Shot using HD camera vs. copied from film

[skrill]

Originally Posted by FEP3108

For a 40 year old movie 2001 is better than most of the newer movies on BD

I think video transfer and audio quality on catalog releases is always entirely dependent on how much time and effort ($$$$) the studio puts into the release.

These are HD DVD examples but they come to mind:

12 Monkeys looks like crap on HD DVD (I doubt it looks much better than the original DVD). Now this may because of Terry Gilliam's artistic vision -- but think it was because the studio was just lazy.

The Thing on HD DVD (a 20+ year old movie) looks amazing. Like it was just filmed (w the exception of the now very dated special/creature effects). But it looks great. The constrast, the white of the snow, the deep blacks -- all excellent.

Blade Runner Final Cut is another that looks stupidly great!

[Sonny]

Originally Posted by skrill

I think video transfer and audio quality on catalog releases is always entirely dependent on how much time and effort ($$$$) the studio puts into the release.

These are HD DVD examples but they come to mind:

12 Monkeys looks like crap on HD DVD (I doubt it looks much better than the original DVD). Now this may because of Terry Gilliam's artistic vision -- but think it was because the studio was just lazy.

The Thing on HD DVD (a 20+ year old movie) looks amazing. Like it was just filmed (w the exception of the now very dated special/creature effects). But it looks great. The constrast, the white of the snow, the deep blacks -- all excellent.

Blade Runner Final Cut is another that looks stupidly great!

Allot of HDDVD's catalog titles look like crap especially from *Universal
& they were all my favorite's too , ie: "Fear & Loathing" "Casino" it was a BIG let down...but what the hell...it was crappy old HDDVD, soooo.........Anyway thats why it going to take Universal along time because they have to re-encode a lot of films ( bringing um up to standard )

[Bobby Henderson]

Originally Posted by bobcarla

Yet I read again and again that movies shot with film and then scanned into an HD format should look every bit as good as those, like Planet Earth, filmed using digital HD camera. Their argument is that film has more than 4 times the resolution of the best HD camera.

First, you shouldn't really be making any "video is better than film" statements unless you really know for sure how the movies you are comparing were photographed.

Lots of people see some great image quality on Blu-ray and since Blu-ray is "digital" they have this silly knee-jerk response assuming the movie was shot in "digital."

Movies shot on 35mm still look better and sharper on Blu-ray than those shot on digital video. Recent BD releases to get top PQ scores, such as I Robot and No Country for Old Men were shot on 35mm film. Not video.

The process of how a 35mm movie is transferred to HD will make a big difference on image quality. If it is simply run through a HD-quality telecine then details will be a little soft and color won't be as good. If the studio spends the extra money to put the 35mm negatives through a digital intermediate process the end result will look a lot better.

Originally Posted by skrill

I think Mission Impossible III was shot on HD cameras (I was just watching it last night). I have to say that I think it is one of the highest quality HD media discs out there (mine happens to come in a red box).

Mission Impossible III was shot on film, not video.

Originally Posted by wallendo

1) Digital video (as opposed to digital movies) are shot at a higher frame rate (30 fps vs. 24 fps) which produces more fluid movement.

Wrong. There are numerous video camera models that can shoot video at 24 frames per second. All video cameras used for feature movie production use the 24fps frame rate.

Originally Posted by wallendo

2) Movies (including digitally recorded movies) are shot with a narrow depth of field - much of the image is intentionally out of focus, while much digital video is shot with a wider depth of field, and most, if not all, of the image is "in focus".

Incorrect. Depth of field is a different issue. Digital video cameras really don't perform as well as film cameras in low light settings. You're more likely to need a more wide open apeture settings (and resulting lower depth of field) using a video camera than you would with a film camera. If you under expose a film camera image, the imagery is simply dark looking. Under expose video and you'll get all sorts of digital noise (red and green pixels popping out of the shadows even) and image quality problems resolving motion. Film doesn't have that problem since you have a truly discrete image for each frame.

Originally Posted by dvdvision

The OP got it wrong, most if not all recent films use a digital intermediate before being ported to film, therefore, technically, they are all are sourced from HD.

That's an over-generalization. Even if a 35mm negative is scanned and processed thru digital intermediate at the same resolution of a HD video camera, it's probably still going to feature better image quality.

Originally Posted by Sonny

Example: David Letterman & Jay Leno in HDTV , CNN HDTV . Those shows along with many others now have the 'strait' HD Cameras & that PQ is soon perfect especially for TV

Top of the line, huge, HDTV studio cameras in very well lighted TV production studios can yield really great video image quality. But it still looks like video, not film. Problems do occur with video image quality when it is reprocessed to mimic the film look. Honestly, I think the folks making movies with video cameras and making claims that "digital" is better than film ought to leave that video imagery unaltered. But then viewers might be turned off by their movie looking like the six o'clock news or an afternoon soap opera.

[skrill]

Originally Posted by Bobby Henderson

Mission Impossible III was shot on film, not video.

I guess we are both right -- from Hi-Def Digests review:

Interestingly (and as you'll learn more about in the extras), 'M:I III' was shot using both anamorphic 35mm film and 24 frames-per-second HD video, yet the image looks, for the most part, surprisingly consistent. I imagine director J.J. Abrams chose this dual-format approach to filming to both allow for flexibility when it came to filming effects-heavy scenes in HD, though the two disparate technologies actually match up quite well. Blacks and contrast are terrific throughout.

[PeteS]

Originally Posted by Bobby Henderson

The process of how a 35mm movie is transferred to HD will make a big difference on image quality. If it is simply run through a HD-quality telecine then details will be a little soft and color won't be as good. If the studio spends the extra money to put the 35mm negatives through a digital intermediate process the end result will look a lot better.

