Blu-ray Review HTF BLU-RAY REVIEW: WWII in HD (Highly Recommended) (1 Viewer)

[Mike Frezon]

For the record, amazon has now matched that $14.99 price.

 

[theonemacduff]

Sorry to rain on everyone's parade, but I got this disc, and then got rid of it. Yes, it's good storytelling, and good sound, and interesting footage. But the basic work to make it a true HD presentation simply wasn't done, thus, it's NOT, repeat, NOT World War II in HD. The bottom line is simple: When you screen old 16mm footage through a 16mm projector, even if you film it at 4K with a Red camera, it still won't be HD, as the resolution will be limited by the lens through which it is being projected. The only way to get those films into true HD is to scan the film, frame by frame, then run it through something like PixelFarm's suite of programs to clean it up. So they spent all this effort to find these marvellous archival reels, and then – basically – wasted that effort by failing to properly process and archive what they'd found. As an example, PBS created a documentary several years ago called Victory in the Pacific. That program includes the harrowing film of Japanese civilians, women and children, committing suicide by throwing themselves off cliffs, because of all the propaganda lies their government had fed them about what the American soldiers would do to them should they surrender. World War II in HD includes the same scenes, but they are all garishly purple and the contrast is completely blown out. Why? Because they simply filmed their copy of the footage with their Red camera, and did nothing to it afterwards. The PBS program by comparison has restored colour, reduced flicker, and much better contrast values. It also shows the footage silently, as it was filmed. So I got rid of my copy, and I will wait until somebody chooses to do the job properly. My advice? Get the blu-ray of The World at War. A different type of documentary, but equally worthy, and properly restored.

 

[Neil Middlemiss]

You certainly haven't rained on my parade. This series was absolutely terrific, and the emotional wallop of the material, and quality of the image, is simply terrific. I can appreciate where you are coming from, but simply don't agree.


From History.com they describe the process of finding and cleaning up the footage:


WWII in HD is the first-ever World War II documentary presented in full, immersive HD color. Culled from thousands of hours of lost and rare color archival footage gathered from a worldwide search through basements and archives, WWII in HD will change the way the world sees this defining conflict. Using footage never before seen by most Americans--converted to HD for unprecedented clarity—viewers will experience the war as if they were actually there, surrounded by the real sights and sounds of the battlefields. Along the way they'll meet a diverse group of soldiers whose wartime diaries and journals show in visceral detail what the war was really like.



American film footage of the Second World War was captured primarily by motion picture cameramen assigned to Army, Navy, Marine Corps and Coast Guard signal photographic units. While this footage was captured mainly in black and white, some combat cameramen shot large quantities of color footage.

Some people may be surprised to learn that 16mm color film of the 1940s offers resolution that rivals the quality of today's high definition. Yet locating this footage for use in WWII in HD was often a challenge.


Many of these materials have changed hands over the years. They were in private collections or were donated to military museums—stored and forgotten.

Ultimately, the two-year, worldwide search paid off. Hundreds of hours were obtained of rarely- and never-seen footage, documenting activity in every theater of conflict for the war. Now they can be seen for the first time in decades, and in many cases, for the first time ever.


The material used for WWII in HD now represents one of the largest military film collections in the world. Footage in poor condition was painstakingly cleaned, digitally transferred, detail-logged and stored in preservation canisters. Even film in near-pristine condition could be improved (scratches removed, color corrected, detail enhanced) using modern technology.

The result is a treasure trove of unforgettable imagery, from pulse-pounding aerial combat sequences over Europe to heartwarming shots of a GI sharing water from his canteen with a frightened Japanese child to the truly chilling sight of Hitler playing with children and tousling their hair. It's all there onscreen: history reassembled, history preserved.

With WWII in HD, HISTORY has created a vividly presented canvas that paints the definitive portrait of World War II.

Originally Posted by theonemacduff

Sorry to rain on everyone's parade, but I got this disc, and then got rid of it. Yes, it's good storytelling, and good sound, and interesting footage. But the basic work to make it a true HD presentation simply wasn't done, thus, it's NOT, repeat, NOT World War II in HD.

