Go Back  DVD Talk Forum > DVD Discussions > DVD Talk
Reload this Page >

HD/Blu-Ray DVDs reveal Film/TV flaws...

DVD Talk Talk about DVDs and Movies on DVD including Covers and Cases

HD/Blu-Ray DVDs reveal Film/TV flaws...

Old 12-10-04, 10:29 AM
  #26  
Senior Member
 
Rubix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 795
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
you can get some clear glasses and smear crisco over the lenses and watch your movies through them if you want. it'll look awesomely flawless.
Old 12-10-04, 11:02 AM
  #27  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Shazam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Canuckistan
Posts: 10,027
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally Posted by hmurchison
Bingo. I don't think there's really much more to say. Film has been superior to digital technology for decades. Those that think "HiDef" is so startling have likely never seen a 4k scan.

HD-DVD will reveal little more than you saw with DVD just as SACD/DVD-Audio have revealed rather minor elements of music masters. Your mileage is definitely going to vary here.
Oh God... Don't watch too much HDTV do you? I just watched Kill Bill 1 on HDTV, and it totally blows away the DVD. Not even close. I just watched ROTK on HDTV, and I now have to prepare myself for the visual letdown that the DVD will be. Fuck, even Scary Movie 3 looked awesome in HD. And Gangs of New York.

As for 35mm film, the estimate as to it's resolution is incorrect. In fact, 35mm has > 4000 horizontal lines of resolution. 1080i still doesn't even come close to reproducing 35mm.
Old 12-10-04, 01:38 PM
  #28  
DVD Talk Gold Edition
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Lower Appalachia
Posts: 2,908
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by Shazam
...
As for 35mm film, the estimate as to it's resolution is incorrect. In fact, 35mm has > 4000 horizontal lines of resolution. 1080i still doesn't even come close to reproducing 35mm.

...
I am certainly not arguing that HD has more resolution than 35mm film, it doesn't. My point is that when projected, the process of enlarging the 35mm frame to thousands of times its original size, coupled the the diffusion of the projector light source over dozens of feet, creates a potentially "softer" look on the theater screen than would be derived from a close contact transfer made for DVD.

As to demonstrably false nonsense and preposterous musings, here is a quote from Robert Harris, who knows a lot more about film than I do, on this from HTF:

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htfo...hreadid=206793


... Chaplin knew what he was doing, and knew the reproductive capabilities of the system under which his films were made.

He and his cinematographer were fully aware that set and production devices which might be captured in his original negative would be lost in the grain structure of the printing stocks of the day. Similarly, take his original negative to a fine grain master, a dupe negative, and a newer print stock and the devices will also be hidden.

However...

Take a new fine grain master produced from those original negatives and place it on a modern telecine device, and the magic disappears.

Take a look at the old Image Entertainment lasers of any of the Chaplin films, which had beautiful transfers, and you'll note wires and artifacts where there should be none.

Same problem, but other than the exposure of these previously unseen elements, gorgeous and meticulously produced transfers.

So...

Can "ultra-rez" be too sharp?

Yes.

Can it be problematic?

Yes.

But with a delicate and sure hand to adjust the results, "ultra-rez" can provide the basis of DVDs that can accurately reproduce the theatrical looks of these varied productions.
...
His comments seem to at least acknowledge that a high res transfer can reveal details in the film that, when projected normally in a theater, were not intended to be seen by theatergoers. I know everyone does not agree with everything he says but I believe his opinion cannot be dismissed out of hand.

Old 12-10-04, 02:00 PM
  #29  
DVD Talk Gold Edition
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
You've totally misunderstood RAH's point. It's not the resolution of DVD that causes these to be visible, rather it's the fine grain master produced from the original negative that allows this to be seen.

He contrasts this against Chaplin's expectations of how his film would be processed to create theatrical prints back in his day. To wit, "production devices which might be captured in his original negative would be lost in the grain structure of the printing stocks of the day. Similarly, take his original negative to a fine grain master, a dupe negative, and a newer print stock and the devices will also be hidden."

So, as RAH makes plain, it's not DVD resolution that causes this to be visible (or, by extension, HD resolution), but rather the striking of a fine grain positive off the original negative.

