What's YOUR 1080P film fantasy??? (1 Viewer)

[JeremySt]

Lawrence of Arabia
Alien
Aliens
Blade Runner
Star Wars OT

 

[Seppo]

Just the few obvious ones:

Jaws
Raiders Of The Lost Ark
Indiana Jones And The Temple Of Doom
Star Wars OT
LOTR (EE)
The Who: The Kids Are Alright
Empire Of The Sun
The Good, The Bad And The Ugly
Once Upon A Time In The West
The Incredibles
Jurassic Park
North By Northwest
Spider-Man 1 & 2
War Of The Worlds
A.I. Artificial Intelligence
Back To The Future
E.T. The Extra-Terrestial

 

[JediFonger]

you guys already named the modern ones. i can't name 10, but here goes:

-All of the following titles will have their film negatives washed, preserved in the library of congress as digital backups in hi-def, and go through somn like the lowry digital touchup:

-Seven Samurai and the entire Kurosawa catalogue.
-Citizen Kane
-Entire F.W. Murnau catalog.
-Entire Charlie Chaplin catalog.
-Entire Buster Keaton catalog.
-Entire Harold Lloyd catalog.
-Entire Fritz Lang catalog.
-Entire John Ford catalog.
-Entire John Huston catalog.
-Entire Ernest Lubitsch catalog.
-Entire Elia Kazan.

i think there's more, but i'll be REALLY happy if the above occus.

 

[Ed St. Clair]

Adding;

Corpse Bride

 

[MatthewA]

Okay, you talked me into it.

2001: A Space Odyssey
20,000 Leagues Under the Sea
Alice in Wonderland
Anne of Green Gables (1985)
Annie (original)
The Bad and the Beautiful
Bambi
Bedknobs and Broomsticks
The Best Years of Our Lives
Blazing Saddles
Cinderella
Doctor Zhivago
Dumbo
E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial (original version)
Fantasia (uncut, uncensored)
Gone With the Wind
Hello, Dolly!
How the West Was Won
The Inn of the Sixth Happiness
The King and I
Lawrence of Arabia
The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh
The Music Man (original)
the first 3 Muppet Movies
My Fair Lady
Oklahoma! (both Cinemascope and Todd-AO versions)
Oliver!
Patton
Pete's Dragon (uncut 134-minute version not seen since L.A. Premiere)
Pinocchio
The Producers (original)
Singin' in the Rain
Sleeping Beauty
Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs
The Sound of Music
South Pacific (uncut)
The Three Caballeros
Toy Story 1 and 2
Who Framed Roger Rabbit (uncensored)
Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (original)
The Wizard of Oz

There are many, many more but these are all I feel like listing.

 

[Robert Holloway]

Kenneth Branagh's Hamlet
Luc Besson's Big Blue
Kubrick's 2001
Hitchcock's Vertigo
Ridley Scott's BladeRunner

I don't need to worry about the standard trilogy fair as we all know it will be here anyway.

Rob

 

[Dave Moritz]

mmmmmm 1080p HD video

These are some of the movies I would like to see.

Lord of the Rings(extended editions)
Indiana Jones
Star Wars Saga(All of them)
Independance Day
Armagedon
Gladiator
Saving Private Ryan
Terminator Trilogy
Stargate
The Matrix Trilogy
Hunt For Red October
Crimson Tide
Alien (All Of Them)

 

[Kyle_D]

Ran - I can't think of a better movie to put HD through its paces. Not only are the colors striking, but the entire movie is comprised of long shots that would benefit greatly from the extra resolution of 1080P.

Also: Any Terrence Malick Film

 

[Chris*Liberti]

A pristine Lawrence of Arabia taken from a 70mm print.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Dark City.

Just think how amazing that could look with a great HD transfer and optimal mastering/compression...

 

[Rob Tomlin]

The one that would make me by far the happiest (and would benefit more than many other films in 1080p):

Lawrence of Arabia.

 

[Paul_Scott]

Walkabout
Wolfen
Papillion
Magnificent Seven
The Passion Of Beatrice
Cryano De Bergerac ('90 Rappeneau)
Badlands

 

[JediFonger]

i know i mentioned it but, don't you guys agree that before becoming a 1080p transfer, the original film's negatives have to get washed up and go through similar to Lowry Digital or what WB has? just wonderin'. do you guys REALLY want these films in 1080p with hair follicles, dirt, dust, out of focus, etc? just the pure fact of 1080p won't do it for me. it's the original film element that concerns me.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Bad splices and major damage bother me (like prints that get scratched or damaged during release). But I don't mind "normal" and occasional film artifacts. I watch movies in "ultimate" resolution all the time...at the theater projected in film. and they look great. Taking a 1080P digital "picture" of those films makes my home-theater look more like the real thing...and less like video...minor print damage and all.

Personally, I'd rather get 1080P mastered discs with great image detail and some minor/occasional film artifacts than have all the natural detail air-brushed away some some "grain is bad" techy behind a console who doesn't really know what the *film* is supposed to look like.

