A humble request to our HD-DVD brethren (2 Viewers)

[Craig Beam]

I'm intrigued. Do you mean the 1934 original, or the 1956 remake? And if you do mean the remake, was this transfer done before the recent Masterpiece edition, or after? More to the point, was the Masterpiece edition sourced from a new HiDef transfer? Reviews (and my own eyes) would indicate not.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

I know this is getting off topic but I really want to respond to this notion:


Short Answer: ALL movies shot on film will look BETTER in HD than they do in SD.

That includes old beat-up black and white movies. It includes 16mm documentaries. It includes 3-strip Technicolor films, large-format 65mm films, and conventional 35mm films.

Why?

Because film is a continuous chemical medium whose resolution is primarily limited by film-grain. However, even film-grain is "information" and Standard-Def digital capture can't accurately encode it without loss.

The best digital capture is the one that involves the least degree of loss... ie, the one that is most "transparent" to the source. That includes a source that has film-grain, film-scraches, and reel damage.

HD 1920 x 1080 digital capture (or better yet, 4K capture downconverted to HD for 1080P distribtution) looks more like the original film image than any Standard-def resolution reduction.

I keep hearing people in the HD forums perpetuating the myth that only "new movies" are good enough to show an improvemen with HD. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

And though it may be true that many older films might not have the razor-sharp clarity that we tend to think merits HD encoding, even a "soft" film like The Wizard of Oz has more visual information revealed via HD than via SD.

HD will always look more like the real film than SD...

Also, lest we so quickly forget our wonderful heratige of film achievement: there are "old" movies that look sharper, clearer, and more life-like than most modern movie-goers can imagine. If you've ever seen a proper 70mm print from a good 65mm source, you know what I mean.

Hello Dolly in 70mm looked clearer, sharper, and more 3-dimensional than a modern IMAX film. 2001 in 70mm looks the same. Also true with Larwence of Arabia. The challenge with these large-format films will be convincing the studios to do proper optimized-film-to-digital 4K transfers using the best scanning equipment to preserve the maximum detail possible.

When I saw the Blu-ray demo DVD over the weekend at a Sony Style Store in Tyson's Corner VA, there were two film clips that blew my mind with their "window like" clarity, sharpness, and natural 3-dimensional appearnance:

1. "Click" which is a new Adam Sandler film shot directly on 1080p24 digital.
2. "Lawrence of Arabia" which I presume to be sourced from a new film-digital transfer.

That's right... LOA looked as "window like" as the live-1080p-shot feature. There's a lot of resolution out there in the vaults of celuloid...never forget it!

dave

Ok.. back to your regularly scheduled discussion... Where were we? Oh yeah!

Don't thread-fart with anti-SD remarks in pro-SD threads!

 

[RickER]

DaVid, i respect your opinion. I know you know your stuff. But how can The Marx Brothers look any better. Some of those blacks, on a coat for instance, are black as night, no shades or highlights! How can it ever look better? If it has never been remasterd, i bet it never will be. Especially it it doesnt exist. The work done on King Kong (33) was amazing, but i can see film scratches. Also unless i have a HUGE screen, a movie shot Academy is going to look like a 36" picture on my 50" Plasma. Right? So what would i gain resolution wise? If i can still see print damage what is the benefit? Now what i DO like is knowing compression artifacts brought on due to the limitation of DVD should be no more...unless of course they try to cram to much on HD discs. This isnt really off topic. I think it is the topic. I have seen HD DVD, not BR. I have an HD TV, and i still have to say my upconverted DVDs for the most part look good. I know you have a big projector, so i dont have the benefit you do. I dont know how many of us do. But i have a feeling you have to go a heck of a lot bigger to really see the benefit. I saw American Masters HD showing John Ford and John Wayne...wow...looked great on my Plasma. But i bet it will look really good on Regular DVD tomorrow too. Once again i value yours and Nils, and a few others who i cant remember opinion. I just want to understand what you guys see that i am not. I see things most people cant. Remember cross talk on LDs! {steps off box}

 

[Michael Elliott]

I really don't think this is a fact David.