 

[Mike Frezon]

Originally Posted by theonemacduff /forum/thread/297440/htf-blu-ray-review-wwii-in-hd-highly-recommended#post_3760072

 

[theonemacduff]

Yep, I was aware that they had "zoomed in" on the older 4:3 footage. But those older cameras had viewfinders that were not TTL; so camera-persons typically left a lot of space around their subjects to make sure that they had got it, thus, in many cases – not all – zooming in on 4:3 documentary footage often does little damage to the framing of the image; you lose sky and dirt while the subject remains. Plus, if you really want it in 4:3, I believe the earlier incarnation is still for sale, used, on Amazon.

As to World War II in HD, I guess some of us will have to agree to disagree. Yes, some of the footage looks pretty good. But I believe that's down to the projectors they happened to use for individual rolls of film. For the most part, it didn't look to me as if it were really high def; and I note that none of the material quoted by Neil (thanks, btw!) deals with the sort-of telecine process they actually used. I regard the series as interesting, and definitely emotionally engaging, but in terms of a true HD transfer, decidedly a missed opportunity.


cheers

 

[Mike Frezon]

Originally Posted by theonemacduff

But those older cameras had viewfinders that were not TTL; so camera-persons typically left a lot of space around their subjects to make sure that they had got it, thus, in many cases – not all – zooming in on 4:3 documentary footage often does little damage to the framing of the image; you lose sky and dirt while the subject remains.

Unless you are telling me that you were shooting film back then and that this was your style of shooting, I think that's a mighty presumptuous claim. This very topic was vetted in the thread on World at War in HD.


And, there is no earlier incarnation of World at War in high definition.

 

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by theonemacduff

Yep, I was aware that they had "zoomed in" on the older 4:3 footage. But those older cameras had viewfinders that were not TTL; so camera-persons typically left a lot of space around their subjects to make sure that they had got it, thus, in many cases – not all – zooming in on 4:3 documentary footage often does little damage to the framing of the image; you lose sky and dirt while the subject remains. Plus, if you really want it in 4:3, I believe the earlier incarnation is still for sale, used, on Amazon.

As to World War II in HD, I guess some of us will have to agree to disagree. Yes, some of the footage looks pretty good. But I believe that's down to the projectors they happened to use for individual rolls of film. For the most part, it didn't look to me as if it were really high def; and I note that none of the material quoted by Neil (thanks, btw!) deals with the sort-of telecine process they actually used. I regard the series as interesting, and definitely emotionally engaging, but in terms of a true HD transfer, decidedly a missed opportunity.


cheers

I'm going to both agree and disagree with these points. And I'm not trying to rain on any parades either.


First, as to 4:3 footage. This is documentary, grab your shot and not get shot footage. It is neither lit nor set up. What is in the frame is there in many cases simply by chance. Some can be field enlarged to 1.78, some cannot (or should not).


As to the means of capturing the images, I'm in agreement. There are ways to do this properly, and with all due respect to those who created the production, exposing a projected image with a Red is not it. I love the Red, and this means to an end post-production decision is neither the best way to capture an image from these elements, nor to preserve them. I've been in a quandary regarding the process since I first read about it on Cinematography.com.


Is the final result HD? Yes, but the concept of what is, and is not HD, goes hand in hand with what is Blu-ray. Both are simply buckets to hold data at a certain maximum resolution. What is thrown into those buckets is quite another matter.


RAH

 

[theonemacduff]

A couple small points of clarification. Nope, not old enough to have shot footage on Iwo Jima, so yes, I admit to a certain amount of presumptuousness.


I did possess a couple of older (1960s double-run style) 8mm movie cameras. Once you get used to it, framing isn't all that difficult, but it can still throw you off. You get the roll back, and what you thought you shot is missing or askew. I even used my second camera, with brothers and pals, to make my own action movie when I was a teen. All silent, of course. And limited to 72 edits as that was the number of slices in the packet.


As well, I have used some 1920s and 30s still cameras (620 and 616 format – the latter has a gorgeous cinemascope ratio) and have handled other vintage cameras, including a 1948 Konica rangefinder, and several DLR cameras. I admit, this ain't definitive, far from it, but my understanding of the viewfinders on many older cameras is, as Mr Harris says, of the "get the shot and don't get shot" variety.


On the HD issue, I stand by what I said; a missed opportunity. I will be saving my pennies until I can afford a BR copy of World at War.