Hi there,

Ever since I first started buying (I hesitate to use the word
"collecting") DVDs, I have been rather under the impression that their
picture quality was (or "should be") as good as that of film. I have to
say that now, reflecting as I write this post, I have to wonder about
the size of films' grain, but I previously understood the resolution of
a DVD to be approximately that of film, and if a movie was
well-transferred to DVD one would be able to see the flaws inherent in
the original medium (and even kidded myself on that I could see these
for myself). I may be mistaken, but I was sure the propaganda some 7
years or so ago was that when transferring a movie from film to DVD then
the limiting factor was the old cellulose itself, not DVD.

I mentioned this belief of mine on another forum, basically saying
"there's no point in buying Blade Runner in `hi-def' - an old movie like
this'll be just as good on DVD" and have basically been set right, the
two comments being:

  Warner have achieved some stunning results with HD on older films
  when compared to the excellent SD re-releases. Also, I'm guessing
  that the audio should be well ahead of the SD set on the Blu-ray?

and:
  Not really the place for this discussion but HD versions of old
  films can offer a significant increase in picture/quality over DVD.
  See http://hddvd.highdefdigest.com/157/grandprix.html for an example
  of this (Grand Prix from 1966).

Since further discussion of this would've indeed been off-topic on that
videogames forum, I thought I'd raise the matter here & see if any life
pops up (I remember when this group had hundreds of posts a day!).

I have to say that I really didn't want to "buy in to" the whole hi-def
format war - I'm inclined to think that a couple of years down the road
we'll find that the real losers of the studios' inability to agree are
those consumers who ended up buying the wrong disks. I don't want to
support the whole chirade, but I do have a PS3 sitting here, so I can
buy a hi-def movie if I want to enjoy it in 1080p.

So is there anyone who can make reasonable comparisons / generalisations
over picture quality, DVD vs hi-def in film transfers?
I assume all the new Hollywood blockbusters are now being shot using
hi-def cameras, and so the difference will be quite apparent.

Does the improved picture quality mean it's worth buying any film
(re)release in hi-def disk, or is it only worthwhile when they've made a
special effort over the transfer? Maybe most folks' eyes can't tell the
difference & I should stick with DVD?

I should add that I'm somewhat sceptical of the comments of the
High-DefDigest.com site that matey linked to above - they clearly depend
of the success of the new formats, and care more about pizzazz than
plot, saying of one flick "unfortunately, despite its unique premise,
ultimately this one's a rather pedestrian action-thriller that doesn't
say much ... [it's] a winner, though ... this is a must-own disc."

Stroller.

well...
as long as the movie was shot on film they can do a HD transfer the 
resolution of film is alot higher than HD its just the way the negative is 
scanned that transfers it to HD, most dvd transfers are taken from the 4k HD 
transfer when the negative is scanned for home releases, if you have a PS3 
there then i would personnally  (and i do) only buy the dvd of a movie if 
its not available on blu or hd-dvd, it may cost more but its worth it even 
if you are just future proofing your collection if you like a movie isnt it 
best to own it in the best presentation available? alot of new movies are 
shot digitally but not as many as you would think some are even a 
combination of HD+film (superbad, bourne supremacy, collateral)
PJ