You're one of the most technical guys on this forum and your reviews show that but aren't you going to be seeing more of the damage through HD? You've given a couple examples of great looking older films but for the most part, not all of these older films are able to look that great. HD might bring something extra out of the transfer but I'm sure reviewers of HD will be even harder on these films due to the scratches, speckles and other issues.

You've talked about this in other threads but as a projector owner, you know you're going to notice issues with a film print that aren't going to be noticed by someone with a regular television. Someone with a widescreen television might notice something that a regular TV owner won't notice. My question to you is are HD owners going to notice more "print damage" over what a normal SD transfer would show.

Either way, I think this debate/issue goes towards tech guys more than film fans*. Those who seek out a large number of movies are a lot less picky when it comes to certain issues on a transfer. Perhaps they're even more forgiving or more knowledgeable when it comes to knowing not every film can look spotless.

*I think there are a lot more casual film fans than tech guys and this is why I think this format will remain niche and never reach 5% of what SD is right now. The top days of LD was probably 5% of SD right now and I think its safe to say that was just a niche thing.

**Something greater might hit your casual movie fan but it won't be HD IMO. Everyone keeps talking acting like HD is the dawn of man but I'm only 26 years old and I'm sure by the time I'm 50 we'll have two or possibly three more "upgraded DVDs". If the current HD stays niche, that's not to say the next HD format might finally put away DVD (like DVD did VHS) and this new format will put away HD like DVD put away LD.

 

[Nathan V]

Reading through this thread, I realized it's a damn good thing we use acronyms in our posts, or these threads would be 5 times as long!

Regards,
Nathan

 

[Paul_Scott]

yeah, I have to agree. Depending upon the amount of damage or how far away a given film is away from its original elements, HD will most likely have the exact opposite effect that it has for newer films and films in better condition- rather than becoming a 'window' , it may be like throwing up another screen (in the form of print damage or emulsion related artifacts or added layers of 'dupe' grain, etc) you have to look thru to get to the actual content.
When print damage, or print related issues, appear more finely resolved than say, the texture of someones clothing, or details in the middleground and background, that' could be a bit distracting.

I can't wait to see something like The Bad & The Beautiful on HD DVD.
On the other hand, I'm in no hurry to see Queen Christina- even though I like that film just as much, if not more.

 

[Stan Rozenfeld]

 

[Robert Crawford]

Again, I think it's much too early to correctly predict if either format will be accepted by the mass market beyond simply the niche stage. Right now, there is too much confusion and suspicion in the market place which has really muddy the water. Case in point, myself, a long-time videophile with money burning a hole in my pocket, who really wants to see his favorite films on a HD format, but is unwilling at this time to make an investment in new equipment because the outlook for either HD format is so uncertain. Sure, you have other videophiles willing to make that investment, but some of us aren't willing to make that type of commitment until we can get a better picture as to the future of these formats. Also, even if HD product becomes just a niche market that doesn't mean I won't buy into it because I will, but I want to make sure that I don't buy one format and then find out later that the other competitor is the real winner.





Crawdaddy

 

[Joe Karlosi]

Just to play Devil's Advocate, this is the same thing people said regarding ordinary people upgrading from VHS and replacing their whole collection to SDVD. It happened.

But having said that, I do happen to agree with you in this case. HDDVD is not that radical a change from SDVD, and it's still the same general idea - a movie looking great on a shiny little 5" disc, with no rewinding necessary (another part of what made tape so undesirable in comparison).

I don't see HD discs prominently in stores I've gone to in the first couple of months since the launch. I think it's D.O.A. If I didn't read these boards I wouldn't even know it existed. And though I may risk the wrath of many here, I'm not anxious to see it succeed. Somewhere along the line we've got to enjoy what we have and just enjoy watching the movies. While I was watching the standard DVD of RIO BRAVO at a friend's house the other night, all everyone was doing was commenting on the picture quality and discussing the A/V. Let's watch the film.

Besides, even if HD catches on and becomes the main format, you just know there's going to be something else in 10-15 years and then HD-DVD too will be obsolete.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

Joe,
I think DVD is where people started collecting film for the first time. Not the movie nuts, but regular people (who owned about 10 tapes...a few Disney, maybe Star Wars, and The Sound of Music) didn't collect tapes nearly the way they do DVDs. So for the majority, they weren't rebuying their collections...they were building them for the first time.

