A humble request to our HD-DVD brethren (1 Viewer)

[DaViD Boulet]

In all fairness,

we've always *known* that our SD images were compromised. We just knew that it was the best compromise that was an affordable option for most of us.

HD at 1080p24 really touches on "transparency" at 1.25-1.5 screen-widths viewing distance if the film source is properley transfered and mastered. For the first time outside of D-VHS (which had mastering issues with filtering etc.), consumers will have a legitimate opportunity to purchase movies for home-viewing that really *do* look like the projected film-prints that the director intended you to see.

Couple that with lossless high-res audio packing on HD media and you've got a very "transparent" recording of the film... but image and sound... available to own.

The real issue with HD media will be the question of MASTERING. Was the film properly transfered to the digital domain with minimal loss? Was the mastering handled with great care so that subsequent digital processing didn't introduce artifacts not present in the film source? Did the studio avoid compromising fidelity by filtering out HF detail in an effort to reduce "grain" or other natural film-related artifacts?

But the medium itself will have the potential to be a *reasonably* transparent conduit, if fully utilized.

Closer than 1.25 screen-widths and 35mm film may still reveal increased detail and 1920 x 1080p is not able to resolve the visible detail in a large-format negative/print. So there's still a ways to go especially if you're a front-row viewer! But for most of our beloved movies, the real-deal is about to debut.

I honestly can't understand how any film enthusiast would *not* be interested in building their film library in HD as soon as they can afford to do so.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

If you're looking at a 5-year time frame to upgrade, you may be surprised what you will be able to afford. Even today the $1500-$2K it costs for a 40-50" Westinghouse flatscreen could buy you an impressive 100" 720P front-projection system if you can turn out the lights when watching movies.

Trust me: in 5 years you'll have your choice of full 1080P resolution displays... and some of them will be very big (including front-projection) at some very affordable prices.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

Isn't that a matter of opinion, as to what we each deem to be "better"?

 

[DaViD Boulet]

No.

One's humble opinion is what one *prefers*.

but what's "better" in terms of a recording is defined by the princples of hi-fidelity recording: ie, faithfulness to the source.

As an example, I may like the rounded sound of my tubed amplifier because of the harmonic distortion it introduces to "fatten up" the sound.

But the sound isn't "better" than an amplifier that does not alter the signal though I may prefer the sound of my tubed amp over the "accurate" amp. The accurate amp is "better" by design.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

Brandon, you've made some very sound points. I'm in the same corner you are.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

Believe it! I once was obsessed with going ga-ga on A/V quality over enjoying the movie, but not so much anymore.

 

[Larry Sutliff]

GREAT post, David!

 

[cafink]

I agree with David on this point, although I guess you could argue semantics and say that "better" is always subjective by its very definition.

The point is that in the realm of signal reproduction in general, we can objectively determine how faithful a recording is to the original source.

In the realm of digital video in particular, the high-definition formats reproduce the information contained in the original film prints more faithfully than their standard-definition counterparts. Or, at the very least, are able to do so when properly mastered without such hindrances as edge enhancement or noise reduction.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Actually, I'd say it is exreemly important that we understand when we talk about "better" as film enthusiasts on a forum like HTF we need to be clear we're talking objectively about the recording process, and make an effort to be semantically clear when we're talking about personal "preference". The goals of hi-fidelity signal reproduction are goals that we all should share. It's the same reason we all agree that OAR is important.

Would you tell me that it's ok for someone to suggest that it's "better" to pan-and-scan 2.35:1 movies down to 1.78:1 because they prefer an image on their HDTV with no black bars?

Of course not. That's their *preference*, but "better" in a forum like HTF which strives to serve the film and the artistic community that is responsible for making films ascribes to the objective rules of hi-fidelity signal reproduction: faithfulness to the source. The closer your recording gets to transparency to the source, the "better" it is. It's as simple as that.

It's not up to us to change the appearance of films to suit our tastes and then call them "better". The job of a film historian is to gather information to determine objectively how the the original film looked based on the director's intentions (films often change color and shrink with age or original elements may get lost, so this is always the first step). Then it's the job of the film restorationist or digital clean-up artist to "restore" the image to this level of appearance. At this point, whether one "prefers" the look of the accurate image is a personal and subjective issue and one that we're all free to be honest about.

Example: Some liked the yellow look of the "restored" Wizard of Oz. Some preferred the cooler colors of the previous DVD. The "better" image, however, was the one that looked like the original artists intended. That may take time and effort to discover and confirm (and one may find that one *prefers* the image that is proven to be less accurate), but it's the ONLY right way to approach the question.

