HD killed the movie style?

[Felix K.]

Sorry about that flashy title; I'm in "past final exams-mode" so inventing titles is becoming more difficult. Anyway:

I bought and watched the "Untouchables" Blu-Ray and I noticed that some details (e.g. brick walls) do not hold up in that resolution. You can see that they are fake. I remember that I read that when HD was introduced make-up artists and set-designer were worried that the lack of detail might be noticed in their old movies and that they now would have to work more detailed in the future.

Back then I thought that was rubbish because 35mm is far superiour to HD. But now I see Untouchables and think there is something to it?

What have you experienced so far and has production really changed because of that? What will this be like with 5k aquisition of pictures?

 

[Subhadip Sen]

HD is far superior to your average 35mm release print. So, what you see on your home video is more detailed to what is shown on the big screen.

The irony is that the real resolution qualities of 35mm acquisition is only viewable on digital projection.

 

[Mark Collins]

HD is far superior to your average 35mm release print. So, what you see on your home video is more detailed to what is shown on the big screen.

The irony is that the real resolution qualities of 35mm acquisition is only viewable on digital projection.

I both agree and disagree with that statement. While some 35mm films look better when projected in HD, a lot of them look really good when projected on 35mm.

Keep in mind that most cinemas that are still running 35mm projectors on a daily basis are having them run by high school or college kids, and the projectors don't always stay in the best state of repair.

I wouldn't say that HD looks better or has more detail, just that it looks different than film.

That being said, when watching something at home on a blu ray player, that was shot on film looks damn good. Pirates of the Caribbean At Worlds End, for example, looks really good in HD, much better than it did in theatres.

 

[Subhadip Sen]

I both agree and disagree with that statement. While some 35mm films look better when projected in HD, a lot of them look really good when projected on 35mm.

Keep in mind that most cinemas that are still running 35mm projectors on a daily basis are having them run by high school or college kids, and the projectors don't always stay in the best state of repair.

I wouldn't say that HD looks better or has more detail, just that it looks different than film.

That being said, when watching something at home on a blu ray player, that was shot on film looks damn good. Pirates of the Caribbean At Worlds End, for example, looks really good in HD, much better than it did in theatres.

Fair enough - that is why I said "average" 35mm release print. A pristine master print straight from the internegative will look great, and contain greater resolution than HD, I agree, but I am talking about the average print that makes its way into the average theater. Surely, this "average" release print is inferior to a Blu-ray image.

 

[Ryan Sims]

The other thing that stands out for me on Blu-Ray is that even 35mm films start to look "videoish". Anybody else have this feeling? All the CGI starts looking really fake fast on Blu-Ray too. SFX that looked fine in the theater on a film print, just does not hold up.

 

[L. Langer]

I watched Iron Man on a digital screen (right before Iron Man 2) and it was a bit screwy in some shots, as if some awkward video processing was being applied by the DC hardware. One particular shot, where the camera moves across Stark's home lab work bench looked like something from a Best Buy TV demo for SmooooooooooooooooooothMotion processing or whatever it's called this business quarter. It really made me raise an eyebrow because the Blu-Ray for that film was freakin beautiful and I had originally seen it on film so I remembered how good it looked to begin with.

 

[chrislancaster]

i noticed this with blu ray ... i was watching the narnia films last night and when some of the actors moved they would have a ripple effect around their face ... looked like heat coming off a car hood

i figured it was bad green screen work but i doubt i would have noticed it in the theaters

 

[Shawn Booth]

HD is far superior to your average 35mm release print.

WHAT?!

Maybe in Bollywood... That is a load of garbage... Even if you shot production with release print film...

You have no idea what you are talking about... HD/Blu-Ray isn't even capable of accurate representation of anything originating on film.

HD is beneath film in every way possible...

 

[Shawn Booth]

If it were possible, everyone would have film projectors and screens in their homes, or 4k monitors... At that point, with total market saturation of the highest possible viewing methods and standards, everything shot would be done so on film or with R1/EPIC... (easiest camera systems to work with IMHO)

HD wouldn't be spoken anymore...

If it's so great, why is it only 1080? HD is wonderful to watch at home and the internet because I was used to SD... I hardly notice "HD quality" anymore. These days, I tend to only notice bad photography on the big screen, shit compositions in most television and films...

Fuck resolution - give me quality craft!

 

[Sam Eilertsen]

Yesterday I watched "Lost in Translation" in 720p on a projector, and in one scene, in where he is playing golf in front of what is supposed to be Mt Fiji I think, the trees and the mountain were obviously painted. The lighting looked fake too. I also noticed a lot of moire patterns on buildings.

I don't know whether these were noticeable in the theater or not, because I didn't see it there.

 

[Erik Franzén]

HD is not a filmprint. HD does not hold up against the resolution that film can reproduce. 4K is the future. Bla bla bla.
Haven't we gone full circle often enough? I mean c'mon, these resolution discussions have some merit but not enough to offer up a repeat ad nausea. Check the facts and be done with it.
Whether HD is enough or not will be answered. In time. Good time.

 

[Joe D'Arcy]

Yesterday I watched "Lost in Translation" in 720p on a projector, and in one scene, in where he is playing golf in front of what is supposed to be Mt Fiji I think, the trees and the mountain were obviously painted. The lighting looked fake too. I also noticed a lot of moire patterns on buildings.

