Please explain something to me about HD
 

A couple of weeks ago, someone made a post asking that if Buffy, Firefly, X-Files, and some other shows came to HD, would people buy them. The consensus seemed to be from that thread that the answer was no, because HD wouldn't improve the shows much due to them not being filmed with HD cameras.

If that's the case, how in the world does HD improve something like Casablanca or the Wizard of Oz, considering the technology didn't even exist back then? What is the difference between these?

Film stock has a higher resolution than even the current HD standards.

That's not what was said at all. The technical limitations discussed didn't relate to how the shows were actually filmed or the use of non-"HD cameras" (I'm assuming you mean HD video versus 35mm film). The limitations mentioned were in how the shows were handled in post-production (specifically, editing and the creation of special effects).

Here are the relevant posts from the thread you're talking about:

All of the shows mentioned were shot on 35mm film (with the exception of the first two seasons of "Buffy," which were shot on 16mm), so they could potentially look very good in HD. But the problem is that, because they were made before HD was much of a consideration, much of their post-production was likely done on standard-definition video. This means the film was transferred to SD video instead of HD, before it was edited together, and the special effects were composited and rendered in SD, even though they were generally filmed in 35mm.

"FireflY" is recent enough that it shouldn't suffer from those limitations (I don't recall, but it may have even aired originally in HD). But for the other shows to look good in HD, the original film elements would have to be retransferred to video in HD, then re-edited. The special effects would also have to be done all over again. Paramount was willing to spend the money to do that on the original "Star Trek," but it remains to be seen if anyone is willing to do that for other shows. The price tag would be very high.

As Sexual Pudding wrote, 35mm film is much higher resolution than HD video. You might note that "Casablanca," "The Wizard of Oz" and pretty much all older movies were shot on 35mm film, just like modern movies are. And modern movies look quite good when transferred from film to HD.

To those of you who took the time to explain this, I want to throw my thanks in. I was unsure about this distinction as well and you did a very good job explaining it.

Mr. Salty, as always, explained it as best as possible.

Some people said they wouldn't do it because of the expense. It's easier to justify a movie at a time, but thinking of it in terms of a series that would cost a few hundred dollars turns them off. I would want the series to be all HD or all SD (unless it was produced partially in one and part in the other), so I wouldn't buy a season in HD unless I'm willing to commit to the whole show in HD.

I said I wouldn't because I didn't like the shows that were listed... except for the first two-thirds of the X-Files series. Even then, it's too expensive an investment.

Price is the only factor that has/would turn me away from TV in a hi-def format.

Personally, I find most anamorphic widescreen TV DVDs to be the best upconversion material. Later seasons of X-Files, for instance, I think look excellent upconverted. The early seasons, before widescreen anamorphic was used, not so much.

Season 4-6 of 24 are, in particular, remarkable to my eyes.

In the few of cases where I've seen the Hidef and SD versions of TV shows, the SD versions are often spectacular, IMO, upconverted. The HD is better, but the SD is just really really good as well. I've personally seen this with Nip/Tuck and Damages.

This is all YMMV, I'm using this on a 42" 1080P Panny Plasma from either a A3 or Panny 10A. I sit close to the TV in my set-up, less than 5' away. Put the SD in one, HD in the other. Switch back and forth on the same frozen screen -- you can definitely tell the difference. Makes you not want to pay twice as much or more for HD versions.

-beebs

I can attest to that on Heroes. I originally had the SD versions before getting the HD-DVD set, and while the HD-DVDs are of course spectacular, the DVDs look pretty damn good themselves.

All about cost here. There is no way I can justify double dipping on entire TV series, even ones I friggin' adore such as King of Queens.

:drool: @ Leah Remi in high-def.

I agree with this when it comes to "THE OFFICE".
The DVDs upconverted look to me just about as good as the HD broadcasts....I was really surprised....

Are ya sure?
http://english.pravda.ru/img/idb/photo/1-742-1.jpg

Yowaz's she is super hot.

Photoshop makes anything possible. ;)

Less Photoshop:

http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/5...ini0011cc7.jpg

http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/6...i510241yf2.jpg

God, I love those kind of hips.

lol...this thread has quickly degenerated from a post about HD television series to half-naked pictures of Leah Remini.

No one is complaining, however.

Mr. Salty, excellent explanation. :up:
Leah Remini :up: :up: