What is the purpose of releasing movies on high-definition dvds when they are too old to have been shot in HD?
February 8, 2006 2:30 PM Subscribe
What is the purpose of releasing movies on high-definition dvds when they are too old to have been shot in HD?
Nearly all movies are shot on film and most film is effectively higher resolution than HD (I think most moves from film are scanned at something like 4,000-5,000 lines for digital effects editing, while the highest HD standard currently is 1080 lines).
And even most movies shot on video/other formats were shot on "video" that was higher quality than 480p (what DVDs are, more or less).
Already a lot of movies are being digitally mastered in HD for DVD release. I assume partly so once the HD-DVD formats come out, they can just use that master (also for the HD movie channels).
Most current movies that that aren't shot on film are shot in at least HD.
posted by skynxnex at 2:34 PM on February 8, 2006
And even most movies shot on video/other formats were shot on "video" that was higher quality than 480p (what DVDs are, more or less).
Already a lot of movies are being digitally mastered in HD for DVD release. I assume partly so once the HD-DVD formats come out, they can just use that master (also for the HD movie channels).
Most current movies that that aren't shot on film are shot in at least HD.
posted by skynxnex at 2:34 PM on February 8, 2006
Yes, but re-transferring the film to an HD digital format does not make it HD-quality content. That requires the source to be HD from camara to final prpduct.
posted by chrisfromthelc at 2:35 PM on February 8, 2006
posted by chrisfromthelc at 2:35 PM on February 8, 2006
Response by poster: So will an HD transfer of film expose imperfections? How much more noticably better will it look than a SD transfer or something actually shot in HD?
Am I going to be replacing my whole dvd collection with new HD transfer editions?
posted by dino terror at 2:36 PM on February 8, 2006
Am I going to be replacing my whole dvd collection with new HD transfer editions?
posted by dino terror at 2:36 PM on February 8, 2006
Chris, what do you mean by "re-transferring"? Doing a transfer from film to HD is going to result in HD quality content. Only creating a HD format from a S format would result in a not-really-HD product.
posted by Four Flavors at 2:40 PM on February 8, 2006
posted by Four Flavors at 2:40 PM on February 8, 2006
I just got video on demand from Comcast, which features a HD channel and was enjoying a rather crisp copy of Citizen Kane the other day. So I suspect transfers from film to HD can make higher resolution that DVD quality possible.
posted by mathowie at 2:42 PM on February 8, 2006
posted by mathowie at 2:42 PM on February 8, 2006
Response by poster: Ok if film is so high quality, how come dvd editions of old movies (just watched 7 samurai) dont look sharp? The master copy is worn out? So in these cases will a HD transfer just make it look worse?
posted by dino terror at 2:46 PM on February 8, 2006
posted by dino terror at 2:46 PM on February 8, 2006
dino, DVD made film imperfections like dust and scratches in older movies apparent, so HD will probably reveal more. The transferred film can be seriously cleaned up digitally, though, like with the re-release of the original Star Wars trilogy, which was scanned and processed at roughly 2-4x current HD resolution.
posted by zsazsa at 2:47 PM on February 8, 2006
posted by zsazsa at 2:47 PM on February 8, 2006
Yes, but re-transferring the film to an HD digital format does not make it HD-quality content. That requires the source to be HD from camara to final product.
Eh? why not? If I shoot on 70mm film (and do a good job) it's a higher quality than 720p.
posted by rschroed at 2:49 PM on February 8, 2006
Eh? why not? If I shoot on 70mm film (and do a good job) it's a higher quality than 720p.
posted by rschroed at 2:49 PM on February 8, 2006
Yeah, the whole point of HD is that it's closer to film quality than SD.
posted by kindall at 2:54 PM on February 8, 2006
posted by kindall at 2:54 PM on February 8, 2006
Response by poster: Hmm, I have seen some high-def video that looked more real than reality... i wonder if that is going to make the feel of certain movies seem strange. I know what type of film to use is something that directors take into consideration...
posted by dino terror at 2:56 PM on February 8, 2006
posted by dino terror at 2:56 PM on February 8, 2006
Am I going to be replacing my whole dvd collection with new HD transfer editions?
That would be the idea, yes.
posted by bh at 3:10 PM on February 8, 2006
That would be the idea, yes.
posted by bh at 3:10 PM on February 8, 2006
Eh? why not? If I shoot on 70mm film (and do a good job) it's a higher quality than 720p.
Feature films are not shot on 70mm film, they use 35mm film at 24 (unique) frames per second. This is exceedingly low.
35mm film exceeds HD frame resolution, but fails to reach HD frame rate.
posted by -harlequin- at 3:13 PM on February 8, 2006
Feature films are not shot on 70mm film, they use 35mm film at 24 (unique) frames per second. This is exceedingly low.
35mm film exceeds HD frame resolution, but fails to reach HD frame rate.
posted by -harlequin- at 3:13 PM on February 8, 2006
-harlequin-: 24 frames per second isn't "exceedingly low". It's only 6 frames less a second than standard American TV and it's one of the HD standard frame rates (ATSC ). It doesn't effect whether the film source is "HD quality" or not. And the difference in frame rate exists for standard DVDs as well as HD ones, so it's not really relevant to the question.
posted by skynxnex at 3:20 PM on February 8, 2006
posted by skynxnex at 3:20 PM on February 8, 2006
Skynxnex:
It is exceedingly low. Standard American TV is 60 fields per second - don't be misled by the fields being stored as frames, they depict seperate time periods, thus the motion is displayed at 60 updates a second, and you lose a lot visually when you have the fields depict the same, longer, period of time.