Please, folks. Let's try not to pass along misinformation--there's enough of that out there anyway. A slightly closer reading of RAH's text would have alerted you to your misapprehension of his meaning.
Old 12-10-04, 03:06 PM
  #30  
DVD Talk Gold Edition
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Lower Appalachia
Posts: 2,908
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by Richard Malloy
You've totally misunderstood RAH's point. It's not the resolution of DVD that causes these to be visible ...
I don't think I'm really disagreeing with you. I think the higher resolution, the better, it's just what you do with it ... higher resolution does not "cause" unwanted details to be revealed. I quoted RAH as support of the idea that doing a telecine transfer from a negative or other low-generation source can extract more image detail than theatergoers would have seen when a print of the film was originally projected. Some details present on the negative would not have been seen in theaters, whether because of prints being generations away from the negative or because of other conditions in projecting the film. Filmmakers (like Chaplin) know this and use it to their advantage (i.e., no need to hide wires if they can't be seen in projected prints).

Just because one can extract the maximum level of detail from a film frame doesn't mean it should always be done. If a DVD transfer reveals visible special effects wires, it doesn't mean that one has to "smear vaseline on the lens" to get the correct effect, but the transfer probably is pulling too much detail from the film source. Surely some careful adjustments could be made to present such shots closer to the way that they were seen in theaters (i.e., wires not readily visible) without compromising the clarity of the rest of the image.

He sums up here:
So...

Can "ultra-rez" be too sharp?

Yes.

Can it be problematic?

Yes.

But with a delicate and sure hand to adjust the results, "ultra-rez" can provide the basis of DVDs that can accurately reproduce the theatrical looks of these varied productions.
Old 12-10-04, 03:17 PM
  #31  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,701
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by obscurelabel
I am certainly not arguing that HD has more resolution than 35mm film, it doesn't. My point is that when projected, the process of enlarging the 35mm frame to thousands of times its original size, coupled the the diffusion of the projector light source over dozens of feet, creates a potentially "softer" look on the theater screen than would be derived from a close contact transfer made for DVD.
This has *far* more to do with the theaters (who, just for instance, deliberately use lower-wattage bulbs in their projectors so they'll last longer) than the director's intention. And, beyond that, what you're saying still doesn't actually make sense. An image with a higher resolution, when projected to a bigger screen, would still show the same wires as a DVD. The DVD, by definition, could *not* show more than was initially there.

As to demonstrably false nonsense and preposterous musings, here is a quote from Robert Harris, who knows a lot more about film than I do, on this from HTF:
I just wanted to point out that in my original post, I pointed out that the *only* exception to what I was saying in response to duality was movies which are over-restored, and that Harris quote (along with something I'd read about '2001') were exactly what I was thinking of.

That said, nothing Duality has said has been at all related to grain being removed from films for DVD transfers (which is an issue).

PS: Thanks to Richard, who said what I had meant in my first post but said it much better than I.

Last edited by ThatGuamGuy; 12-10-04 at 03:27 PM.
Old 12-10-04, 03:31 PM
  #32  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Shazam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Canuckistan
Posts: 10,027
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
I am certainly not arguing that HD has more resolution than 35mm film, it doesn't. My point is that when projected, the process of enlarging the 35mm frame to thousands of times its original size, coupled the the diffusion of the projector light source over dozens of feet, creates a potentially "softer" look on the theater screen than would be derived from a close contact transfer made for DVD.
And if I stab my eyes with a pen, that DVD sure would look soft.

You're not even talking about the film anymore. You're talking about the highly variable conditions in which the film is being played. And of course, you have absolutely no proof for your statement - "potentially softer"?!?

Man, some of you guys are either blind, your theaters suck, or you have absolutely no eye for detail. DVD doesn't even come close to film quality, and neither does 1080i.

And for God's sake, if you're gonna even attempt to make points like the ones you are, how about actually watching some current HD material? There's lots out there.
Old 12-10-04, 03:46 PM
  #33  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: On an island somewhere
Posts: 448
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Richard Malloy
I'm trying to be polite, but you don't know what you're talking about.

Even old movies shot on decent film stock have higher resolution than the current HD standard. HD will reveal nothing that's not apparent on the movie screen. This bizarre preference to down-rez everything for home viewing is just that... a bizarre preference. It's inexplicable and indefensible. The whole point of home theater is to reproduce the theatrical experience in the home. HD doesn't quite do it, but it goes a good bit farther than standard-def DVD (even at 480P with 3/2 pulldown).

New TV shows shot on HI-DEF video or film will look fabulous in HD. Old standard-def TV shows won't look any better (or worse) on HD. They are what they are: crappy looking shot-on-video murk and smear. HD won't reveal anything you don't already see.

This conversation is just silly.
Bingo.

Though, I might have to disagree with you on one point - the "indefensable" one. One defense might be:

"I hate seeing all the details - it gives me a headache. For this reason, I cannot go to the theater to see a movie because 100%* of the detail available in the film is there. I need to have the image softened before I can sit through a film and not feel like I'm going to go blind."

