Arrow Video - Macabre

[Playzocker]

Originally Posted by springjack

I think it´s wrong to see a movie with more definition than the one presented when we saw them on the big screen. As a whole, HD is good but only for the recent products. Sure, I´ve seen old movies in Blu-Ray and some of them look fantastic (Texas Chain Saw Massacre) but at the end of the day I keep re-watching them in DVD.

I gotta disagree with you on this one.

The 35mm prints deliver resolutions up to 10k and Blu-ray with it's soft 2k is really far beneath that. What I think makes a Blu-ray of old movies interesting is that all the noise, the dirt and the cracks can be preserved withour compression artefacts that sometimes even work as kinda DNR on some high-noise DVD releases ... look at 300, for instance. The DVD image contains way less noise than the BD, but not because they used a filter, only because the DVD compression just can't handle the pressure of that intense noise.

Apart from that, Blu-rays offer advanced possibilities for colors and contrast so even though the picture might not be the sharpest, cleanest, if the print and treatment is right I do think that even old, forgotten films can shine again

[springjack]

The 35mm prints deliver resolutions up to 10k and Blu-ray with it's soft 2k is really far beneath that. What I think makes a Blu-ray of old movies interesting is that all the noise, the dirt and the cracks can be preserved withour compression artefacts that sometimes even work as kinda DNR on some high-noise DVD releases ... look at 300, for instance. The DVD image contains way less noise than the BD, but not because they used a filter, only because the DVD compression just can't handle the pressure of that intense noise.

Apart from that, Blu-rays offer advanced possibilities for colors and contrast so even though the picture might not be the sharpest, cleanest, if the print and treatment is right I do think that even old, forgotten films can shine again.

What I said was that when you see a blu-ray at home you get more definition that you cannot see so clearly on the cinema.

You cannot compare the 2 formats directly...

Their are two factors that can be compared: color and resolution. Most casual observers will agree that, assuming a quality TV monitor, HD color is truly superb. To avoid a longwinded mathematical argument, let's accept this at face value and focus on comparing resolution, which is the real spoiler.

Resolution is the visible detail in an image. Since pixels are the smallest point of information in the digital world, it would seem that comparing pixel count is a good way to compare relative resolution.

Film is analog so there are no real "pixels." However, based on converted measures, a 35mm frame has 3 to 12 million pixels, depending on the stock, lens, and shooting conditions. An HD frame has 2 million pixels, measured using 1920 x 1080 scan lines. With this difference, 35mm appears vastly superior to HD.

This is the argument most film purists use. The truth is, pixels are not the way to compare resolution. The human eye cannot see individual pixels beyond a short distance. What we can see are lines.

Consequently, manufacturers measure the sharpness of photographic images and components using a parameter called Modulation Transfer Function (MTF). This process uses lines (not pixels) as a basis for comparison. Since MTF is an industry standard, we will maintain this standard for comparing HD with 35mm film. In other words, we will make the comparison using lines rather than pixels. Scan lines are the way video images are compared, so it makes sense from this viewpoint, as well.

HD Resolution:
As discussed previously, standard definition and high definition refer to the amount of scan lines in the video image. Standard definition is 525 horizontal lines for NTSC and 625 lines for PAL.

Technically, anything that breaks the PAL barrier of 625 lines could be called high definition. The most common HD resolutions are 720p and 1080i lines.

35mm Resolution:
There is an international study on this issue, called Image Resolution of 35mm Film in Theatrical Presentation. It was conducted by Hank Mahler (CBS, United States), Vittorio Baroncini (Fondazione Ugo Bordoni, Italy), and Mattieu Sintas (CST, France).

In the study, MTF measurements were used to determine the typical resolution of theatrical release prints and answer prints in normal operation, utilizing existing state-of-the-art 35mm film, processing, printing, and projection.

Conclusion:
As the study indicates, perceived differences between HD and 35mm film are quickly disappearing. Notice I use the word "perceived." This is important because we are not shooting a movie for laboratory study, but rather for audiences.