The reason 24fps is one of the standard HD frame rates is simply an easy way to accomodate 35mm film - its a standard for playing a different format via an HD system, not an indicator of HD quality. Much like cutting a 90 minute cassette recording to 70 minutes and putting it on CD - the result is neither CD quality, nor (with 20 minutes missing) cassette quality.
posted by -harlequin- at 3:43 PM on February 8, 2006
It is exceedingly low. Standard American TV is 60 fields per second - don't be misled by the fields being stored as frames, they depict seperate time periods, thus the motion is displayed at 60 updates a second, and you lose a lot visually when you have the fields depict the same, longer, period of time.
The reason 24fps is one of the standard HD frame rates is simply an easy way to accomodate 35mm film - its a standard for playing a different format via an HD system, not an indicator of HD quality. Much like cutting a 90 minute cassette recording to 70 minutes and putting it on CD - the result is neither CD quality, nor (with 20 minutes missing) cassette quality.
posted by -harlequin- at 3:43 PM on February 8, 2006
It's easy to overlook the importance of framerate, but it is every bit as important, probably more so, than resolution, for the simple reason that unless the camera is looking at a static scene (in which case you might as well just use a photograph), the movement blurs an object out over the timeperiod of the frame, and that blur removes any detail that the high resolution could have captured. Low framerate means that no-matter how high the resolution is, it's blurrier than a 320x200 webcam image of a static frame, the higher resolution gains you nothing, but costs you plenty. High framerate is how you get high definition images of anything in motion.
If you ever try to track something moving on a 35mm feature film, your eyes will bug out because the detail they expect to see isn't there. (This affects what/how a director can shoot a scene). For an example, the scene in The Matrix where neo is dangling from the helicopter flying over the city. If you stop looking at Neo and try to make out the buildings rushing by behind him, your eyes bug out - the building are in focus, but there is no detail to be made out from them, even though the frame resolution is massive (far higher than HD).
posted by -harlequin- at 3:55 PM on February 8, 2006
If you ever try to track something moving on a 35mm feature film, your eyes will bug out because the detail they expect to see isn't there. (This affects what/how a director can shoot a scene). For an example, the scene in The Matrix where neo is dangling from the helicopter flying over the city. If you stop looking at Neo and try to make out the buildings rushing by behind him, your eyes bug out - the building are in focus, but there is no detail to be made out from them, even though the frame resolution is massive (far higher than HD).
posted by -harlequin- at 3:55 PM on February 8, 2006
-harlequin- : while today, most films are shot on 35, a large number of the "classics" from the 50s-70s were shot in 70mm formats (Todd-AO, * Panavision 70s). BTW, I think bring up frame-rate is specious to this discussion, since the pull-down's no different from HD vs SD.
dino: As others have mentioned, Film HD is usually digitized either at 2K or 4K (pixel widths), w/ 4K about the upper bound of 35mm film resolution.
HDTV is a great experience but definitely differs from the theater experience - physiologically, front projection vs direct view and scale are two big things. Another issue is compression artifacts (where HD discs definitely have a big leg up over digital broadcast/cable).
About older movies and crappy DVD transfers in general: film chemicals oxidize, and unfortunately most studios in the past were not very good about taking care of the original negatives. In many cases, the negatives have been lost or damaged and only interpositives exist which leads to further degradation. Even when the originals exist, often when mastering new prints aren't struck for digitization, or isn't done very carefully, and digital cleanup (pretty much done by one company, Lowry Digital) is expensive and time consuming. Early on with DVDs, movies weren't even remastered from what was done for Laserdisc, so I suspect there may be a fair amount of HD discs that are also of less than "HD" quality...
posted by lhl at 4:00 PM on February 8, 2006
dino: As others have mentioned, Film HD is usually digitized either at 2K or 4K (pixel widths), w/ 4K about the upper bound of 35mm film resolution.
HDTV is a great experience but definitely differs from the theater experience - physiologically, front projection vs direct view and scale are two big things. Another issue is compression artifacts (where HD discs definitely have a big leg up over digital broadcast/cable).
About older movies and crappy DVD transfers in general: film chemicals oxidize, and unfortunately most studios in the past were not very good about taking care of the original negatives. In many cases, the negatives have been lost or damaged and only interpositives exist which leads to further degradation. Even when the originals exist, often when mastering new prints aren't struck for digitization, or isn't done very carefully, and digital cleanup (pretty much done by one company, Lowry Digital) is expensive and time consuming. Early on with DVDs, movies weren't even remastered from what was done for Laserdisc, so I suspect there may be a fair amount of HD discs that are also of less than "HD" quality...
posted by lhl at 4:00 PM on February 8, 2006
I just saw the HD version of the directors cut of Bladerunner on Comcast On-Demand the other day. AMAZING. Looked far better than the DVD version I own, on the same 30" widescreen HDTV CRT that I have at home.
I believe the film was shot originally on 35mm, and I wouldn't be surprised if both versions were made from the same film print.
Thank you. I had just talked myself out of caring about HD, and then I read this.
posted by mecran01 at 4:14 PM on February 8, 2006
I believe the film was shot originally on 35mm, and I wouldn't be surprised if both versions were made from the same film print.
Thank you. I had just talked myself out of caring about HD, and then I read this.
posted by mecran01 at 4:14 PM on February 8, 2006
Thearical releases shot in HD (like attack of the clones) are shot at 24 frames per second. 24 FPS looks more like a movie than 60i.
posted by ryanissuper at 4:14 PM on February 8, 2006
posted by ryanissuper at 4:14 PM on February 8, 2006
Dino,
All film is shot 24fps on, film (although the last two star wars films and films from Robert Rodreiguez were shot in HD - filmmaker's choices.)
We (meaning you and I) like film because of the look - the response to light and the frame rate (which actually strobes/flashes). How much do we like it? We try as much as possible to shoot video and make it look like film.
Most dramatic TV shows (and some sitcoms) are shot on 16mm film.
Both of these are far higher in resolution than SD (Standard Definition) TV - what your current DVDs (and TV) are.
The process has traditionally been:
Shoot on film, transfer to videotape (SD) and make DVDs from that.
