A question about HD Movies

Soldato
Joined
27 Mar 2004
Posts
7,653
Location
Manchester
Forgive me if this is a question with an obvious answer! :o

How are older films like Deer Hunter converted to HD? Obviously a film from the Seventies wasn't filmed with a HD Camera.

What's the process of making an older film into a much improved HD film?
 
fozzybear said:
Forgive me if this is a question with an obvious answer! :o

How are older films like Deer Hunter converted to HD? Obviously a film from the Seventies wasn't filmed with a HD Camera.

What's the process of making an older film into a much improved HD film?

It was filmed on 35mm reel which can be scanned at higher (HD) resolutions.

Even a few films today are filmed on HD camcorders, tape is still the favourite by far.

sid
 
Telecine. :)

sid is right. It will be a long while until the majority of film-makers are using digital cameras. I'd like to see them use this one though, when it's available!

Its worth pointing out though that pretty much every movie made nowadays is filmed, scanned, post-produced and then transferred back to film. Its kinda silly, hence why eventually, people will switch to digital capture.
 
Scam said:
Its worth pointing out though that pretty much every movie made nowadays is filmed, scanned, post-produced and then transferred back to film. Its kinda silly, hence why eventually, people will switch to digital capture.

I believe Oh Brother Where Art Thou was one of the first films to be entirely post processed this way. To give it that bleached out look. And back in the 90's, the scale of the job must have been pretty huge - IIRC each frame was scanned at 100,000 horizontal pixels.
 
banja said:
I believe Oh Brother Where Art Thou was one of the first films to be entirely post processed this way.

It's hard to say. There's Pleasantville, We Were Soldiers etc.. all had a variety of things done to them. I think O Brother was the first to be entirely digitally graded. A kind of milestone because it had no/little special effects. But i was talking generally, about editing etc.. It's all pretty confusing.
 
You're right I think. I remember reading about Oh Brother, the entire film was treated and overseen by the cinematographer for the correct look.
 
banja said:
You're right I think. I remember reading about Oh Brother, the entire film was treated and overseen by the cinematographer for the correct look.

I actually wrote in my dissertation that We Were Soldiers was the first to be 100% digitally graded and that was in 2002 (after O Brother) so.. :o :p
 
Scam said:
I actually wrote in my dissertation that We Were Soldiers was the first to be 100% digitally graded and that was in 2002 (after O Brother) so.. :o :p

Perhaps Oh Brother wasn't 100% done this way? There are plenty of interior scenes which may not have needed the same treatment.
 
Cheers guys. You learn something everyday. :)

I actually heard Martin Scorsese lsat night saying that he prefers to do things the old way even though filming digitally is much cheaper. I seem to remember that Spielberg isn't keen to change to digital quite yet.
 
fozzybear said:
Cheers guys. You learn something everyday. :)

I actually heard Martin Scorsese lsat night saying that he prefers to do things the old way even though filming digitally is much cheaper. I seem to remember that Spielberg isn't keen to change to digital quite yet.
Apparently if not for a little persuasion, Jurassic Park would not have contained any CGI dinosaurs at all.

Toy Story 2 is an interesting film to mention. As it was digitally projected at a number of venues, it became the first feature shown in cinemas not to have touched celluloid at all. As 24 fps HD video cameras become ever more popular and advanced, the cinemas will soon switch to digital completely.
 
A point that hasn't been mentioned is that reel has a higher resolution than HD camcorders simply because you can scan them at even high resolutions.

1080p is only the beginning, when then higher resolution formats come out, one can simply rescan the reel for even higher quality releases.

sid
 
All true, but film scans will never be as good as using a proper HD camera.

The process of converting from film to digital results in huge quality loss. Keeping the signal in digital from when the light enters the camera and is captured is the best way to retain quality.

Sky have a nasty habit of upscaling SD films and shoving an HD label on it, so watch out for Sky Movies HD.
 
Last edited:
sid said:
A point that hasn't been mentioned is that reel has a higher resolution than HD camcorders simply because you can scan them at even high resolutions.

1080p is only the beginning, when then higher resolution formats come out, one can simply rescan the reel for even higher quality releases.

sid

well thats true to a point, but 35mm still has a resolution... I'm not sure what it is though, but i do know digital cameras are now capable of higher. Think its around 10megapixels though... so yeah... not even close yet!
 
Jampy said:
well thats true to a point, but 35mm still has a resolution... I'm not sure what it is though, but i do know digital cameras are now capable of higher. Think its around 10megapixels though... so yeah... not even close yet!


I have heard that the digital limit of film is around 40MP, but that was just in a pub really lol,

sid
 
Resolution has long been one of the most contentious issues facing digital cinema advocates. The initial problem faced was that there was no real way to quantify resolution from 35mm film grains. However, the SMPTE Engineering Guide 5 goes some way to attempt this, by stating that a standard 35mm frame requires 80 lines per millimetre of resolution. As Sychowski (2000) explains:
“This means that 35mm film should thus be equivalent to 1,800 scan lines of resolution. Alternatively, given an over-simplification of one halide-particle equalling one pixel, academy aperture film would contain 11 mega-pixels at 4,500 x 2,500 resolution.” (Sychowski, 2000, p24)

However, what is important to note is that film degrades. A film reel could start off with a resolution similar to that quoted above, but after a few hundred plays the audience could end up watching at a resolution less than 1K (Sychowski, 2000). This simply will not happen with digital movie files.

There is an emotional issue in the film community when discussing resolution. Current HDTV is broadcast at a maximum resolution of 1,920 x 1,080 (Ive, 2004), and because of this the film community will not settle for anything less, as “...e-cinema should not just be 'as good as' 35mm, but substantially better, with 2K being the preferred standard.” (Sychowki, 2000, p24)

I thought it was easier just to copy/paste from my dissertation than to find the links i read it from :p *feels dirty*

Kinda explains why the production of this Red camera is quite exciting. Filmmakers really will learn to accept it as a viable alternative to film. (As long as the hard bit; contrast, brightness and colour are actually decent ;))
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom