Blu-ray transfer of old movies

[pinbuoy]

Hello,

I"ve seen some threads cover part of this question, so I apologize for any duplication. This is kind of a rambling 2-3 part question, answer the part that's applicable and thanks.

How far back were movies filmed in HD, or what is the typical resolution that movies were filmed at, say 5 or 10 years ago?

Is the transfer to Blu Ray just a "factory upscaling"?
Is there a cutoff date where it would be better to save your money and watch a SD upscaled then to spend $20-$35 on the Blu Ray disc if it displayed at the same or lower quality?

OR ;-) are there just too many variables between differing quality of transfers, tvs and upscaling players to make such a blanket statement?

Thanks

Mike

[WickyWoo]

There was no "resolution" a decade ago

Film has much greater than 1080p resolution

I have yet to see a Blu-ray except for the acknowleged upscales of 28 days and Air (Japan) that are "factory upscales"

No matter how old the film, even the dark times of the 80s when they were using really cruddy stocks, the Blus are massive improvements

[Daredevil666]

Since the early XX century, all movies were shot in 35mm which is about 4 to 6 times the 1080p resolution, so yes, there's no cutoff date, even 16mm shot movies will looks better on Blu because they are about the same resolution.

[Herr Schmidt]

I just watched a movie called the searchers. John Wayne I was amazed on how great that film look.Look like a new movie to me.It was great watching that movie agian :} PQ was very out standing i thought

[sean10mm]

Almost all movies - including most of those made right now - are shot on 35mm film. Film isn't digital so technically it doesn't have a "resolution" at all. But in theory you need about 4K resolution (4096×3072) to get all the image information off a clean 35mm print. Blu-ray is 1920x1080, or about 2K (which would be 2048 x whatever).

So any movie shot on 35mm can, in theory, look better on Blu-ray than on DVD, no matter how old it is.

How good it acutally looks depends on how well-preserved the film they have to work with is and how much effort is invested in cleaning it up and remastering it for Blu-ray.

[syncguy]

As indicated previously film has higher resolution than HD. It is the chemical grain on the film decide the resolution factor. If transferred correctly, films, in general, should shine on blu-ray.

My main issue is the technical transfer processes. In many cases transfer is not very good. Hopefully technology will improve and we would see more consistency in the transfer process (film to blu-ray) and in the future we would consistently see good quality blu-ray movies.

[Ice2Dragon]

Originally Posted by syncguy

As indicated previously film has higher resolution than HD. It is the chemical grain on the film decide the resolution factor. If transferred correctly, films, in general, should shine on blu-ray.

My main issue is the technical transfer processes. In many cases transfer is not very good. Hopefully technology will improve and we would see more consistency in the transfer process (film to blu-ray) and in the future we would consistently see good quality blu-ray movies.

Thats not true, go dvd and blu ray compare side by side.. id say at least 80-90 percent there is a significant improvement, then again there are some odd balls.. 28 days later comes to mind right away.. but for the most part I think that the process has been getting better as the months pass.

Look at I Robot, or NCFOM, you cant say that the dvd looks the same..

[Kaixa]

Reading this thread has calm me down about the quality of the 60's Bond films. Was quite afraid that the BR versions wont be as good as the other BRs out there.

[diamondfoxxx]

Though film resolution is roughly thought to be around 4K, the print we see projected in theaters is of a low resolution to 4K. The original negative maybe 4K, but the forth generation print that makes it to the theaters doesn't have that kind of resolution.
So because of that you don't need 4K to capture the image detail on a negative, 2K is more than enough. During the DI process most films are scanned at 2K. I, Robot and NCFOM both went through the DI process scanned at 2K.

[Deciazulado]

Originally Posted by syncguy

Even 2K DI should be better than 1080p blu-ray. If they use 4K DI for blu-ray transfer, it would be even better.
2K is 2048x1536 and 4K is 4096x3072 as opposed to 1920x1080 for Full HD.

Yes, 2K of Full Aperture (1.33) 35mm area is 1536 x 2048 (18.4 mm x 24.6 mm) (2K @ 12 micron pitch) but mainly only Silent Movies use that area*, for example, films shot in Super-35 use this:

Super-35 1.85 Panavision groundglass is 13 mm x 24 mm (1080 x 2000)
Super-35 2.40 Panavision groundglass is 10 mm x 24 mm (834 x 2000)

Example of Full 35mm Silent Camera Aperture (black lines) vs Super-35 2.40 Projector Aperture (red lines):

Originally Posted by syncguy

I agree. blu-ray on a good projector is stunning, if you have a good transfer. I am puzzled and wonder why can't the commercial theatres get the focus right?