Film has phenomenal shelf life (compared to DVD or videotape.) Literally, if handled correctly, on the order of 100 years.
Desi Arnez realized this - I Love Lucy was shot on film (and could have been video tape) as he realized the longevity of the medium (as well as other groundbreaking ideas.)
Older films (Citizen Kane for example) are often touched up during the transfer (but sometimes, in the rush, the handling and tranfer is poor.) Many Kurasowa films originally had so-so transfers, but better on a newer DVD. Film retouching is a huge business in that regard.
For example, the criterion collection of DVDs, are lauded for their transfers.
Now, generally, American Television (NTSC) runs at 30 fps, European is 25fps (and is actually higher resolution)...
But the designed HD to deal with all of this better (well, that was the idea).
Since film is 4000x3000 pixels, as a source, it converts to HD (1920x1080 or 1280x720) or to SD (720x480) easily.
Remember, you can always go back to the source if needed (film). So when all the DVD demand occurs - they'll just go back to the source to make HD DVDs.
In the current Post process, they're anticipating all the extra money they can make by having HD DVDs- for example, there are some shows that are shot on film, transfered to HD (and not SD) and finished...and finally transfered to SD...waiting for the day that they can make the HD DVD (rather than having to scan the film.)
Harlequin - we "like" the film frame rate...the strobing or flashing gives us the feeling that we're watching film (which has a better response to light than video does...even HD.) While we can use 2x the frame rate for HD...it's mostly used for sports...as it makes it look sharper (particularly at the lower of the HD frame sizes, which permits the 60p format). Yup, it's a lower frame rate.
Douglas Trumbull (an effects supervisor) came up with a film format that has evolved into IMAX...but his original idea was the 70MM format running much faster - 60 fps. People often got sick while watching it. Derivatives of this are used in Amusement Park rides (luxor hotel for example in Vegas.)
So, the short answer is:
They'll go back to film to make HD DVDs to resell you the same film in amazing clarity.
I've seen some Raw HD feeds from TV shows (as they first adapted HD)...and all the people in Post were stunned...at how bad most onscreen talent looked. Ligthing and makeup seriously changed because of it.
Last, don't rush/sweat about HD DVD. They're fighting like cats and dogs over the two formats, and it could be a year (or three) before one becomes a dominant winner. And it could be five years before an HD DVD player is sub $100.
posted by filmgeek at 4:33 PM on February 8, 2006 [1 favorite]
All film is shot 24fps on, film (although the last two star wars films and films from Robert Rodreiguez were shot in HD - filmmaker's choices.)
We (meaning you and I) like film because of the look - the response to light and the frame rate (which actually strobes/flashes). How much do we like it? We try as much as possible to shoot video and make it look like film.
Most dramatic TV shows (and some sitcoms) are shot on 16mm film.
Both of these are far higher in resolution than SD (Standard Definition) TV - what your current DVDs (and TV) are.
The process has traditionally been:
Shoot on film, transfer to videotape (SD) and make DVDs from that.
Film has phenomenal shelf life (compared to DVD or videotape.) Literally, if handled correctly, on the order of 100 years.
Desi Arnez realized this - I Love Lucy was shot on film (and could have been video tape) as he realized the longevity of the medium (as well as other groundbreaking ideas.)
Older films (Citizen Kane for example) are often touched up during the transfer (but sometimes, in the rush, the handling and tranfer is poor.) Many Kurasowa films originally had so-so transfers, but better on a newer DVD. Film retouching is a huge business in that regard.
For example, the criterion collection of DVDs, are lauded for their transfers.
Now, generally, American Television (NTSC) runs at 30 fps, European is 25fps (and is actually higher resolution)...
But the designed HD to deal with all of this better (well, that was the idea).
Since film is 4000x3000 pixels, as a source, it converts to HD (1920x1080 or 1280x720) or to SD (720x480) easily.
Remember, you can always go back to the source if needed (film). So when all the DVD demand occurs - they'll just go back to the source to make HD DVDs.
In the current Post process, they're anticipating all the extra money they can make by having HD DVDs- for example, there are some shows that are shot on film, transfered to HD (and not SD) and finished...and finally transfered to SD...waiting for the day that they can make the HD DVD (rather than having to scan the film.)
Harlequin - we "like" the film frame rate...the strobing or flashing gives us the feeling that we're watching film (which has a better response to light than video does...even HD.) While we can use 2x the frame rate for HD...it's mostly used for sports...as it makes it look sharper (particularly at the lower of the HD frame sizes, which permits the 60p format). Yup, it's a lower frame rate.
Douglas Trumbull (an effects supervisor) came up with a film format that has evolved into IMAX...but his original idea was the 70MM format running much faster - 60 fps. People often got sick while watching it. Derivatives of this are used in Amusement Park rides (luxor hotel for example in Vegas.)
So, the short answer is:
They'll go back to film to make HD DVDs to resell you the same film in amazing clarity.
I've seen some Raw HD feeds from TV shows (as they first adapted HD)...and all the people in Post were stunned...at how bad most onscreen talent looked. Ligthing and makeup seriously changed because of it.
Last, don't rush/sweat about HD DVD. They're fighting like cats and dogs over the two formats, and it could be a year (or three) before one becomes a dominant winner. And it could be five years before an HD DVD player is sub $100.
posted by filmgeek at 4:33 PM on February 8, 2006 [1 favorite]
lhl:
BTW, I think bring up frame-rate is specious to this discussion
It's not directly relevant once you already understand the process, but it's not specious. The poster saw some HD and said "I have seen some high-def video that looked more real than reality" suggesting that the magic of HD to him/her comes from the framerate, not the image resolution (as s/he has already seen higher resolution in theares and it sounds like it was perhaps less impressive than HD), if so, then HD doesn't offer as much over DVD for existing films as numbers about film and HD and SD resolution would suggest. There is a problem with not benefitting fully from HD because the film not being shot in HD, as the poster suspected.