But the "best" image is the one that most accurately reflects the look of the original film elements as intended by the creator. That's true with all art and all recordings made from art. Movies are no different.

 

[Bob Cashill]

All very interesting. But a problem with standard DVDs, like the 1953 WAR OF THE WORLDS, is that the sharpened resolution (and, perhaps, aesthetic insensitivity on the part of the folks in charge of the transfers, however well-intentioned) reduces the film to a mass of exposed wires and cycloramas. [And this on a modest 27" display; it must be unwatchable at two or three times that size.] It looked "better" on TV and aging prints I saw in theaters. I want to believe in the illusion, the movie magic, something the KING KONG 33 transfer did retain.

When I read that HD broadcasts of the old Bonds clearly show for the first time the stage makeup applied to Sean Connery...I mean, I don't want to see that, not for the first time, not EVER. If standard DVD presents problems of this sort, HD would seem to be a minefield, particularly for older films made way before the digital age. If it gets any worse, I may start campaigning for the resumption of VHS.

 

[Robert Harris]

The point to be considered here, and which should be the standard to be met, is the reproduction of not the finest possible image which can be derived from an original negative...

but rather, a proper reproduction of an original print as approved by the film's creators.

RAH

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Absolutely... the artistic creator is the final word in what the intended look of his/her film should be.

 

[Bob Cashill]

Ah. I recall the WOTW 53 thread now, but didn't see it through to its conclusion (So, Paramount, howzabout a do-over?).

As always, RAH had contributed sage advice, and I thank David Boulet for his patient, detailed response. What to do, though, if the creator is long gone and the intentions difficult to divine? [That is, if anyone cares to ask in the first place. Too often, I think, someone else has the final word.]

It as, as always, a matter of taste. I've seen HD displays of contempo dreck like MINDHUNTERS that looked fantastic. And it should. But I'm curious to see how this technology will be applied to more golden oldies.

 

[Glenn Overholt]

Wow! You guys are bringing up another mess, as I see it.
Should reviewers of HD material be required to review a film on 100" screens, just to make sure that the mastering was done correctly?
Maybe they should also have a 50" screen, so if the 100" screen proves that the product was unsatisfactory, maybe with a 50" screen the defects can't be seen, or are very minor.

Glenn

 

[RobertR]

The very definition of quality is adherence to the highest standard. Get it right for the big screen, and you KNOW it will be right for smaller screens. There is no down side.

 

[Michael Elliott]

That ultimate goal will never happen until studios start releasing 35mm prints to us. I'd say the majority of people don't get the full boom of SD (meaning, viewing them anamorphic) so an improvement isn't going to make them take the jump. I think you could ask any reviewer and you'd get the same answer but you could review a disc on five different set ups and get five different reviews. How often has someone posted that a transfer is flawless only to have someone else see massive EE? How often has someone called a transfer flawless only to have someone else say it's too soft?

The majority of DVD owners could spend the next 20 years upgrading their equipment to get a better SD transfer but most aren't going to go through the trouble. Now, throwing out 500-2000 SD DVDs to start over will be even harder to do. If they aren't willing (or wanting) to get the full bang out of SD then I don't think they'd care about the HD.

Alas, we shouldn't forget that they'll certainly be another format after HD. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that the majority of us here will have three, four or even five more formats to upgrade to within our lifetime.

 

[Robert Harris]

To be precise, film prints are never used for transfer unless nothing else survives. Modern scanners are not set up to handle the density.

Except in extremely rare cases, transfers are always done from Onegs, interpositives, dupe negatives or Lo-cons.

RAH

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Good question. Research can go a long way. The LDI/DTS digital images team actually went back to the vault and dug up the hand-painted backgrounds and cell paintings for Bambi in order to get the color just right.

Where there's a will... there's a way! Though indeed when the original artists are no longer with us it become more and more difficult to be "objective" about what the intended appearance was supposed to be.

 

[Holadem]

--
H

 

[ChristopherDAC]

Let's be straight about this. I think it's reasonable to say that, when watching a movie at home, the more it looks "like a movie" rather than "like a video", the better. High Definition has the capability to do this far better than Standard Definition. On the other hand, there's no reason for anybody to buy into either of the current HD formats until it has content which interests him. I'm sure everybody knows that I'm very much in favour of HD, but I'm not going to buy discs or players until I have a compelling reason to do so — and, of course, the longer that is, the cheaper and better the stuff should be.