Shot using HD camera vs. copied from film

[bobcarla]

When I look at remastered Blu-ray DVD's I never get image quality near to scenes filmed with digital HD cameras. I just watched one of the Planet Earth disks. It was fabulous when I saw it on the Discovery channel and it was fabulous when played on my Blu-ray player.

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.

I hear all that but my sampling remastered movies into Blu-ray are no where near using HD cameras.

It is true that film is so much higher resolution that sampling should be like filming the original scene digitally.

Can anyone tell me why it's not.

BobCarla

[Blinkman987]

Not to be rude, but I'm 99.9% sure you could find the answer to this doing less than 30 minutes of research on the internet.

[Zaphod]

Yeah but that would be the case with a majority of questions here...but you can't always tust what you read on the Internet...it helps to other peoples insight backing up, or dispelling, what you have read.

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by bobcarla

When I look at remastered Blu-ray DVD's I never get image quality near to scenes filmed with digital HD cameras. I just watched one of the Planet Earth disks. It was fabulous when I saw it on the Discovery channel and it was fabulous when played on my Blu-ray player.

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.

I hear all that but my sampling remastered movies into Blu-ray are no where near using HD cameras.

It is true that film is so much higher resolution that sampling should be like filming the original scene digitally.

Can anyone tell me why it's not.

BobCarla

ever seen 2001 Space Odyssey? filmed in 1968? arguably the best PQ of any blu-ray? hmmmm

[Daredevil666]

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. Die Hard 4 is a good example.

[sean10mm]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

ever seen 2001 Space Odyssey? filmed in 1968? arguably the best PQ of any blu-ray?

No, it really isn't. They did a great job with an old movie but some parts of it are quite soft and it isn't as sharp or vivid as some of the newer movies put on Blu-ray.

[wallendo]

Short answer:

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. Also, most people are watching on 60 Hz screens. It is very easy to convert 30 fps to 60 fps, the conversion of 24 fps to 60 fps is not as fluid.

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".

My 2 cents worth.

[GORT]

Originally Posted by sean10mm

No, it really isn't. They did a great job with an old movie but some parts of it are quite soft and it isn't as sharp or vivid as some of the newer movies put on Blu-ray.

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

[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 )

[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

[skrill]

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

Yeah -- but I have noticed a lot of differentiation in the quality of broadcast on different HD programming -- it may simply be how compressed the signal is (I use DirecTV).

Jericho is HD -- but just barely, dull, washed out colors.

Lost looks like I am looking out a window -- it is amazing, vibrant colors, lots of detail.

[sean10mm]

Originally Posted by bobcarla

When I look at remastered Blu-ray DVD's I never get image quality near to scenes filmed with digital HD cameras. I just watched one of the Planet Earth disks. It was fabulous when I saw it on the Discovery channel and it was fabulous when played on my Blu-ray player.

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.

I hear all that but my sampling remastered movies into Blu-ray are no where near using HD cameras.

It is true that film is so much higher resolution that sampling should be like filming the original scene digitally.

Can anyone tell me why it's not.

BobCarla

What Blu-rays are you using for comparison? Because almost all of the top picture quality Blu-rays were shot on film, not HD video. The Pirates movies were all shot on film, for instance, and I'm not sure I've seen anything that looks better than the daylight shots in those movies.

And Planet Earth isn't very consistent. Some shots look amazing and others, not so much.

Not every film is going to look super-awesome just because IN THEORY it has 4K worth of image information or whatever. Some old films weren't well preserved and the source material you have to work with to make the Blu-ray isn't that hot. Some films were just shot badly and have inconsistent focus or just look like ass generally. Sometimes the actual film they were supplied to shoot the movie was extra-grainy or had odd color reproduction or something. And sometimes the studio was cheap and lazy about it and did a poor job making the Blu-ray.

Digital video can look like absolute crap too, by the way.

[Blu n Gold]

Originally Posted by sean10mm

The Pirates movies were all shot on film, for instance, and I'm not sure I've seen anything that looks better than the daylight shots in those movies.

And Planet Earth isn't very consistent. Some shots look amazing and others, not so much.

There is so much CGI in the second two Pirates movies, that I am sure that they were filmed, then digitally mastered.

The Planet Earth thing has been covered A LOT here. Those crappy shots were not filmed with HD cameras because of space and enviornment limitations.

[sean10mm]

Originally Posted by Blu n Gold

There is so much CGI in the second two Pirates movies, that I am sure that they were filmed, then digitally mastered.

So what?

[Blu n Gold]

Originally Posted by sean10mm

So what?

Nothing really, I am sure that when they put in the CGI it allowed for a solid digital master copy. Which allowed for a really solid blu-ray transfer. The Pirates movies are really well done as far as picture and audio go.

[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). The HD DVD was transferred to VC-1 whereas the Blu Ray is on MPEG 2 -- but both earned top marks from HD Digest. I can see why -- MI:3 is a reference quality film in both video and audio transfer. I am sure the Blu version (if you can find it -- I think it is out of print), is just as good.