The pileup on top of the guy pointing out that a film transfer to HD wasn't HD quality (or film quality) seemed to be muddying things.
ryanissuper:
Theatrical releases also want to be playable on standard theatre projectors. Or at least the business side is more comfortable if the investment can be played in any old cinemas. (another reason HD features are shot for 24fps)
filmgeek:
It sounds like your beef is with video, not framerate, and liking the framerate is a pavlov response. I imagine it wouldn't take you long to become happier with features in IMAX 70mm film at 60fps rather than 35mm film at 24fps. :-)
posted by -harlequin- at 5:03 PM on February 8, 2006
BTW, I think bring up frame-rate is specious to this discussion
It's not directly relevant once you already understand the process, but it's not specious. The poster saw some HD and said "I have seen some high-def video that looked more real than reality" suggesting that the magic of HD to him/her comes from the framerate, not the image resolution (as s/he has already seen higher resolution in theares and it sounds like it was perhaps less impressive than HD), if so, then HD doesn't offer as much over DVD for existing films as numbers about film and HD and SD resolution would suggest. There is a problem with not benefitting fully from HD because the film not being shot in HD, as the poster suspected.
The pileup on top of the guy pointing out that a film transfer to HD wasn't HD quality (or film quality) seemed to be muddying things.
ryanissuper:
Theatrical releases also want to be playable on standard theatre projectors. Or at least the business side is more comfortable if the investment can be played in any old cinemas. (another reason HD features are shot for 24fps)
filmgeek:
It sounds like your beef is with video, not framerate, and liking the framerate is a pavlov response. I imagine it wouldn't take you long to become happier with features in IMAX 70mm film at 60fps rather than 35mm film at 24fps. :-)
posted by -harlequin- at 5:03 PM on February 8, 2006
Hmm, I have seen some high-def video that looked more real than reality... i wonder if that is going to make the feel of certain movies seem strange.
I don't think anyone has come out and said it, though you might have been able to read between the lines: Video (60 fields per second) feels much more "real" than film (24 frames per second). In addition, the color response of HD video cameras is substantially different than film, resulting in higher contrast and more "punchiness". So while your HD movies will be much more detailed, they will not have the same "more real than reality" feel of HD video.
posted by trevyn at 5:03 PM on February 8, 2006
I don't think anyone has come out and said it, though you might have been able to read between the lines: Video (60 fields per second) feels much more "real" than film (24 frames per second). In addition, the color response of HD video cameras is substantially different than film, resulting in higher contrast and more "punchiness". So while your HD movies will be much more detailed, they will not have the same "more real than reality" feel of HD video.
posted by trevyn at 5:03 PM on February 8, 2006
The poster saw some HD and said "I have seen some high-def video that looked more real than reality" suggesting that the magic of HD to him/her comes from the framerate, not the image resolution (as s/he has already seen higher resolution in theares and it sounds like it was perhaps less impressive than HD)
Might that be because the HD was viewed on a screen much, much smaller than in a theatre, and thus presented a much sharper image? I've seen HD video on a professional Sony HD monitor, and I'd agree that it was more impressive than what I see in theatres.
posted by bachelor#3 at 5:43 PM on February 8, 2006
Might that be because the HD was viewed on a screen much, much smaller than in a theatre, and thus presented a much sharper image? I've seen HD video on a professional Sony HD monitor, and I'd agree that it was more impressive than what I see in theatres.
posted by bachelor#3 at 5:43 PM on February 8, 2006
bachelor#3: I don't know that sharper image can realistically be considered seperate from framerate under the circumstances. From my own (subjective) experience, I would think the screen size sharpens things less than actually having genuinely sharper images.
posted by -harlequin- at 6:09 PM on February 8, 2006
posted by -harlequin- at 6:09 PM on February 8, 2006
To me, even video shot in Mini-Dv looks more "real" than film. I'm not sure if this is because too me the colors are closer to what are eyes see, or if we associate things shot on video (ie. The news) with reality, whereas we associate things shot on film (some television shows, films, etc.) with hyper-reality.
posted by drezdn at 6:29 PM on February 8, 2006
posted by drezdn at 6:29 PM on February 8, 2006
Harlequin - I'm merely reflecting what the field (pardon the interlaced pun) looks at...Higher framerates aren't necessarily better. We romaticize the way film looks. Is that palovian? Video looks cheap. Take a look at cable commercials (on the whole.) You can immediately tell the difference between between national and local commercials.
Me? I've seen the showscan stuff (70mm, 60fps film). Nice. Really nice. It literally was like 3d. But, it was too expensive to implement for the benefit.
Know what the most popular DV (and HD) cameras shoot? 24p. Just like film. They want it to look like film.
Film has a much closer response to the eye...often the looking more 'real' than film has to do with the frame rate (it's closer to reality) as well as it's often brighter. Go see a dark video. Looks really bad. Then go look at Seven. Film produces a much closer response to the eye.
And as far as what "looked real" it's like 30i or 60p HD. They use 60p for sports...with long depth of fields (it's hard to get a short depth with video).
posted by filmgeek at 6:51 PM on February 8, 2006
Me? I've seen the showscan stuff (70mm, 60fps film). Nice. Really nice. It literally was like 3d. But, it was too expensive to implement for the benefit.
Know what the most popular DV (and HD) cameras shoot? 24p. Just like film. They want it to look like film.
Film has a much closer response to the eye...often the looking more 'real' than film has to do with the frame rate (it's closer to reality) as well as it's often brighter. Go see a dark video. Looks really bad. Then go look at Seven. Film produces a much closer response to the eye.
And as far as what "looked real" it's like 30i or 60p HD. They use 60p for sports...with long depth of fields (it's hard to get a short depth with video).
posted by filmgeek at 6:51 PM on February 8, 2006
Looking "real" isn't necessarily a big plus in a work that is supposed to engage the imagination and emotion.