What DVD did was kill the B&M rental stores. Lieberfarb effectively changed the entire business model, and by default shifted the home viewing power (and profits) BACK to the studios. In VHS, everyone rented. Now, everyone buys. Many of the physical changes (storage size, price, availability, quality jump) that were inherent in the VHS vs. DVD are non-existent between DVD vs. HD-DVD.

This is a different fight for HD/BR, and that's why many of us see it becoming the new LD. Which is NOT a bad thing at all.

I totally agree with Joe that DVD itself (HD and SD) will be replaced in the next decade by Hard Drives and HD downloads of features, special features, TV. iTunes already provides the business model.

David B, is the BR demonstration at the Sony store ALL THE TIME? Or was it a roadshow?

Thanks,
Chuck

 

[Robert Harris]

To be clear, regarding less than stellar film elements on HD...

They will look better, with richer blacks, and possibly a bit more reveal in shadow details, but the viewer will also need to be a bit more forgiving, as the format (without a great deal of post-production cleanup) delivers in quite a "warts and all" fashion.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

That print damage is information on the film print, and a higher-fidelity recording of that film print will show you *everything* more accurately... including print damage. That's ok. Higher-resolution is always better... even if the scratches become clearer as a result. Wouldn't you rather see the subtle facial expression on far-ground characters and be able to see the pattern in the wallpaper just as the director intended even if it means you might also see an occasional film-scratch more clearly as well?

The idea that better=fewer scratches is part of the problem with modern "video" audiences. We've become conditioned to view film print scratches and grain as a sign of "poor quality" and a clean image as one that is "good".

That's not the definition of good/bad that I'm using.

The definition of hi-fidelity signal reproduction is a signal chain from source to recording to reproduction that involves the least amount of signal loss possible.


There is a lot of picture information (including grain) that gets forever wiped away at the 720 x 480 standard-def level. Think about this: if merely limiting a digital scan to 720 x 480 is enough of a reduction to remove grain and film scratches from view... think of all the *other* film-print detail you're also losing in the process!

The film print is the "reference" and reducing it to 720 x 480 dots is never "better" even if doing so caused a scratch on the print to become less visible.

Can you hear mild tape hiss on a historic Beetles magnetic master? You sure can. If you filter out the high frequencies by recording to a medium that has rolled-off highs to get rid of the noise does it now sound "better" because the hiss is gone? Of course not.

If you take that same Beetles master and digitize it at 24/96 or use DSD for a consumer deliver format... and now you can hear every breath and nuance of sound in the recording... along with some more of the "hiss" is the result "better" than the rolled-off recording?

Yes it is. It's a more faithful reproduction of the original signal and the information it contains. That's the definition of "better" in any system of signal reproduction.

Hi-fidelity does not mean "no scratches".

Hi-fidelity means that in a given system, the process from source to recording to reproduction involves as little loss as possible -- and ideally would result in a reproduction that is "transparent" to the original.

If film-print damage is a legitimate problem with a given title, then the solution is what it has always been: do a proper film-restoration. Reducing absolute detail to mask problems isn't a viable solution because you're also masking detail that is part of the director's work of art!

 

[RobertR]

I agree with David. Film has higher resolution than any digitized copy of it, and getting as close as possible to that resolution is NEVER a bad thing. I also see an overemphasis on how new films look. Films from the glory days of 70 mm in the 50s and 60s are going to look DAMN good in Hidef, in some ways BETTER than brand new films (as Robert Harris said).

 

[DaViD Boulet]

EXACTLY.

 

[Holadem]

Agreed with David and Robert.

Better == Closer to the source, not "what looks cleaner to my eyes".


Does a projected print of those older movies look better than SD? If the answer is yes, as it most assuredly is, then there is room for improvement on the home video front, and HD WILL be an improvement. Total transparency is the ultimate goal.

--
H

 

[DaViD Boulet]

As you say, the answer is most assuredly, "YES".

Very well put.

 

[Brandon Conway]

You're forgetting the all-important money variable.

I love movies. I have nearly 550 DVDs. For someone who makes less than $30k a year living in LA, that's an expensive hobby. I would love a larger TV than my 25" 4:3 budget set. I would love to have the means to purchase HD products this very second, but I can't, and for the forseeable future I won't be able to.