Good points throughout. Another thing to consider is that the 'state of the art for' HD cameras and videography is advancing rapidly. It is worth looking at some professional-videography testimonials from directors shooting on HD who know what they're doing. We can't say that HD is never going to look as cinema quality as film because there are now HD cameras that do pretty well.

[skrill]

Originally Posted by Sonny

Allot of HDDVD's catalog titles look like crap especially from *Universal
& they were all my favorite's too , ie: "Fear & Loathing" "Casino" it was a BIG let down...but what the hell...it was crappy old HDDVD, soooo.........Anyway thats why it going to take Universal along time because they have to re-encode a lot of films ( bringing um up to standard )

I have not seen either of the two you mentioned.

But Chronicles of Riddick and the two prior Bourne movies (Identity and Supremacy) are reference quality video encodes (and audio as well). The Thing looks awesome. Those Universal titles come to mind. So they are not all bad.

Bourne Ultimatum was voted one of the best video encodes of 2007. It is awesome (if you don't get sick from the shaky camera). Children of Men is awesome as well.

Keep in mind that "grain" and "washed out look" are sometimes the directors intent (wouldn't surprise me if that was the director's intent in the pictures you mention).

[Sonny]

Originally Posted by skrill

I have not seen either of the two you mentioned.

But Chronicles of Riddick and the two prior Bourne movies (Identity and Supremacy) are reference quality video encodes (and audio as well). The Thing looks awesome. Those Universal titles come to mind. So they are not all bad.

Bourne Ultimatum was voted one of the best video encodes of 2007. It is awesome (if you don't get sick from the shaky camera). Children of Men is awesome as well.

Keep in mind that "grain" and "washed out look" are sometimes the directors intent (wouldn't surprise me if that was the director's intent in the pictures you mention).

There were plenty that were ok...but "Fear & loathing in Las Vegas" has a hole 'seen' with a line down the F'n middle of the screen, & it does not go away until an 'seen' change...that something you will never see on BD. Universal was literally just throwing out as many movies as possible & we the consumers paid for it with crap quality. You don't need to defend HDDVD to the death on Blu-ray.com, theres other places for that...I don't even need to talk about 'grain' lol

[Eternalnow]

Originally Posted by Sonny

There were plenty that were ok...but "Fear & loathing in Las Vegas" has a hole 'seen' with a line down the F'n middle of the screen, & it does not go away until an 'seen' change...that something you will never see on BD. Universal was literally just throwing out as many movies as possible & we the consumers paid for it with crap quality. You don't need to defend HDDVD to the death on Blu-ray.com, theres other places for that...I don't even need to talk about 'grain' lol

There is nothing wrong with a little grain now and then, sometimes it makes a film better. You must be confusing 'grain' with "picture noise'.

[Sonny]

Originally Posted by Eternalnow

There is nothing wrong with a little grain now and then, sometimes it makes a film better. You must be confusing 'grain' with "picture noise'.

Damn guy, you think I was born yesterday

[TheRealBob]

Originally Posted by Eternalnow

There is nothing wrong with a little grain now and then, sometimes it makes a film better. You must be confusing 'grain' with "picture noise'.

Grain is picture noise.

[skrill]

Originally Posted by Sonny

There were plenty that were ok...but "Fear & loathing in Las Vegas" has a hole 'seen' with a line down the F'n middle of the screen, & it does not go away until an 'seen' change...that something you will never see on BD. Universal was literally just throwing out as many movies as possible & we the consumers paid for it with crap quality. You don't need to defend HDDVD to the death on Blu-ray.com, theres other places for that...I don't even need to talk about 'grain' lol

I am not defending anything -- but I do feel it was an objectively good product, the same way I feel about BR.

[FilmmakingFiasco]

Originally Posted by Sonny

There were plenty that were ok...but "Fear & loathing in Las Vegas" has a hole 'seen' with a line down the F'n middle of the screen, & it does not go away until an 'seen' change...that something you will never see on BD. Universal was literally just throwing out as many movies as possible & we the consumers paid for it with crap quality. You don't need to defend HDDVD to the death on Blu-ray.com, theres other places for that...I don't even need to talk about 'grain' lol

If there is a scene (not 'seen') in Fear and Loathing that does have a vertical line in it, there's nothing inherent in Blu-ray that magically makes it look better. It wasn't the technical limitations of HD-DVD that would create such a problem.


You can pretty much count on one had all the Hollywood produced feature length films that were shot fully on HD. So, if you want to throw everything else out, go ahead.

[Sonny]

Originally Posted by FilmmakingFiasco

If there is a scene (not 'seen') in Fear and Loathing that does have a vertical line in it, there's nothing inherent in Blu-ray that magically makes it look better. It wasn't the technical limitations of HD-DVD that would create such a problem.


You can pretty much count on one had all the Hollywood produced feature length films that were shot fully on HD. So, if you want to throw everything else out, go ahead.

Are you that 'simple' look DE DE DEEE don't put words in my mouth....jump in some other thread.

[FilmmakingFiasco]

Originally Posted by Sonny

There were plenty that were ok...but "Fear & loathing in Las Vegas" has a hole 'seen' with a line down the F'n middle of the screen, & it does not go away until an 'seen' change...that something you will never see on BD

I corrected the word 'seen' to tell you that it was scene. I didn't correct your misspelling of hole that should be whole. I wasn't trying to be a jerk.

And I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth but you make it seem (as the quote above) that Blu-ray brushes all the problems of a film print away.