Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion The Water Cooler Dumb question regarding HD and DVDs...

I've noticed there is a lot of old movies out on HD DVD and Blu-Ray...

I wouldn't think these movies were filmed, mixed or whatever in HD back in the day, so how do these movies get to be HD? Are they something like a remastered CD? For some reason I'm having a difficult time figuring out how a 40 year old movie can be put on DVD through HD.

There *has* to be a simple solution, I'm bettin'.

Film, being analog, has much higher resolution than the DVD. Therefore, they can get a bit more out to make HDDVD/Blu-Ray editions look better than DVD.

At least, that's what people said when I asked the question awhile back.

If that's the case, I wonder if the old, old stuff can be put out on HD....like the old black and white stuff from the 30's and 40's?

Thanks Ken, I knew somebody brighter than myself would have asked first!

The HD-DVD of Casablanka is really good.

Rick:
Ken is correct. Film has much higher resolution than HD video, so there's lots to work with from the old negatives.

The bigger problem is damage to the original films, either by them being dirty or colors fading over the years. Restoration work on the negatives, frame by frame, is painstaking but can yield beautiful quality HD.

I saw an article late last year(Popular Mchanics?) on the pixel amounts of SD/HD and film. Film has billions of pixels per frame and it is cut back to size for it to fit our meager big screens in the house. Kind of like when I back up a DVD from a dual layer DVD and shrink it to a single layer, when that back up is played on a larger screen than my own 36" crt it looks a little fuzzy as some of the content was removed to shrink it.

I've got The Adventures of Robin Hood on order and am really looking forward to it. First, it's a 1938 Warner Brothers swashbuckling classic (IMHO, arguably the best swashbuckler ever). Second, even the film version broadcast on SD TV has colors that are stunning. I'm eager to see how it looks on HD DVD. If it looks as good as I anticipate, I'll likely have to buy a copy. I only wish it were wide screen, and had a DD 5.1 surround soundtrack with a 20Hz to 20kHz frequency response. Oh well, can't have everything.

Jack, you'll be pleased to know that it does look really good for such an old film. I had it on HD DVD, and I passed it along to my sister when I was done with it. Some of the shots are actually very beautiful, fake color and all. The Looney Tunes cartoon included on the disc also looks very nice.

Also, I'll back up EFalardeau about Casablanca looking great on HD DVD. I was really wondering if I'd be able to tell much difference between it and the special edition DVD I had, but the difference was obvious.

I know what you mean about the color, though I wouldn't use the term "fake." The color is almost "comic book"-like in the way it pops which, IMHO, fits the theme and nature of the story. Having been raised on comic books, I like it. Also, remember this was 1938, which was a full year before Wizard Of Oz. The three-color Technicolor process was brand spankin' new. In fact, all 11 of the Technicolor cameras in existence in 1938 were used on the film. It all just all works for me. YMMV. Wonderful escapist, "good triumphs over evil" fare.

Just a quick FYI. Basil Rathbone, everyone's favorite Sherlock Holmes, who plays the villainous Sir Guy of Gisbourne, was considered to be the greatest swordsman in Hollywood history, superior even to Errol Flynn, who was no slouch himself. Flynn, by the way, did all his own stunts in the movie.

OK, one last FYI. Remember this was in the days long before computer generated special effects. The famous archery shot where Robin Hood splits an arrow with one of his own was done by professional archer Howard Hill in one take with no trick photography. Now that's some shootin'.

(Sorry. I just love the classic Hollywood era, it's actors, and it's movies)


Oh Thanks, Charles. Now I'll have to buy that one as well. I, too, have the 2 DVD special edition.

Just to be clear, I wasn't trying to use the word "fake" as an insult. I'm glad you responded to it, though, as that's some interesting stuff to know.



What a showoff. That's awesome.

I didn't read all the replies, but I'll respond with what I know.

Like others have said, film has a high resolution, how they transfer it is they scan every frame (this is what peter jackson did with LOTR), in HD resolution, make any adjustments they need on the computer (if any) to clean up the picture (frame by frame) and then release the HD version.

I wasn't certain how you meant it, but I didn't take it as an insult, Charles. At worst, one could assume that you simply didn't like the effect. And, I agree that the colors are more intense than realistic. For this particular movie I feel the effect was perfect, though I would understand if others felt differently.

If anyone saw and remembers the Warren Beatty's Dick Tracy movie, the colors in that movie were similarly unrealistic. However, I feel The Adventures of Robin Hood did a better job of it and was, in general, a better movie. YMMV.

Richard,

The HD and BR transfers that I have bought have all looked terrific. They are probably my favorite ‘thing’ about these new formats; I get to watch my favorite westerns and war movies without all the picture noise and mono sound.

I have to warn you though; the ones that have dated special effects look ridiculous. Sound is also quite pathetic in comparison to today’s standards.

If you are looking to buy any particular movie, let me know what it is. I probably have it and can let you know if it’s worth buying or not.