Well, if the projectionist cares and has good eyesight (or binoculars ) he should check focus after every splice (about every 20 minutes), and of course, focus initially on the main title and afterward on the grain of the print. But as the projectionist is usually the person that is farthest from the screen, (he watches the movie from a distance similar to how people are watching HDTVs at home (about 4 picture heights)) he is seeing the image smaller than most people in the theater (people at the center of the theater watch at about 2 PH) (for both Scope and 1.85 movies, as their height should be the same) and the image is constantly moving or changing which makes it hard to focus.. A good projectionist learns how to find by touch the middle point in the focusing knob position between the two points where the image starts to get out of focus (use the force, Luke), or he has better eyesight than average (twice better would be good ) and if he has the time goes into the hall while the movie is running to check if he got it dead on. Now imagine that happening in a 14 screen multiplex projection system run by ushers

There are techniques to make the on-screen resolution of a print be higher than in the average projection but most projectionists don't use that neither as it seems to be too much trouble for them. (Old habits die hard).


There are theaters that pride themselves on their presentation quality. You should make the effort of finding those and supporting them, even commenting on the quality to the managers and telling them you go to that theater because of this.




*Actually, the silent Camera Aperture area is 18.7 mm 24.9 mm (black lines) the scanners don't get all that, but that don't matter as the intended area is the Projector Aperture (red lines) which is closer to 18 mm x 24 mm, which the scan covers.) (all mm figures rounded for simpliciy)

[roopster77]

When all is said and done, doesn't it really come down to the transfer?

Admittedly the negative has to be good; but, assuming that is taken care of a good transfer means you will be getting a great Blu-ray as 35mm is simply better than what blu can do?

The example of Bond in blu should prove the argument (I hope)

[syncguy]

There are different views on this, however, I feel that the transfer process mostly contributes to the variable quality of blu-ray movies.

[WickyWoo]

There are different views on this, however, I feel that the transfer process mostly contributes to the variable quality of blu-ray movies.

And you would be wrong. The telecines used are state of the art with highly skilled techs

It's either the source material or overcompression 95%+ (closer to 99% after the initial batch of discs) of the time.

Old movies are simply not going to look shiny, nor did their makers ever expect them to be seen this way

[syncguy]

Originally Posted by WickyWoo

And you would be wrong. The telecines used are state of the art with highly skilled techs

It's either the source material or overcompression 95%+ (closer to 99% after the initial batch of discs) of the time.

Old movies are simply not going to look shiny, nor did their makers ever expect them to be seen this way

Okay. I agree that I could be wrong when Hollywood movies are considered. I had a global view when I wrote that.

I have a question though. Hope there is a rationale for this.

When I compare Casino Royale with Pirates of the Caribbean - The Curse of the Black Pearl on a ~4.5 m screen, Casino Royale is significantly inferior (as I see it) to Pirates of Caribbean. Pirates of the Caribbean produces a stunning picture with incredible detail and clarity with beautiful colours. However, Casino Royale is somewhat different. It is grainy, too much grain IMO. Also, less clarity (may be due to the grain) and colours are different, perhaps not saturated as Pirates (again as I see it). I have not seen both these movies in the theater. So this could be due to the original material.

[Cinemaddict]

So someday, I guess something is going to be able to go far beyond 1080p and replace Blu-Ray.

[roopster77]

Originally Posted by Cinemaddict

So someday, I guess something is going to be able to go far beyond 1080p and replace Blu-Ray.

I so want to see that screen in a house...

[syncguy]

Originally Posted by Cinemaddict

So someday, I guess something is going to be able to go far beyond 1080p and replace Blu-Ray.

Always this is a possibility. But I don't think this would happen for a very long time. IMO blu-ray is a real winner (so we should do our best to protect its image). It will entertain home viewers for some time to come (at least few decades). It will live longer than DVD. IMO, we could start collecting bly-rays and replace DVDs as the ultimate collection!

The main reason for this opinion is the quality that it could deliver in a home environment. Even on a very large screen (limited by the typical real estate restrictions), it could produce an absolutely stunning and detailed picture (at least for some movies).

[RiseDarthVader]

If you go to a digital cinema you get amazing picture quality. The cinema I work at is currently testing digital projectors and if we think its good all of Australia will start switching over! No more scratches or dust, no more flickering or colour fading. Blu Ray will never look as good as digital cinema or a 1 day old print.

[WriteSimply]

Originally Posted by RiseDarthVader

Blu Ray will never look as good as digital cinema or a 1 day old print.

BD is almost 2K Digital Cinema. If your theater chain is looking at 2K projection system, well... If it's 4K, then it's better.


fuad

[GloomAndGlow]

Originally Posted by syncguy

Always this is a possibility. But I don't think this would happen for a very long time. IMO blu-ray is a real winner (so we should do our best to protect its image). It will entertain home viewers for some time to come (at least few decades). It will live longer than DVD. IMO, we could start collecting bly-rays and replace DVDs as the ultimate collection!

The main reason for this opinion is the quality that it could deliver in a home environment. Even on a very large screen (limited by the typical real estate restrictions), it could produce an absolutely stunning and detailed picture (at least for some movies).

This will be fun reading in ten years, when surgery gives everyone 20/20 (or better?) vision. I allready see a big difference in 720p vs 1080p on my tiny monitor, so I think we'll clearly see an improvement using 3840x2160 for big screen projection. New technologies will have shorter lifespan, because of the acceleration in research and development... Anyway: LOL!