Hobbyist Forums banner

1 - 10 of 10 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,979 Posts
The Dracula and Frankenstein SE's represent a milestone for me. It's the first time I have very specifically NOT bought a DVD because I anticipate an HD-DVD release.

I'm sure the discs are great and we know that they've been given new transfers. Dracula is already on the list of movies to be released on HD-DVD and, with the new transfer, we can assume Frankenstein will follow. They will be the first of the true classics to come out in high def.

In the case of these two films, I have both the original releases from the Universal boxed set about 5 years ago PLUS the legacy sets from a bit over two years ago. So not buying them was a fairly easy decision...although I certainly want to see those new transfers. But if I'm going to triple dip, then I want that third purchase to be HD.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,595 Posts
I have yet to view any of the older films in HD. We are seeing a lot of older films being released in HD but I really don't know if the picture quality will be any better. I believe that something has to be filmed in HD in order to be viewed in HD just like the advent of the "super" vhs camcorders were released to film super vhs in order to view super vhs. I recently saw a dvd that was played on a progressive scan dvd player and it was sharper due to the added scan lines but so far it is the limit that I have been able to observe. Has anyone out there seen the difference with HD and older movies? I am aware of the theory but I can't afford to test the facts.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,131 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
Old_McDonald said:
I have yet to view any of the older films in HD. We are seeing a lot of older films being released in HD but I really don't know if the picture quality will be any better. I believe that something has to be filmed in HD in order to be viewed in HD. I recently say a dvd that was played on a progressive scan dvd player and it was sharper due to the added scan lines but so far it is the limit that I have been able to observe. Has anyone out there seen the difference with HD and older movies? I am aware of the theory but I can't afford to test the facts.
Depends on what you mean by "older". I've seen "2001: A Space Odyssey" (1968) in true HD and it is phenomenal! Of course, it was filmed in state-of-the art 70mm Cinerama and the HD print appears to have been struck from an original color negative. "Frankenstein", shot in Full Frame B&W in 1931 will not look as impressive, and I would be extremely surprised if original camera negatives of that movie still exist. There are lots of variables to the HD/Movie equation - but the picture quality will definitely be better than SD - clearer, crisper - no matter what the original source.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,979 Posts
There's really no such thing as "filmed" in HD.

Errol Flynn's 1938 ADVENTURES OF ROBIN HOOD was released on HD yesterday and all reviews of the movie indicated that it is breath taking. Folks are running out of superlatives to describe how fantastic it looks.

A frame of 35mm films holds more detail than most people can begin to imagine. One frame is roughly equivalent to a 30 megapixel image. Figure a top of the line Canon or Nikon pro digital camera has around 15MP and a $10,000.00 medium format Hasselblad camera produces a 22MP image.

In many cases an older film will have even more resolution to offer than a modern film. Example: FORBIDDEN PLANET vs. TITANIC. FP was filmed in Cinemascope which use the entire frame to produce a widescreen image. TITANIC WAS FILMED IN Super 35 which extracts a narrow widescreen image from a frame.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,131 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
Brent Gair said:
There's really no such thing as "filmed" in HD.
Although more and more movies are being "shot" in HD these days - the most recent "Star Wars" installments and "Superman Returns" among them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,444 Posts
Hey Brent! What about a standard type analog SLR using a good quality film, say the old Kodachrome 25?

I would expect that to equate to a fairly high pixel count.

Huzz
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,979 Posts
My apologies for running this thread off the track. I really would be interested in hearing about the new Drac and Frank transfers.

Huzz, the exact pixel equivalent seems to be a subject of some dispute. The most common figures I read for 35mm film range from 20 to 40MP. Something like Kodachrome 25 would clearly be at the highest end of the scale. I've shot Kodachrome in a medium format Bronica and it's something to behold.

But here's a big consideration. In the 35mm format...be it film or sensor...most good quality lenses can't resolve more than the equivalent of 20MP. The general concensus is that resolving power of good lenses starts to fade at about 15 MP. So Kodachrome in a Nikon F3 won't really show significant benefit over the image from a digital supercamera like the 16.7 MP Canon EOS 1D.

I've previously posted a picture of my "scrap heap" of film cameras (thousands and thousands of dollars worth). Fact is, since I bought an 8MP DSLR, I can make 8x10 prints that are as good as anything that came out of a film camera.
 
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
Top