"Stroller"  wrote in message 
news:PM00044178772C89B9@funf.stroller.uk.eu.org...
> Hi there,
>
> Ever since I first started buying (I hesitate to use the word
> "collecting") DVDs, I have been rather under the impression that their
> picture quality was (or "should be") as good as that of film. I have to
> say that now, reflecting as I write this post, I have to wonder about
> the size of films' grain, but I previously understood the resolution of
> a DVD to be approximately that of film, and if a movie was
> well-transferred to DVD one would be able to see the flaws inherent in
> the original medium (and even kidded myself on that I could see these
> for myself). I may be mistaken, but I was sure the propaganda some 7
> years or so ago was that when transferring a movie from film to DVD then
> the limiting factor was the old cellulose itself, not DVD.
>
> I mentioned this belief of mine on another forum, basically saying
> "there's no point in buying Blade Runner in `hi-def' - an old movie like
> this'll be just as good on DVD" and have basically been set right, the
> two comments being:
>
>  Warner have achieved some stunning results with HD on older films
>  when compared to the excellent SD re-releases. Also, I'm guessing
>  that the audio should be well ahead of the SD set on the Blu-ray?
>
> and:
>  Not really the place for this discussion but HD versions of old
>  films can offer a significant increase in picture/quality over DVD.
>  See http://hddvd.highdefdigest.com/157/grandprix.html for an example
>  of this (Grand Prix from 1966).
>
> Since further discussion of this would've indeed been off-topic on that
> videogames forum, I thought I'd raise the matter here & see if any life
> pops up (I remember when this group had hundreds of posts a day!).
>
> I have to say that I really didn't want to "buy in to" the whole hi-def
> format war - I'm inclined to think that a couple of years down the road
> we'll find that the real losers of the studios' inability to agree are
> those consumers who ended up buying the wrong disks. I don't want to
> support the whole chirade, but I do have a PS3 sitting here, so I can
> buy a hi-def movie if I want to enjoy it in 1080p.
>
> So is there anyone who can make reasonable comparisons / generalisations
> over picture quality, DVD vs hi-def in film transfers?
> I assume all the new Hollywood blockbusters are now being shot using
> hi-def cameras, and so the difference will be quite apparent.
>
> Does the improved picture quality mean it's worth buying any film
> (re)release in hi-def disk, or is it only worthwhile when they've made a
> special effort over the transfer? Maybe most folks' eyes can't tell the
> difference & I should stick with DVD?
>
> I should add that I'm somewhat sceptical of the comments of the
> High-DefDigest.com site that matey linked to above - they clearly depend
> of the success of the new formats, and care more about pizzazz than
> plot, saying of one flick "unfortunately, despite its unique premise,
> ultimately this one's a rather pedestrian action-thriller that doesn't
> say much ... [it's] a winner, though ... this is a must-own disc."
>
> Stroller.

Stroller  once tried to test me. I ate their liver 
with some fava beans and a nice chianti

> I assume all the new Hollywood blockbusters are now being shot using
> hi-def cameras, and so the difference will be quite apparent.

Films have been always shot on film, and the quality of the transfer is 
as good as the resolution you scan it at.  The new Blade Runner transfer 
was done at 4K and looks truly wonderful on Blu-ray, the telling 
transfer is Disc 5, the workprint, as no restoration work has been done 
on it, as such, so you do see the grain all too clearly on Blu-ray, 
however that grain is missing from the Final cut version, as it has no 
doubt been removed in the restoration process, if it was ever even 
present on the negative that the scan was taken from.

-- 
Thank you kindly

POD  {Ò¿Ó}
¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸
   Oh people, know that you have committed great sins. 
    If you ask me what proof I have for these words, 
    I say it is because I am the punishment of God. 
         If you had not committed great sins, 
  God would not have sent a punishment like me upon you.
¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸

"Stroller"  wrote in message 
news:PM00044178772C89B9@funf.stroller.uk.eu.org...
> Hi there,
>
> Ever since I first started buying (I hesitate to use the word
> "collecting") DVDs, I have been rather under the impression that their
> picture quality was (or "should be") as good as that of film. I have to
> say that now, reflecting as I write this post, I have to wonder about
> the size of films' grain, but I previously understood the resolution of
> a DVD to be approximately that of film


in that case you're mistaken - the resolution of dvd is nowhere near that of 
35mm film - and that even before you take into account such matters as 
colour depth and compression.
even hi def isnt up to 35mm standards in this regard - the colour info 
stored in a single 35mm frame of film is far greater than stored by the 
compressed hi def image.
maybe one day in the future we'll have hd or greater resolutions using a 
lossless compression codec and at least 32 bit colour - then we will be 
approaching film quality.



-- 
Gareth.

That fly... is your magic wand.
http://www.last.fm/user/dsbmusic/

"Stroller"  wrote in message 
news:PM00044178772C89B9@funf.stroller.uk.eu.org...
> Hi there,
>
Snip>

You could skip this, as you just know SuperHD or HD2 or such like will be 
next, but with technology if you wait for the next big thing you would never 
buy anything!

Not a problem for me as I don't have an HD TV and will not have until my 
current CRT blows up, but I suppose HD comes more into it's own the larger 
you want to view it , whether by TV or projector.