Harlequin, perceived "sharpness" of an image varies with the size of the viewed image. As an example, both motion blur and focus issues are hard to detect on the small displays on digital cameras, but become quite appearant at the size of a computer screen.
posted by Good Brain at 8:07 PM on February 8, 2006
Harlequin, perceived "sharpness" of an image varies with the size of the viewed image. As an example, both motion blur and focus issues are hard to detect on the small displays on digital cameras, but become quite appearant at the size of a computer screen.
posted by Good Brain at 8:07 PM on February 8, 2006
A slight note of pedantry regarding resolution,
lhl, w/ 4K about the upper bound of 35mm film resolution.
filmgeek, ...film is 4000x3000 pixels, as a source
I don't think it is well established that 4k is the most pixels necessary.
A quick search pulled up this interesting thread at cinematography.com discussing the issue, and suggests while 4kx3k is acceptable, to 'truely' capture all the data on film would take a lot high resolution, perhaps over 12kx9k, perhaps much more. See also another interesting thread at photo.net.
I believe 4k is simply the limit of affordability right now. I would be quite surprised if in 10 years time films aren't scanned in 8k to 16k. Moore's law suggests higher, but I'm not sure it applies as directly to the film industry.
In short, digital still has a way to go to catch up with celluloid.
posted by MetaMonkey at 11:30 PM on February 8, 2006
lhl, w/ 4K about the upper bound of 35mm film resolution.
filmgeek, ...film is 4000x3000 pixels, as a source
I don't think it is well established that 4k is the most pixels necessary.
A quick search pulled up this interesting thread at cinematography.com discussing the issue, and suggests while 4kx3k is acceptable, to 'truely' capture all the data on film would take a lot high resolution, perhaps over 12kx9k, perhaps much more. See also another interesting thread at photo.net.
I believe 4k is simply the limit of affordability right now. I would be quite surprised if in 10 years time films aren't scanned in 8k to 16k. Moore's law suggests higher, but I'm not sure it applies as directly to the film industry.
In short, digital still has a way to go to catch up with celluloid.
posted by MetaMonkey at 11:30 PM on February 8, 2006
Films in 10 years won't be scanned at all, most likely. The move to digital is becoming incredibly fast, in 10 years shooting on film will be pretty much a rarity. It's been suggested that there might be a market for a digital system (camera, recording equipment, etc.) that has higher resolution than 1080p (which is 1920x1080, not bad at all), something along the lines of 4k, but no such thing exists today.
An earlier comment suggested that "at least 3" movies in the last few years have been shot on HD, which is an incredible distortion, really. I wouldn't be surprised if as much as 10 percent of feature films having theatrical releases today are shot on HD. Off the top of my head, in addition to the Star Wars prequels and Robert Rodriguez' stuff, people like Michael Mann (Ali, Collateral, Miami Vice), Kurt Wimmer (Ultraviolet), Bryan Singer (Superman Returns), Tony Scott (Domino), Steven Soderbergh (Bubble), Mel Gibson (Apocalypto), David Fincher (Chronicles), Julio Medem (Sex and Lucia), the Wachowski brothers (Matrix Reloaded and Revolutions) and Roman Polanski (Oliver Twist) are making big-budget movies on HD. I'm going to guess that several of these are movies you've seen but didn't even know were shot on HD.
The whole discussion about "what resolution we need to scan 35mm film with close to no loss of quality" is also a bit misleading. Yeah, you could probably do with a bit more than 4k if you wanted perfect quality. But that's because film doesn't have pixels, it has grain. You're essentially trying to perfectly reproduce blurry amorphous blobs by the way of square pixels, which requires each blob to be represented by many pixels.
That's totally different from what you need to film something in digital that looks as good as 35mm film. If you're not dealing with essentially resampling grain to square pixels and back again, you don't really need that high resolution. In fact, even SD video of high quality transfers quite well to 35mm film for projection. Resolution, in this case, matters a lot less than things like dynamic range. When things are moving at 24 frames per second, you don't really see much pixels. It's a mistake to overly focus on resolution, beyond a certain point.
Besides, if you're living outside of major US cities (or, even worse, outside of the US in general), you're not going to see anything that even approaches maximum 35mm quality in the cinema. I live in Mexico City, and the quickly made, cheap, many generations down the line copies we get for projection here often look quite horrible. If, instead, HD material could be shipped to each country, and copies made locally, you'd essentially be watching a first generation film print of the HD material. Believe me, that looks better than anything you've ever seen in the theater (except possibly if you live in LA or NYC).
Film is essentially dead. It's going to take a while, partially because the technology is still being improved (dynamic range, in particular, has gotten a lot better just in the last year or two), but also because of stubborn cinematographers and directors. But sooner or later, the advantages, like being able to shoot a lot more, immediate preview instead of shitty video assist, on-set preliminary rough cuts, and no-loss transfer all the way to projection prints, is going to win out. In 10 years, things will look very different.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 12:31 AM on February 9, 2006
An earlier comment suggested that "at least 3" movies in the last few years have been shot on HD, which is an incredible distortion, really. I wouldn't be surprised if as much as 10 percent of feature films having theatrical releases today are shot on HD. Off the top of my head, in addition to the Star Wars prequels and Robert Rodriguez' stuff, people like Michael Mann (Ali, Collateral, Miami Vice), Kurt Wimmer (Ultraviolet), Bryan Singer (Superman Returns), Tony Scott (Domino), Steven Soderbergh (Bubble), Mel Gibson (Apocalypto), David Fincher (Chronicles), Julio Medem (Sex and Lucia), the Wachowski brothers (Matrix Reloaded and Revolutions) and Roman Polanski (Oliver Twist) are making big-budget movies on HD. I'm going to guess that several of these are movies you've seen but didn't even know were shot on HD.