So, what to do? I invested in a product that gave me the best quality for what I could afford, and that was SD-DVD. SD-DVD has been very good to me, and it has been very good to 95% of the films/tv shows/other programs I love.

I see no pressing need to start all over again, not for a very long time. This forum draws wonderful people, but they tend to be on the average more tech savvy and more financially able to spend a lot of money on those technical products. This simply is not gonna happen in the everyday world. If someone like me who loves films sees no pressing need to upgrade to HD anytime soon, you can be assured that the vast majority of DVD consumers out there who buy the occasional big release title will be doing the same.

It really comes down to the fact that I refuse to go into consumer debt to get what I see as a marginal step closer to the artist's vision when compared to my more than wonderful SD-DVDs. More power to the collectors and tech savvy individuals out there that can afford to make the leap, but you are, for better or worse, in a very small minority.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Brandon,

you can invest in HD media and watch it on your current TV the moment you decide you can afford an HD player. That could be a PS3 if you wanted a sub-$1K BD player before Christmas (there will be other affordable BD options as there will be HD DVD).

That way, even without a $$$ fancy HDTV, you can begin to collect movies in high-def. That way you're building a library of films that more closely preserve the artistic integrity of the films they represent.

Then down the road when you get your new HD display, you'll already have lots of films to enjoy all over again as if for the first time.

BD and HD DVD movies titles so far are costing barely any more than SD DVD titles!!!

 

[Manus]

" I do not understand how people can love movies, yet not care about the best possible presentation of that film."

I think that the attainment of this has become such a movable feast over the last number of years and this is one of the reasons some of us are treading carefully with regard to these new formats. From LD to dts dvd to anamorphic to Superbit there has always been something ELSE neccessary to attain 'the best possible presentation' available.

I think Robert hit the nail on the head. I wouldnt doubt his qualification as a movie lover. I never collected Vhs but I now have 1k+ dvds and just because Hd has arrived doesn't mean I'm no longer interested but I do find it curious how very PRO some people are when there are no Bluray players available and the few Hd-Dvd players cant do MCH lossless !

dts fans tell us that we haven't experienced the best SD has to offer without that soundtrack , now HD fans are telling us that that is the new video benchmark. If all discs were created equal dvdbeaver's regional/editional comparisons would never have been neccessary , so , for the time being I will be watching from the sidelines with many others here till a more accurate 'picture' (!) emerges.

~M~

 

[Brandon Conway]

Certainly I could, David. But here's why I won't:

1) There's no clear "winner" of the format.

2) A vast majority of the titles that are being released, if I have any interest, are titles I already own on SD-DVD. So I'd be buying a player in order to double-dip on titles that I couldn't get the HD benefit from for probably at least five years.

3) When I upgrade my TV, it'll likely be a WS set that is less than 50", because I doubt I will be able to afford more than that. I've seen a side-by-side comparison of The Last Samurai on such a TV. The SD-DVD was upscaled to 1080 and then there was, of course, the HD-DVD counterpart. The difference was, IMO, marginal. Simply not enough to cause me to want to spend a lot of money on it. Yes, I could see the difference in detail, but it was nowhere near what I had expected to see in what I feel should be a "leap" in the experience.

When I shared this opinion with some tech savvy friends, they simply said that I needed to see HD on an even bigger screen, on an even higher end TV. Well, my reaction was simply that I'd be overjoyed to own the TV I did see the comparison on, and if that wasn't enough to truly take advantage of HD, then HD wasn't for me. There's only so much I can invest in this hobby, and if I have to go AAA quality on all the equipment to actually see a difference when I'd love to be able to jut afford A quality (considering my current set-up is B at best), then it simply isn't worth the expense.

See, I don't think a lot of well-intentioned tech savvy people understand that your average person - and even a fair section of film geeks like myself - just cannot justify moving up to AAA equipment when SD-DVD has served us so well. We just don't see the pressing need. It's not that I don't want to see The Godfather in HD, but that if on a scale of 100 the SD-DVD of The Godfather gives me a 90-95 enjoyment level, then that extra 5-10 to get to 100 isn't worth the consumer debt.