I don't know whether these were noticeable in the theater or not, because I didn't see it there.

I don't recall the scene you are referring to in 'Lost in Translation'. However, I recall spending a few weeks in Tokyo and one morning when the smog cleared, Mt Fuji appeared through a thin veil and it looked as if it had been etched into the sky by an artist. It remained visible throughout the morning but never quite seemed to be real.

 

[Subhadip Sen]

WHAT?!

Maybe in Bollywood... That is a load of garbage... Even if you shot production with release print film...

You have no idea what you are talking about... HD/Blu-Ray isn't even capable of accurate representation of anything originating on film.

HD is beneath film in every way possible...

Shawn, I know that may sound surprising, but it is true. Please don't be so dismissive and research it a bit. No need to say things like "That is a load of garbage" or "You have no idea...". I thought it was a known fact in the industry.

Here are several sources:

http://www.dvdfile.com/views/articles/25389-film-and-high-definition-resolution
http://www.etconsult.com/papers/Technical Issues in Cinema Resolution.pdf
http://www.cst.fr/IMG/pdf/35mm_resolution_english.pdf

So, the average release print is 685 lines/ph.

Each print loses something like 50% of its resolution in generation losses - and that's a big loss. Still, I agree if you say the first print directly off the internegative exceeds HD in resolution. However, the ones you see in your theater, are inferior to HD by a long shot. And the regular wear and tear, subsequent reuse, focusing and other problems with the projector, all compound to a simple fact, the images you see on the big screen are somewhere between 480p and 720p in resolution, on average.

Like has been said several times - Film is a stellar acquisition format, but a pathetic distribution format. That is why more and more theaters are embracing 2K or 4K digital projection.

 

[M Most]

Like has been said several times - Film is a stellar acquisition format, but a pathetic distribution format. That is why more and more theaters are embracing 2K or 4K digital projection.

I wouldn't describe it as "pathetic," I'd describe it as pretty robust, but subject to the vagaries of physical media. And at least in most of the world, the reasons theaters are "embracing" digital projection has little to do with quality or dissatisfaction with film as a distribution medium, and everything to do with the studios wanting and encouraging them to do so (ultimately lowering the distribution costs dramatically), along with the ability to show 3D presentations and, at least in theory, operate a multiplex with fewer personnel. Not sure if that's the case in South Asia, though.

 

[Chris Foreman]

I have to say that a lot Blu-Ray transfers I've seen have been very good. Some that deserve special mention are the Dirty Harry films, although they do reveal the traits of the anamorphics used. Just think how we didn't get to see that in the 4:3 versions! Also the original Italian Job looks great.

One sequence in a film that stood out for me (not in a good way), is in the post saucer crash in Star Trek:Generations. When Picard and Riker are walking through the wreckage you can clearly see that the burnt sections of the bridge behind then are covered in Black Wrap!

I don't think HD has killed the style, it's just made the cracks easier to see.

 

[Felix K.]

@Erik: this not just about resolution but about the consequences it entails for production and/or postproduction with new films and re-released classics.

@all the others: So, what does that mean: that the Production Arts Department decides to add detail for the average release print? Or has decided? Has that changed?

 

[Mark Collins]

I have to say that a lot Blu-Ray transfers I've seen have been very good. Some that deserve special mention are the Dirty Harry films, although they do reveal the traits of the anamorphics used. Just think how we didn't get to see that in the 4:3 versions! Also the original Italian Job looks great.

One sequence in a film that stood out for me (not in a good way), is in the post saucer crash in Star Trek:Generations. When Picard and Riker are walking through the wreckage you can clearly see that the burnt sections of the bridge behind then are covered in Black Wrap!

I don't think HD has killed the style, it's just made the cracks easier to see.

I agree with this as well. Having seen most of the films I own on blu ray projected in the theatre on a film projector, most of the blu ray stuff holds up really well. Avatar for example looks much better on blu ray than it did in theatres, and that's including IMAX 3D ( I saw it 7 times in theatres, 4 times in 3D and 3 times in film projected 2D).

JJ Abrams Star Trek is another good looking blu ray release. There is a bit of artifacting in the blacks for some of the CGI stuff, but for the most part it holds up well to an HD release.

 

[Craig Ryan]

I find that unless you're watching a 1080p blu-ray at true 24p on a screen running at either 48, 72, or 96hz, you're shortchanging the experience the format can offer.

The pulldown is really a burden plaguing the home theater experience that seems to be overlooked quite a bit. Once you've seen the difference, you will never want to go back to "judder" land.

The pirates films are excellent examples of pristine transfers.

Shawn, I disagree that blu-ray is incapable of delivering an accurate representation of 35mm. If most of these blu-ray releases are taken from a 2k DI (which in most cases would be what the actual film was mastered in) I can't imagine that the quality would be THAT much different from the release print made from the same DI. Also, as someone else mentioned, the average release print barely resolves more than 720p. A 1080 blu-ray would give a more accurate representation of detail on the original negative in this case.

Unfortunately, most of the blu-ray releases are atrocities. Luckily, some have been remastered (Gangs In New York, for example).