The whole discussion about "what resolution we need to scan 35mm film with close to no loss of quality" is also a bit misleading. Yeah, you could probably do with a bit more than 4k if you wanted perfect quality. But that's because film doesn't have pixels, it has grain. You're essentially trying to perfectly reproduce blurry amorphous blobs by the way of square pixels, which requires each blob to be represented by many pixels.
That's totally different from what you need to film something in digital that looks as good as 35mm film. If you're not dealing with essentially resampling grain to square pixels and back again, you don't really need that high resolution. In fact, even SD video of high quality transfers quite well to 35mm film for projection. Resolution, in this case, matters a lot less than things like dynamic range. When things are moving at 24 frames per second, you don't really see much pixels. It's a mistake to overly focus on resolution, beyond a certain point.
Besides, if you're living outside of major US cities (or, even worse, outside of the US in general), you're not going to see anything that even approaches maximum 35mm quality in the cinema. I live in Mexico City, and the quickly made, cheap, many generations down the line copies we get for projection here often look quite horrible. If, instead, HD material could be shipped to each country, and copies made locally, you'd essentially be watching a first generation film print of the HD material. Believe me, that looks better than anything you've ever seen in the theater (except possibly if you live in LA or NYC).
Film is essentially dead. It's going to take a while, partially because the technology is still being improved (dynamic range, in particular, has gotten a lot better just in the last year or two), but also because of stubborn cinematographers and directors. But sooner or later, the advantages, like being able to shoot a lot more, immediate preview instead of shitty video assist, on-set preliminary rough cuts, and no-loss transfer all the way to projection prints, is going to win out. In 10 years, things will look very different.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 12:31 AM on February 9, 2006
Film is not dead, at least according to Kodak.
I enjoy the dig at stubborn cinematographers, but seriously, film right now is a whole lot better in most every way you'd care to mention (except cost) than any digital you can get you hands on.
In 10 years, things will look very different (I hope not like the ugly digital colours and definition seen in films like Collateral) as digital becomes cheaper and better, but there will still be a lot of celluloid around.
I love film, and I love video, so I don't want to start a film vs video debate, just point out that the rumours of film's death are much exaggerated, and that film isn't going away anytime soon.
posted by MetaMonkey at 1:45 AM on February 9, 2006
I enjoy the dig at stubborn cinematographers, but seriously, film right now is a whole lot better in most every way you'd care to mention (except cost) than any digital you can get you hands on.
In 10 years, things will look very different (I hope not like the ugly digital colours and definition seen in films like Collateral) as digital becomes cheaper and better, but there will still be a lot of celluloid around.
I love film, and I love video, so I don't want to start a film vs video debate, just point out that the rumours of film's death are much exaggerated, and that film isn't going away anytime soon.
posted by MetaMonkey at 1:45 AM on February 9, 2006
... there is a new way to work with film. Digital intermediates (or e-Film) is changing the way people work in the movies. Essentially a movie is shot on film and then immediately after it's developed it's scanned into a computer at "4K" resolution (or 4096x2160). Directors and DOPs can view dailies from this digital medium, as well as colour correction, editing, conforming and all other aspects of film manipulation. It's essentially Photoshop for moving pictures. Once the movie is complete, it's then printed back onto film for mass duplication and distribution. HD masters, DVDs or iPod versions can be pulled from the existing digital master. It's become the best of both worlds.
posted by Hanover Phist at 7:36 AM on February 9, 2006
posted by Hanover Phist at 7:36 AM on February 9, 2006
-harlequin- writes:
If you stop looking at Neo and try to make out the buildings rushing by behind him, your eyes bug out - the building are in focus, but there is no detail to be made out from them, even though the frame resolution is massive (far higher than HD).
Probably not the best example of this, as just about every frame in the Matrix Trilogy has been so heavily processed. For all we know they purposely did that to fake some depth of field on what was a composited shot. Try the opening helicopter shots from "Blues Brothers." It's pretty amazing, and details pop in and out of the cityscape... That is also a wonderful sequence for sound design.
While I am very suspicious of notions of why film is more comfortable to our eyes than video, I don't think you can make much hay arguing that is just conditioning. And while fps certainly has an effect on how much detail we see, resolution is huge - Don't forget about all the compression on the way to the consumer, be it dvd or squeezing it into that cable pipe. HD cable is the first time people are seeing better than Standard Def on a monitor that fits in a living-room.
posted by mzurer at 9:45 AM on February 9, 2006
If you stop looking at Neo and try to make out the buildings rushing by behind him, your eyes bug out - the building are in focus, but there is no detail to be made out from them, even though the frame resolution is massive (far higher than HD).
Probably not the best example of this, as just about every frame in the Matrix Trilogy has been so heavily processed. For all we know they purposely did that to fake some depth of field on what was a composited shot. Try the opening helicopter shots from "Blues Brothers." It's pretty amazing, and details pop in and out of the cityscape... That is also a wonderful sequence for sound design.
While I am very suspicious of notions of why film is more comfortable to our eyes than video, I don't think you can make much hay arguing that is just conditioning. And while fps certainly has an effect on how much detail we see, resolution is huge - Don't forget about all the compression on the way to the consumer, be it dvd or squeezing it into that cable pipe. HD cable is the first time people are seeing better than Standard Def on a monitor that fits in a living-room.
posted by mzurer at 9:45 AM on February 9, 2006
I always love these discussions. As a geek, I side with the digital age. As a filmmaker, I side with the power and magnificence of the organic chemicals that make up film.