Of course - I'm reaching for it a little bit there, but who am I to judge? It's a defense (of sorts).

/r

* This isn't completely true. It's already been pointed out about magnification and diffusion in this thread - and that's correct. To see 100% of the detail on the film, you'd be using a light box and a loupe (a good one).

That said - the projection systems at the better theaters can do a magnificent job of getting the image onto the screen.

Last edited by Janitor; 12-10-04 at 04:12 PM.
Old 12-10-04, 04:34 PM
  #34  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: California
Posts: 1,354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by DVD Polizei
Let's see who can see those strings and fake props in the LOTR:ROTK EE!


Banana is being moved by strings---> <---
Because props and strings will ALWAYS be better than computer animation.
Old 12-13-04, 10:05 AM
  #35  
DVD Talk Special Edition
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: North America
Posts: 1,296
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I saw an add for VOOM this weekend. Seems most of their customers agree: "I can see more than I ever did in the past!" "The clarity reveals detail I never noticed before!" It goes on and on.
Old 12-13-04, 12:08 PM
  #36  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Duality
I saw an add for VOOM this weekend. Seems most of their customers agree: "I can see more than I ever did in the past!" "The clarity reveals detail I never noticed before!" It goes on and on.
You DO realize they're talking about in comparison to dvd and regular tv quality, right?
Old 12-13-04, 12:18 PM
  #37  
DVD Talk Special Edition
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: North America
Posts: 1,296
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Of course. The point is that people watching High Definition TV are seeing details in recorded media they never "noticed" before. One person said she had watched a movie on a cable network and then viewed it on the HD version of the network. She said background details that actually affected the story were obvious in HD. I'm arguing that some details are great, others are unwanted.
Old 12-13-04, 12:22 PM
  #38  
DVD Talk Special Edition
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: North America
Posts: 1,296
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
This post is in response to a deleted post by FinkPish.

On the contrary, they *were* speaking of movies! I watched the entire infomercial and VOOM was touting all their custom movie channels and HBO, Showtime... The customers/viewers were speaking about *movies* not live broadcast only.

Last edited by Duality; 12-13-04 at 12:25 PM. Reason: Post correction
Old 12-13-04, 12:23 PM
  #39  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Duality
*Exactly* what I've been trying to convey with my posts. I thought embracing DVD, OAR and Mono/5.1 were all about seeing what the movie makers intended us to see. If you want to see a film just like it looked when it was projected on a movie/TV screen, DVD will give you a close approximation. HD/Blu-Ray will provide clarity such that you are not viewing the film as it was intended to be viewed.
You seem so stubbornly unwilling to grasp this concept. Current DVDs have a resolution of 480p, HD/BluRay discs will have anywhere from 720p to 1080p lines of resolution. 35MM film (the kind you watch in theaters) has close to 3000p lines, so how exactly will HD/Blu-Ray somehow resolve images better than the original film? I don't know how else to explain it to you.
Old 12-13-04, 12:31 PM
  #40  
DVD Talk Special Edition
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: North America
Posts: 1,296
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It's actually quite simple and has been stated here a few times. Movie theaters do not project an image that is as clear as a DVD. DVD does not present the same resolution as *perfectly* projected 35mm film. However, it does provide added clarity of picture. This clarity reveals the props, wires, and whatever else originally filmed. These "items" are not apparent on regular TV, VHS and most theater screens. High Definition will provide an even clearer image of *what was filmed* - pimples and all!
Old 12-13-04, 12:44 PM
  #41  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
You've stated that, but that isn't a fact. Below is a resolution chart for film vs. HD.


A=film unsharpened
B=film sharpened
C=HDTV camcorder set to no detail or sharpening enhancement
D=HDTV camcorder with the most boosted response of the HDTV cameras tested

As you can see, film resolves at a much higher level. I don't know how else to explain this to you. You seem so caught up in the hype of HD that you are failing to see the facts.
Old 12-13-04, 12:45 PM
  #42  
DVD Talk Gold Edition
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It's actually quite simple and has been stated here a few times. Movie theaters do not project an image that is as clear as a DVD.
Bullshit.

DVD does not present the same resolution as *perfectly* projected 35mm film. However, it does provide added clarity of picture.
Horsehockey.

This clarity reveals the props, wires, and whatever else originally filmed. These "items" are not apparent on regular TV, VHS and most theater screens.
Dog doo.

