand that the HD formats are a lower resolution than film, and you can actually pull more like 10,000 lines of resolution off modern film stocks, but when something is put into HD, it is commonly made clearer and crisper to pack that HD punch. When a film is meant to be seen with the imperfections that standard film is burdened with, when taking those imperfections out you are removing a part of the aesthetic of watching the film. It's like the difference between watching a movie in a theater with other people and watching a movie on a home theater system. The actual experience of watching a film is changed, for better or worse, and that's not always the intention of the filmmaker. My point isn't wholly against HD, I just think there are certain things that don't need/shouldn't have the treatment.
    •  
      CommentAuthorliquidcow
    • CommentTimeMar 12th 2008 edited
     (1293.45)
    I agree with RadioGuy, DVD is on a standard TV screen, or video projector, is completely fine for me. Nobody is sitting around going 'god, I wish this were more high quality'. I personally find HD more distracting because I'm constantly trying to assess the image quality rather than watch the film. However, like most upgrades in technology, what is eventually going to happen is that we will all find standard DVD to look crappy in comparison after a while, and we'll want HD just so that everything looks acceptable to us.

    As tedcroland mentions, HD video often has that overly-crisp or ultra-sharp look to it that I actually find to sometimes be unpleasant. I think it's analagous to the over-produced sound of a lot of pop music that feels somehow like it's going to crush your ears. I do understand that in both cases it's a case of people trying to throw their money around and show off the technology at their disposal, so perhaps that will start to die down eventually.
    •  
      CommentAuthorhmobius
    • CommentTimeMar 12th 2008
     (1293.46)
    JTraub: Yeah thats the key, for most films there is no point to forking over $30 for another version for HD


    And that's why I asked the question in the first place.

    I heard Roger Deakins on Radio Five pre-Oscars and he simply said that films are shot to look their utter best at the cinema. Which they do if shot well. Unless you owned La Charette you probably don't have a cinema in your back garden so HD is now the next best thing.
  3.  (1293.47)
    Yeah, alot of people complain about HD looking too sharp but I mostly think that is a result of them being not used to it. I've shot a little in HD and let me tell you there are prosumer cameras that can replicate 16mm if you add a layer of noise in post. At least the layman would be fooled. Trust me, once you go HD you won't want to go back. When I go try to watch movies on a friend's SD screen I feel an itch.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAlastair
    • CommentTimeMar 19th 2008
     (1293.48)
    i think hd can ruin some films. stardust which looks okay in standard looks terrible in hd, the effects are horrific, same with close encounters...
    •  
      CommentAuthorRadioGuy
    • CommentTimeMar 23rd 2008 edited
     (1293.49)
    @alastair: That may be true, but if so, the horrific effects would have been even more noticable in the theatre.

    people complain about HD looking too sharp but I mostly think that is a result of them being not used to it

    @zombinoid: You've hit the nail on the head. I honestly don't understand the "HD backlash," so to speak. Aside from a mild sharpening effect (which is also applied to the SD versions, usually in a stronger form), an HD disc is a very faithful representation of what was seen in the theatre. Any complaints against the film quality or special effects would also apply to the original theatrical version.

    Though I find the technology fascinating, any half-decent movie will engage me enough to forget whether I'm watching HD or third-generation VHS after about 3 minutes.

    Returning to the original question raised in the first post, Blade Runner looks absolutely gorgeous in HD, and I'm assuming Fifth Element and Lawrence of Arabia also would (they're on my list). Apocalypse Now, Casshern, A.I., and many concert videos (Nine Inch Nails - And All That Could Have Been comes to mind).
    •  
      CommentAuthorRudi
    • CommentTimeMar 24th 2008
     (1293.50)
    @Radioguy: a couple of days ago I just watched NIN's And All That Could've Been on blu-ray after seeing it numerous times on upscaled DVD. Afer I watched it, my wife asked me, so how was it? All I could say to her was there's a lot more sweat and smoke. I think you can see more of a difference in the summer footage (how cool is that lighting rig for the summer shows, btw)
    •  
      CommentAuthorRadioGuy
    • CommentTimeMar 24th 2008
     (1293.51)
    Now that you mention it, I'm pretty sure that the NIN concert was shot almost entirely on SD camcorders. Not much opportunity for improvement, with that.
    • CommentAuthorhank
    • CommentTimeMar 24th 2008
     (1293.52)
    I am currently playing my Xbox 360 at 1080i (what my TV is rated for) and using an upscaling DVD player. I think I am happy enough with that.

    Sony has too much history abandoning media formats and hardware for me to buy into their products anymore.