William Gibson gave a great Gibson-esque talk to the DGA (Director's Guild of America) several years ago.. hm... here is his capture of it. Granted it was more digital-everything, not just film, but I loved this quote:
filmgeek, I totally hear you with the Post folks looking agape at their stars under HD. Whole industries are/will enjoy a renaissance due to the increased resolution. Or something like that. Sets can no longer be patched with paste. Pancake makeup can no longer mask out issues. My first time seeing some of those HD samples... wow...
posted by cavalier at 1:24 PM on February 9, 2006
William Gibson gave a great Gibson-esque talk to the DGA (Director's Guild of America) several years ago.. hm... here is his capture of it. Granted it was more digital-everything, not just film, but I loved this quote:
I love film. love film. Technology is ever increasing in quality, however. Eventually they'll fake it enough with digital algorithms or microprocessors that digital won't look as sterile or crisp as film. Eventually digital will surpass film as an originating medium. 10 years? 20 years? 40 years? Some point, I dunno, ask a researcher.
We call film “film” today in much the same way we “dial” phones, the actual dials being long gone. The fact that we do still employ actual film, in the traditional sense, seems an artifact of platform-transition and industrial economics. I tend to take arguments for the innate esthetic superiority of “film”, with the same grain of salt I reserve for arguments for the innate esthetic superiority of vinyl. Whatever the current shortcomings of the digital image, I imagine there will be digital ways around them.
filmgeek, I totally hear you with the Post folks looking agape at their stars under HD. Whole industries are/will enjoy a renaissance due to the increased resolution. Or something like that. Sets can no longer be patched with paste. Pancake makeup can no longer mask out issues. My first time seeing some of those HD samples... wow...
posted by cavalier at 1:24 PM on February 9, 2006
Joakim Ziegler: Somebody lied to you when they said Domino was shot on HD. It was *definitely* shot on film. They used just about every film stock available, using a lot of reversal and some black and white. I know because I handled the film.
posted by dogwalker at 5:28 PM on February 9, 2006
posted by dogwalker at 5:28 PM on February 9, 2006
Metamonkey "I don't think it is well established that 4k is the most pixels necessary."
Realistically, 4k is what they're currently using for Digital Intermediaries. Everywhere. Avid, Adobe, Quantel...everyone doing Log2Lin conversions.
Now, that's the change they're more likely to make with the pixel processing - not more pixels, but more bits per pixel. We're looking at 32 bit (that's 2^32) in R,G,B float space. That'll do much more for the quality of the processing vs. more pixels. We're going to get away from 8 bit (or 10) color space.
Joakim, Film is far from dead for two reasons. First, it's cost effective at the higher end (it costs more to keep a star an extra week than the cost of all the film processing.)
But it's the film shelf life that video tape can't beat. Again, I point out Desi Arnez choosing I love lucy on Film for this exact reason.
posted by filmgeek at 8:47 PM on February 9, 2006
Realistically, 4k is what they're currently using for Digital Intermediaries. Everywhere. Avid, Adobe, Quantel...everyone doing Log2Lin conversions.
Now, that's the change they're more likely to make with the pixel processing - not more pixels, but more bits per pixel. We're looking at 32 bit (that's 2^32) in R,G,B float space. That'll do much more for the quality of the processing vs. more pixels. We're going to get away from 8 bit (or 10) color space.
Joakim, Film is far from dead for two reasons. First, it's cost effective at the higher end (it costs more to keep a star an extra week than the cost of all the film processing.)
But it's the film shelf life that video tape can't beat. Again, I point out Desi Arnez choosing I love lucy on Film for this exact reason.
posted by filmgeek at 8:47 PM on February 9, 2006
No disagreement there, filmgeek. I was simply saying while 4k is the current acceptable standard, it may well fall far short of capturing all data available in a 35mm frame. 4k is simply what is currently affordable, feasible, and good enough.
posted by MetaMonkey at 9:13 PM on February 9, 2006
posted by MetaMonkey at 9:13 PM on February 9, 2006
dogwalker: Actually, I made a mistake. It seems it was shot on film and HDCAM, according to this list, which was one of the sources I used. Domino and a couple of other movies used HD in part.
filmgeek: Yeah, the cost of film pales on high-end productions. However, film is still more expensive, so that's just an advantage to HD that's not always applicable, it's not that film is suddenly cheaper than HD on the high end. I've also heard cinematographers talk about how it's easier to do a lot of takes with HD, because they don't have to think about how much film they're using at all, or change magazines.
Shelf life is a good point, but that's a transient one. In 10 years, you can store all the raw material plus the final cut of a film on an inexpensive hard drive. I expect studios to invest in a large RAID-like device to hold all their material, and just change disks as they fail. With redundancy, that'll last as long as you want. Also, there may well be optical disks or tapes that have much longer shelf life in a few years.
MetaMonkey: I'm not so sure I agree. There are things that HD is better at. For one, it's a hell of a lot more light sensitive in general, and has a lot more latitude in the dark areas (while film has a huge amount of latitude in the highlights).
In general, I don't think it matters that much. Film can still be 5 or 10 percent better than HD, and HD will win. Why? Momentum. Everything on the low end is moving to HD. Commercials, music videos, short movies and low-budget productions, TV shows, etc. This means that in a few years, you'll have a lot of people who are experienced cinematographers, directors, etc. who have only worked with HD, never (or almost never) with film. They're going to be transitioning to feature film, and probably will continue working with what they know. Additionally, reduced use of film in the (generally larger) low-end markets will drive up the price of film stock, processing and scanning further. The least used film stocks will be discontinued. It's a vicious circle for film, while HD is on a self-reinforcing cycle.
So I'm guessing 10 years before the majority of feature films are shot on HD. It might take longer, but given what I've seen of HD adoption in the last 5 years, I don't think it will be much more.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 9:17 PM on February 9, 2006
filmgeek: Yeah, the cost of film pales on high-end productions. However, film is still more expensive, so that's just an advantage to HD that's not always applicable, it's not that film is suddenly cheaper than HD on the high end. I've also heard cinematographers talk about how it's easier to do a lot of takes with HD, because they don't have to think about how much film they're using at all, or change magazines.
Shelf life is a good point, but that's a transient one. In 10 years, you can store all the raw material plus the final cut of a film on an inexpensive hard drive. I expect studios to invest in a large RAID-like device to hold all their material, and just change disks as they fail. With redundancy, that'll last as long as you want. Also, there may well be optical disks or tapes that have much longer shelf life in a few years.