High Definition will provide an even clearer image of *what was filmed* - pimples and all!
Goose paste.
Old 12-13-04, 12:54 PM
  #43  
DVD Talk Special Edition
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: North America
Posts: 1,296
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by FinkPish
You've stated that, but that isn't a fact. Below is a resolution chart for film vs. HD.


A=film unsharpened
B=film sharpened
C=HDTV camcorder set to no detail or sharpening enhancement
D=HDTV camcorder with the most boosted response of the HDTV cameras tested

As you can see, film resolves at a much higher level. I don't know how else to explain this to you. You seem so caught up in the hype of HD that you are failing to see the facts.
I don't think I've argued that film has a lower resolution than HD. I've argued film projected through the air, over hundreds of feet and through smoke is degraded and less clear than regular DVDs.

What are you trying to convince me? BTW, no offense has been taken because of your responses.

Last edited by Duality; 12-13-04 at 01:07 PM.
Old 12-13-04, 12:57 PM
  #44  
DVD Talk Gold Edition
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I thought the ol' brick wall was a proverbial thing.
Old 12-13-04, 01:02 PM
  #45  
DVD Talk Special Edition
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: North America
Posts: 1,296
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Richard Malloy
Bullshit.


Horsehockey.


Dog doo.


Goose paste.
Valid arguments consist of facts and sources, not assertions and foul language. I realize many people are enthusiastically awaiting HD/Blu-Ray and I'm not try to "rain on their parade." Please show some respect if you find fault with my perspective.
Old 12-13-04, 01:06 PM
  #46  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Duality
I don't think I've argued that film has a lower resolution than HD. I've argued film projected through the air, over hundreds over feet and through smoke is degraded and less clear than regular DVDs.

What are you trying to convince me? BTW, no offense has been taken because of your responses.
But you have been stating constantly that HD/Blu-ray will show glitches in the filmed image.
High Definition will provide an even clearer image of *what was filmed* - pimples and all!
This just isn't true.
Old 12-13-04, 01:09 PM
  #47  
Cool New Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
**If you have been posting in this thread please read this carefully**

OK...this really isn't that difficult. Some people either can't read or are really thick-headed. Others are arguing against each other but are essentially saying the same things.

35mm film has a higher resolution than any home format; DVD, HD/DVD, Blu-Ray, whatever. Thus, unless your theater has crap for equipment or really bad prints, you will see more on a theater screen than anything available on home formats, period. It is impossible to pick up more resolution on a transfer than what is contained in the original. Thus, if you were to use a VHS print to create a DVD, the DVD would have no better image quality than the VHS.

There is one exception, however, which has already been mentioned that applies to some old films. If the directors captured unwanted aspects such as wires and makeup onto the original film, it will still be there when remastered onto the home formats. The home formats will not pick up anything not present on the original negative when transferred. Now, they weren't idiots. At the time, the equipment used to print and display the films caused these unwanted aspects to disappear, thus creating the image the director intended. They were, however, still present on the original film.

So, when this original film is remastered to new format, these unwanted aspects come into view. Modern editing techniques should be able to 'remask' these unwanted aspects of the original film, it is just a matter of whether the studios take the effort to do so.

Now, the only real debate about this topic would be if a studio didn't or couldn't eliminate these unwanted aspects, whether they should present the film in its highest resolution available, or whether it should be dulled down to the point at which they are unrecognizable.

If there is anything anyone doesn't understand, please quote me and I'll try to be more specific.
Old 12-13-04, 01:13 PM
  #48  
Cool New Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by FinkPish
You've stated that, but that isn't a fact. Below is a resolution chart for film vs. HD.


A=film unsharpened
B=film sharpened
C=HDTV camcorder set to no detail or sharpening enhancement
D=HDTV camcorder with the most boosted response of the HDTV cameras tested
If he doesn't get this...I don't think there is any hope...

Thanks for the chart, great evidence.
Old 12-13-04, 01:37 PM
  #49  
DVD Talk Special Edition
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: North America
Posts: 1,296
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by PerksGTI
**If you have been posting in this thread please read this carefully**

35mm film has a higher resolution than any home format; DVD, HD/DVD, Blu-Ray, whatever. Thus, unless your theater has crap for equipment or really bad prints, you will see more on a theater screen than anything available on home formats, period.
While 35mm film has the highest resolution, everything else stated in this paragraph is incorrect.

Last edited by Duality; 12-13-04 at 01:48 PM.
Old 12-13-04, 01:47 PM
  #50  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
You keep saying we are all incorrect, but you have yet to bring forward any evidence to support your claims. Please enlighten us.

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.