I've seen some examples on display, admittedly probably not set up 
correctly, and wasn't that impressed, remember when you first saw a demo of 
DVD rather than VHS, now that did make me go WOW.


-- 
RobertJM

RobertJM wrote:
> ...
> You could skip this, as you just know SuperHD or HD2 or such like will
be
> next, but with technology if you wait for the next big thing you would
never
> buy anything!

Well, my reason for reservation is really the whole "format war".

Considering the cost of hard-drives, I guess one can reasonably expect
to be able to rip all one's movies onto disk and just play 'em accross
the network - the idea of storing 50 - 100 DVDs uncompressed on a £50
hard-drive was unimaginable 5 or 7 years ago (when I first started
buying DVDs) but I'd guess that now a nice set of bookshelves for the
living room would cost as much on a per-DVD basis. ;)

I know BluRays are now rip-able, so I guess I can assume that wost-case
scenario is that I copy & decrypt all the .vob files (or whatever
they're called on BluRay) into a folder on the network server, and play
them from there, but nevertheless I certainly tend to think of books and
DVDs as something "tangible" and it's nice to be able to have my
"library" on shelves in the living-room, to be able to browse through
the disks and just stick one in the DVD player.

I kinda feel that there's no guarantees of being able to use one of the
current hi-def disks in a standard household player in 10 years time.
Even if dual-format players become commonplace, I figure that'll just
prolong the war as studios & distributors decide which format is cheaper
& more convienient for them. Once that's settled, dual-format BluRay /
HD-DVD players will die out again, so purchasers of the losing format
will still be screwed eventually.

Perhaps I'm over-analysing it all, but the industry's inability to
settle on a single format is to the detriment of the consumer, and I do
feel that in buying a BluRay (or HD-DVD, whichever) I'm supporting them
in that, saying "it's ok - the movie & electronics industries can stitch
me up, but I'll still buy their product". I'm willing to sell out my
"principles" for a movie that I feel is really "important" to me, that I
realy want to watch in best possible presentation, but since I haven't
bought any hi-def disks yet (maybe I don't know what I'm missing!) and
I've always felt DVDs are crisp & sharp enough for me, I don't yet feel
a compelling need to buy-in to the whole scam.

Stroller.

Really? Is it true that most DVD transfers in the past were scanned at
4k and then down-scaled onto the DVD?

I asked about this because clearly lots of effort is being made over the
new Blade Runner transfer, and I guess I was prepared to find it
credible that the difference might be visible in hi-def.

But looking at lists of available BluRay titles I can see lots releases
which at first glance seem to be nothing but fluff - Terminator and all
the Die Hard movies, for example. I assumed these were basically
attempts to make some money off the novelty format and that they
wouldn't benefit from high-definition resolutions to anything like the
degree a current release would,

Thoughts?

Stroller.


PJ wrote:
> well...
> as long as the movie was shot on film they can do a HD transfer the
> resolution of film is alot higher than HD its just the way the
negative is
> scanned that transfers it to HD, most dvd transfers are taken from the
4k HD
> transfer when the negative is scanned for home releases, if you have a
PS3
> there then i would personnally  (and i do) only buy the dvd of a movie
if
> its not available on blu or hd-dvd, it may cost more but its worth it
even
> if you are just future proofing your collection if you like a movie
isnt it
> best to own it in the best presentation available?

Stroller wrote:
> Really? Is it true that most DVD transfers in the past were scanned at
> 4k and then down-scaled onto the DVD?
> 
> I asked about this because clearly lots of effort is being made over the
> new Blade Runner transfer, and I guess I was prepared to find it
> credible that the difference might be visible in hi-def.
> 
> But looking at lists of available BluRay titles I can see lots releases
> which at first glance seem to be nothing but fluff - Terminator and all
> the Die Hard movies, for example. I assumed these were basically
> attempts to make some money off the novelty format and that they
> wouldn't benefit from high-definition resolutions to anything like the
> degree a current release would,
> 
> Thoughts?
> 

There's no reason why older movies wouldn't benefit from hi-def 
treatment ...if done right.
But alas, chances are most of them are not a lot better in terms of 
quality than what has already come out. (This is all a guess based on 
what happened with laserdiscs, dvd and anything else when they all first 
came out).

Expect further re-re-re-mastered versions of early hi-def releases at 
some stage.

  -Kevin.