How Do They..........
- Thread starter heeman
- Start date
Average grade 35mm film is approximately the same resolution (based on grain size) as the Cinema 2K format. Higher quality film was used for the higher budget movies, average grade film for most of the rest. Some films were shot in 70mm, which is more than 4x the resolution as 35mm, and Imax is 16x the resolution of 35mm.
So, the original content of the film is about the same resolution or better than the BluRay format.
So, all they have to do is scan the master film source with a high res converter to make HD content from old films.
So, the original content of the film is about the same resolution or better than the BluRay format.
So, all they have to do is scan the master film source with a high res converter to make HD content from old films.
Flint said:
Thanks Flint!
Here is another somewhat related question concerning the picture quality of a Blu ray disc........
Why are some blu ray's grainy looking and some are crystal clear. I recently purchased a Tom Cruise Set that was on sale. It has 5 blu rays and the picture quality of War of the Worlds is almost horrible. What causes this??
Sometimes directors intentially choose to have a grainy look to the films they make. That is an effect no different than going with black & white or enhancing the color for intensity. If the intention was to make the film look more like a documentary, or appear "classic" like old films, then the perfect BR transfer will reflect that effect.
A good example of this is Three Kings. That was one of my very first DVDs but it looked like shit. Gritty, grainy, over-exposed, excessive contrast, etc. Just awful! Having just taken the plunge into this new, cutting edge technology that was promising pristine, crystal clear, razor sharp picture, this was a major letdown. I ended up giving this movie away or trading it in on a video game or something because it obviously wasn't the promised picture quality of DVD.
Fast forward about a year, I'm reading an article in an HT mag that was about the subtleties of director intentions and the effects they use to convey those intentions. They specifically cited Three Kings and how its director, considering the nature of the movie, wanted something edgy - "almost bothersome" I believe was the term - for this movie. He didn't want people finding comfort or pleasure in the image they saw, he wanted grit, a rawness if you will. Anyway, it went on to describe how he purposely over-exposed the filming and how the gritty, granular look was precisely what he wanted. It opened my eyes to such things and, ultimately, I ended up buying that damn movie again on DVD so I could watch it again with my newfound understanding. I've since bought it again on BD. And yes, it still looks like shit. Clearer, grittier, grainier Blu-ray shit. But at least I understand and appreciate why it does.
:twocents-mytwocents:
Fast forward about a year, I'm reading an article in an HT mag that was about the subtleties of director intentions and the effects they use to convey those intentions. They specifically cited Three Kings and how its director, considering the nature of the movie, wanted something edgy - "almost bothersome" I believe was the term - for this movie. He didn't want people finding comfort or pleasure in the image they saw, he wanted grit, a rawness if you will. Anyway, it went on to describe how he purposely over-exposed the filming and how the gritty, granular look was precisely what he wanted. It opened my eyes to such things and, ultimately, I ended up buying that damn movie again on DVD so I could watch it again with my newfound understanding. I've since bought it again on BD. And yes, it still looks like shit. Clearer, grittier, grainier Blu-ray shit. But at least I understand and appreciate why it does.
:twocents-mytwocents:
Flint said:
Fixed. :happy-smileygiantred:
in lieu to Flints posting, i think that somehow, this is one reason why some directors want to oversee the reproduction of the blu-ray, and not let the studios make the full decisions on making changes et al.
In respect to other movies that look crappy, its a possibility the source isnt in the best condition, thus burn marks, grain, etc are noticeable.
My question is, if the master 35mm film isnt available, would they try to reproduce it using a film copy available to use? lets say those reels they use for cinemas back in the day? and who gets the go signal for such if ever, the director or the studio?
They use the best copy they can get their hands on. Nearly all modern movies are kept in vaults with records on them. Some older movies got lost in the mess and once the producers earned all they thought they would earn, they stopped trying to keep track of things. They didn't anticipate future generations wanting to own copies of them, or that TV stations would rebroadcast them. With those old movies, they get the best copy they can, or often use bits and pieces from all the different copies still lying around.
But most studio movies are there.
As for who decides what gets used, it is depending on how the contracts were written when the movies were made. Who owns the production rights? Who controls the qualuty of the content? It varies from movie to movie.
But most studio movies are there.
As for who decides what gets used, it is depending on how the contracts were written when the movies were made. Who owns the production rights? Who controls the qualuty of the content? It varies from movie to movie.
Not always. Sometimes a great director will give up a percentage of the profits to retain control. The studio often feels is it taking more risk by not having absolute control, so it wants more of the profits on the revenue which they fear might be reduced due to the director limiting versioning, editing, and so on.
The profits are often split among the writers, producers, studio, and sometimes the actors. The control typically goes to the studio, but if a director or producer wants to have more of the control, he might give up a share of the profits in return for the control.
By giving up control, the studios have less freedom in how they market the movie. They may not be able to rush out versions for different markets, like downloads or airlines, with the same speed and profitability if the director wants to take a month to edit and approve each version. So, the studios want control or they want more of the profits to make up for the risk of not having control.
By giving up control, the studios have less freedom in how they market the movie. They may not be able to rush out versions for different markets, like downloads or airlines, with the same speed and profitability if the director wants to take a month to edit and approve each version. So, the studios want control or they want more of the profits to make up for the risk of not having control.
Hell, look at Lawrence of Arabia, Sound of Music, and jeremia Johnson - those films were ALL amazing in the original format.
I thought of a good analogy for this...
Most of us have audio systems which reveal all of the good AND bad of recordings. They can make a good recording shine, and a poor recording sound like it is supposed to . For most of us, the audio chain in our listening rooms are higher resolution than nearly all of the music selections we listen to.
Video is approaching that same point. Up until now it was virtually impossible to for a home user to reproduce even a fraction of the resolution the original film contained. Over the next ten years the gear will exceed the resolution of the sources.
At that point, just like with music, you will buy the content you like to watch because of the story, acting, directing and editing tricks, and excitement - not only because it looks good.
I thought of a good analogy for this...
Most of us have audio systems which reveal all of the good AND bad of recordings. They can make a good recording shine, and a poor recording sound like it is supposed to . For most of us, the audio chain in our listening rooms are higher resolution than nearly all of the music selections we listen to.
Video is approaching that same point. Up until now it was virtually impossible to for a home user to reproduce even a fraction of the resolution the original film contained. Over the next ten years the gear will exceed the resolution of the sources.
At that point, just like with music, you will buy the content you like to watch because of the story, acting, directing and editing tricks, and excitement - not only because it looks good.
yromj
Well-Known Member
One of the things that Jan is opening my eyes to is older truly classic movies. We watched "South Pacific" a few weeks back and the blu-ray version has a "Roadshow" edition, or something like that. Somewhere, either on the sleeve or before that edition, they put a note explaining that even though that edition is the original edition, the original film for that extra footage in that version was not preserved & therefore the viewer will see a difference. Boy were they telling the truth!! The color is washed out, the detail is lost, etc. Just another example of GIGO.Flint said:
John