MetaMonkey: I'm not so sure I agree. There are things that HD is better at. For one, it's a hell of a lot more light sensitive in general, and has a lot more latitude in the dark areas (while film has a huge amount of latitude in the highlights).
In general, I don't think it matters that much. Film can still be 5 or 10 percent better than HD, and HD will win. Why? Momentum. Everything on the low end is moving to HD. Commercials, music videos, short movies and low-budget productions, TV shows, etc. This means that in a few years, you'll have a lot of people who are experienced cinematographers, directors, etc. who have only worked with HD, never (or almost never) with film. They're going to be transitioning to feature film, and probably will continue working with what they know. Additionally, reduced use of film in the (generally larger) low-end markets will drive up the price of film stock, processing and scanning further. The least used film stocks will be discontinued. It's a vicious circle for film, while HD is on a self-reinforcing cycle.
So I'm guessing 10 years before the majority of feature films are shot on HD. It might take longer, but given what I've seen of HD adoption in the last 5 years, I don't think it will be much more.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 9:17 PM on February 9, 2006
I'll have to agree to disagree with you on this one, Joakim.
IMHO, on most quality metrics celluloid is the clear leader. I don't have the technical knowledge to properly dispute your assertion that digital is "more light sensitive", or has "more latitude in dark areas". My understanding is that digital is severely lacking in dynamic range, as the sensor technology and bit-depth are not up to the abilities of celluloid. Also I believe HD suffers problems with excess noise when filming low-light (whereas film degrades more gracefully due to it's analogue nature). I also know there have been some phenomenal high speed stocks released in the last 5 years or so.
I would be very interested to hear from someone with greater technical knowledge on this issue though. Maybe I shall Ask Mefi.
Furthermore, I don't know of any non-action films which have been shot on HD only which can compare with celluloid in cinematography, or box-office success. So I think your estimations of HD's succession may be a tad premature.
Finally, I don't think its an issue of who will win. Film and digital are different mediums, with different qualities and possibilities. I hope and expect digital will be pushed in a lot of new directions as it develops, and that film will still be used for a long, long time to come. If not, I'll be looking forward to picking up a cheap Aaton.
posted by MetaMonkey at 7:12 AM on February 11, 2006
IMHO, on most quality metrics celluloid is the clear leader. I don't have the technical knowledge to properly dispute your assertion that digital is "more light sensitive", or has "more latitude in dark areas". My understanding is that digital is severely lacking in dynamic range, as the sensor technology and bit-depth are not up to the abilities of celluloid. Also I believe HD suffers problems with excess noise when filming low-light (whereas film degrades more gracefully due to it's analogue nature). I also know there have been some phenomenal high speed stocks released in the last 5 years or so.
I would be very interested to hear from someone with greater technical knowledge on this issue though. Maybe I shall Ask Mefi.
Furthermore, I don't know of any non-action films which have been shot on HD only which can compare with celluloid in cinematography, or box-office success. So I think your estimations of HD's succession may be a tad premature.
Finally, I don't think its an issue of who will win. Film and digital are different mediums, with different qualities and possibilities. I hope and expect digital will be pushed in a lot of new directions as it develops, and that film will still be used for a long, long time to come. If not, I'll be looking forward to picking up a cheap Aaton.
posted by MetaMonkey at 7:12 AM on February 11, 2006
Metamonkey, I do have the technical knowledge, and you're right.
Film has much greater latitude than video (even the best HD right now today). It has the potential of higher bit depths (32 bit), and has far greater dynamic range.
But, Lucas did shoot Eps 2+3 on HD exclusively (no film); and they were sucesses...at least financially.
posted by filmgeek at 8:15 PM on February 13, 2006
Film has much greater latitude than video (even the best HD right now today). It has the potential of higher bit depths (32 bit), and has far greater dynamic range.
But, Lucas did shoot Eps 2+3 on HD exclusively (no film); and they were sucesses...at least financially.
posted by filmgeek at 8:15 PM on February 13, 2006
As far as longevity of film -- when the film starts to degrade, how will you make an exact copy/transfer of it, since it's analog?
On the other hand, an HD source can be copied as many times as you want without degradation.
Before anyone naysays changing digical technology and recording formats, remember that you can include CRC & recovery information with any digital file you copy, increasing the chances you will end up with a perfect copy by a few orders of magnitude. Do this as many times as you want. Can't do that with film.
posted by catkins at 1:37 PM on February 16, 2006
On the other hand, an HD source can be copied as many times as you want without degradation.
Before anyone naysays changing digical technology and recording formats, remember that you can include CRC & recovery information with any digital file you copy, increasing the chances you will end up with a perfect copy by a few orders of magnitude. Do this as many times as you want. Can't do that with film.
posted by catkins at 1:37 PM on February 16, 2006
This has veered off the original question and it's been some days since it was first posted, but hey.
There is tremendous growth on the video side (my friend has been toying with an HD camera that shoots 1,000 FPS), and despite some neat stocks of late, very few significant advancements on the film side. It's a safe bet that at some point in the future, video imaging will match film in every regard - and from then on, it will be better. When video is far superior to film, what's the point in supporting film other than nostalgia?
So in other words, start trying out some new arguments, film buffs.
posted by D at 1:05 PM on February 17, 2006
There is tremendous growth on the video side (my friend has been toying with an HD camera that shoots 1,000 FPS), and despite some neat stocks of late, very few significant advancements on the film side. It's a safe bet that at some point in the future, video imaging will match film in every regard - and from then on, it will be better. When video is far superior to film, what's the point in supporting film other than nostalgia?
So in other words, start trying out some new arguments, film buffs.
posted by D at 1:05 PM on February 17, 2006
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by rxrfrx at 2:32 PM on February 8, 2006