 

[JediFonger]

well that's why i mentioned WB/Lowry Digital. but at minimum, studios must clean up those original elements. there are current DVD releases of MODERN films that look terrible projected. forrest gump, the professional, lawrence of arabia comes to mind.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Agreed Lowry would do a decent job, though I can see most studios simply doing DNR to "clean up" movies for HD which destroys real detail. Lowry costs $$ but DNR is just a button on the console in front of them.





Yes but you're missing the point I'm making...in both those cases the PROJECTED FILM PRINT of the same movies looks breathtakingly BEAUTIFUL. The DVDs look bad not because the film-elements are bad, but because of electronic muddling or inferior film-digital transfering (resulting in ringing on LOA for instance).

If the proper film prints were simply "digitized" through a 1080P lens, they would look GREAT...though the real film would of course look better still.

Think about this...in general (let's not pull in the exceptions here) when you see movies projected in the theater do you find yourself distracted by noise in the image? Of course not...you see a pristine and high-resolution image with amazing color-space and naturalness that looks good even 50 feet wide. Why then would you assume that the "film elements" are to blame when the same movies are digitized and displayed via DVD at only a fraction of that scale and now look terrible in your HT?

This principle applies to some studio mentality too. When I noticed how blurry and filtered the Inn of the 6th happiness looked on DVD, I contacted FOX to try to find out why. I talked to a cool guy who knew a lot about the restoration of the film. He said that FOX had done a fantastic job restoring the film elements and that he'd seen the film print properly projected and it looked "amazing". Got that...the film print looked "amazing" on a big-theater screen. I'm making that clear because in the VERY NEXT BREATH he said "of course, we had to do a lot of digital clean-up for the DVD".

HUGH?!?

That's why the DVD looks SO BAD. It's because they F_!#*@ed up a gorgeous film print by trying to do something stupid like getting rid of fine-film-grain or something, that looked just-fine on the big screen, yet for some reason was going to be a problem for much smaller screens in HT systems?!?

:rolleyes

At HTF it's important that we get our thinking straight on this because it's up to us to help teach the studios how to properly present the film medium on digital disc. That's right. It's up to us. Low-budget studios are likely to make better looking HD discs because they'll be tempted to do less digital meddling because they don't have the $$ or the tools. But big-budget studios are going to want to play with their dials when mastering for DVD...and the "this dial goes to 11" mindset will be a risk given that many of the technicians who play with the image of your movie during mastering have no clue what movies are supposed to look like (just like many audio engineers have no ear for sound).

It's up to videophiles in the HT community to make sure that the studios get this right. And it may take a few tries with some titles...hopefully fewer. DVD has been a good traning ground...THX for instance has finally learned about the nasties of EE and FOX and Paramount know how to put out a great unfiltered picture...but there is still a long way to go!

In the end, a 1080P copy of a movie should look as "transparent" to the film-source as possible.

That means fine-film grain should be visible. That means that 1080P movies should not look like "video". That means the studios need to take good-quality film elements, digitize them, and then be careful to exercise caution and moderation when "digital cleanup" is deemed necessary.

 

[JediFonger]

well you're certainly expecting A LOT from studios, David =).

have you seen Star Trek Generation 2 disc SE from Paramount? they overdid the edge enhancement and now everything looks terrible despite starting with a fairly NEW film element.

i ain't sayin it's gonna happen, but what if movie studios applied more digital fx during the transfer of film to 1080p? wouldn't that render the final 1080p look terrible?

ultimately, it's upto the movie studio/artist (if they're alive) to oversee BOTH film element AND final 1080p transfer for good QA. yeah, it's a lot of films, but for many people (like me), this is the final resting place for film collectors. it's the end of the line (for me). even if 8000x4000 came out later on, i wouldn't buy it. the quality would be marginal because 1080p blown up to 250' is already pretty sharp. why go higher? the next step is trek-like stuff.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

It sounds like we're acutally agreeing here. I just wanted to be VERY clear about the differences of a "bad" 1080P image in terms of problems arising from the original film print versus subsequent digital/electronic-domain processing.




Yet another great example of a perfectly fine "film" made to look crappy in digital video form because of unnecessary processing in the digital domain. The war is not over yet...and it's up to folks like those of us at HTF to keep our voices clear on these matters so the studios are forced to listen.

It's one thing I plan to do in my Blu-ray reviews.


And take heart faithful videophiles...our voices HAVE been heard. It's one reason that we've got the success stories that we have. Remember that halo-ridden blurry Phantom Menace DVD that THX defended as being reference quality? Look how far FOX and THX have come with the latest DVD installment of that series. Night and day. And a large part of it is because of the flack that FOX and THX took for that piss-poor excuse for a THX-certified DVD just a few years prior.

 

[Rob Tomlin]

That's a far cry from what I get here in SoCal. The majority of prints look like crap in a very small amount of time.

 

[JediFonger]

what's the phrase... your mileage may vary (YMMV)?