At this point, the typical audience cannot see the difference between HD and 35mm. Even professionals have a hard time telling them apart. We go through this all the time at NYU ("Was this shot on film or video?").

Again, the study was based on standard HD with 1080 lines of horizontal resolution. We now have ultra HD with 4,520 lines.

Based on this, the debate is moot. 16mm, 35mm, DV, and HD are all tools of the filmmaker. The question is not which format is best, but rather, which format is best for your project? The answer, of course, is based on a balance between aesthetic and budgetary considerations.

[Playzocker]

Thank you so much for posting this - there was a lot within I haven't previously come across!

And yeah, MTF seems like a better way to compare images than just resolution. You can upscale a VHS to 2k and it will be high definition but still look horrible. I think a major problem is budgetary cuts all over the place even with major productions. The last times I went to the cinema I was really surprised how soft the image really looked (digital projection excluded here), so of course, even though filmstock can look awesome, it doesn't "have to".

So, using MTF to compare "resolution", you really can't say "filmstock is 10k, Blu-ray is 2k" any more, that's clear, but having seen over 500 Blu-rays myself I know that resolution alone doesn't make a good transfer.

What I meant I was disagreeing on - and still am - is the fact that you only "need" Blu-ray for recent films. I have seen movies like "The Wizard of Oz" on Blu-ray and I wouldn't want to see anything of lesser quality ever again. So the question if we "need" a Blu-ray of a certain title cannot be answered by it's age or whatever, it's only the quality of the print and the restauration that counts.

[springjack]

What I meant I was disagreeing on - and still am - is the fact that you only "need" Blu-ray for recent films. I have seen movies like "The Wizard of Oz" on Blu-ray and I wouldn't want to see anything of lesser quality ever again. So the question if we "need" a Blu-ray of a certain title cannot be answered by it's age or whatever, it's only the quality of the print and the restauration that counts.

For me is just a matter of personal taste...

I respect your opinion and like I said before I also have some Blu-Rays of old horror titles. I find them amazing but still prefer to watch the classics on dvd. I bet that if we were in the 70´s we would have been amazed with the screen quality of a Halloween, Dawn of the Dead, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, etc. because we didn´t have the technology that we have today. I´m not by any means old, 32 years, and I´m very happy with the current state of HD.

The film prints have got more information because they were designed to be projected and blown up for a massive viewing. When you convert and mastered a HD movie you gather all the information from the film negative/positive. If that negative/positive didn´t have that much information then we wouldn´t have the kind of HD conversions that we have today. For me, the difference is in the human eye, if you see a old movie in theatres your human eye don´t get the same information if you see the same movie in a HD 1080p set. For me that´s the main difference to why I choose to see old movies on Dvd.

As I mentioned before, I buy lots of dvds and some blu-rays.
For now I´m only buying the classic horror stuff... I watch them and get a kick out of them.

Don´t get me wrong, and like I said before this is a personal opinion and I respect yours also.

[Playzocker]

Don't worry, I respect your opinion too and how you watch your movies is totally up to you.

When Blu-ray was a new format, every film cost about 30 bucks in Austria and of course I REALLY selected my titles ... well, to be honest, I don't think I bought a single Blu for that price. That was the time I bought US and UK Blus exclusively. Now, our Blus have also come to a "normal" price range, even though the UKs are still way cheaper sometimes (5 pounds for Surivival of the Dead, wow!) I also buy a lot of German BDs.

Since the format is cheaper and the price difference between DVDs and Blus isn't that enourmous anymore, I also accept Blus that are just "a little" better than DVDs if that's the best you can do with a film. CALIGULA is a good example. The print quality is really not close to being impressive, but I still got the feeling that it looks a little better than a DVD. What I don't like about DVD transfers are the compression artefacts and I haven't seen those on any Blu-ray (upscaled crap doesn't count ) and that alone makes the quality better for me.

But I also have to say that I watch movies via a projector on a 2,5 meter screen and the difference between DVDs and Blus is gigantic there. On my TV I can still watch DVDs without a problem.