The etymology of the word swashbuckler is quite interesting. The term comes from the 16th Century and was used to describe a sword-fighting style using a side-sword held in one hand and a small shield called a buckler in the other hand. The opponents often fought raucously and swashed their swords at each other. Hence the term.

Later, the term became more generalized, and now refers to the fearless, romantic, archetypal characters we see in films -- pretty much always sans buckler.

Interesting! Thanks, Peter.

How does one "swash" an item?
Can this be done with office pencils?

Only if you get really angry with someone in the office, chess.

That was good!

We watched Rio Bravo on HD-DVD last night (Thanks, CV!!) and either my player wasn't doing its thing, or there was alot of trouble with the negatives. As the opening credits are rolling, there is a line of horseback riders on a dirt road and the dirt looks like it's on fire. The rest of the movie is rather grainy.

Scott

But the grain was faithfully reproduced, right?

When done well, an old film can look absolutely spectacular on dvd and/or high def. 35mm film has a resolution close to 6K (some say only 4K, but we've proven otherwise here at IMAX). The very best restoration work thus far has typcially come from Lowry Digital (now known as DTS Digital Images) in Burbank, CA. Grab a copy of 'Sunset Blvd' or especially 'Once Upon a Time in the West' and you'll be shocked at just how good an old film can look.

The basic process (when done right) is first to scan the original negative (when available) at a minimum of 4096x3112. This will usually be saved as a 10-bit (log space) or 16-bit (linear file).

At that point, you then have a super high resolution digital file of the entire film. But due to age, it's likely scratched, dirty, and the colors are probably funky.

The next step is likely to run those files through some sort of software that will detect and automatically remove dirt and scratches. Every place will likely have a different software package to do this, but most all work essentially the same way. The software will look at a series of frames (often up to five frames before and after the current frame) and can "see" the natural motion in the scene. Anomolies that pop up, such as dust, dirt and scratches, are flagged. Once it's confirmed that these flagged spots are not actual content, they can be automatically removed. (by sampling the pixels from that area in the frame before or after).

So...now you've got a "clean" digital file of the entire picture. But it's likely rather grainy (due to old film stock technology) and the color is still messed up.

Degraining isn't tough, but keeping the image looking sharp AND grain free is. This is where very sophisticated proprietary software comes in. IMAX has a system, Lowry does...there are others. Basically what it does is analyze the particular grain structure of the film, detect the moving imagery, and remove or reduce the grain. This typically is going to soften the look of the image, so you then need to re-sharpen the image. It's a fine balance, and needs to be carefully tweaked by the operator so that you don't end up with an image that is too soft, or overly sharpened.

An added benefit to degraining is that when the files ultimately need to be compressed for dvd/hd dvd/blu-ray, the less grain there is, the more they can compress. A grainy image is very, very difficult to compress. What many studios are doing now is running all their films, even brand new ones, through a degraining process prior to making the dvd's. A quick degraining pass makes the dvd authoring process a lot easier.

Lastly is color. When possible, the original director or cinematographer will sit with the restoration people and re-time the entire show. Digital color correction is LIGHT years ahead of what was possible even a decade ago. Restorative color correction can fix just about anything. When done right, it's a long laborious process, hand color correcting each and every shot, but the results are brilliant.

Sooo...in the end you'll have a 4K fully restored file of the entire film. That can be down-rez'd to standard def dvd, and high def dvd. It's most likely going to be recorded back out to film at 4K, which will create a brand new 35mm negative of the entire film. Which if they want they can make prints of for theatres, but most often it's done for archiving purposes. (Film is still the safest medium to archive to).

Glad you asked?



oh...I should probably tell you how a BAD high def "restoration" is done.

1) scan the easiest thing you can get your hands on...be it negative, inter-positive, or even a 35mm print at 2K (2048x1556)

2) run it through automatic dust/dirt removal (if your lucky), and likely no one will check it.

3) give it one quick pass of color correction to fix the worst color issues, and at least try to have reel breaks match color.

Down rez for dvd and high def...and start printing discs. The major difference being the 2k vs 4k scanning (which allows for MUCH better restoration work to be done). The fact that they most likely won't degrain/sharpen the files at all, and finally the color correction will be done quickly. A good job takes a long time, and time is money. There's a reason really, REALLY good restoration jobs are so rare. They're expensive!

FYI...the entire James Bond series has recently been re-released on dvd...yes AGAIN, but this latest release got the full monty from Lowry Digital. I'd hold out for high def discs to be released, but these are certainly the versions to buy.

Fascinating, Craig. Welcome back!

fyi...I think Casablanca is another Lowry job...the special edition standard def disc is quite spectacular as well. They likey used the same restoration file from the standard def release, and down rez'd to 2k for the high def release. See? there's good reason to start at 4k...you help future proof yourself! All the 4K restorations that Lowry has done over the years, will be all ready for high def release, and 4k in the home when that comes around. (not that it'll ever be needed, but to sell new tv's and such, it'll come eventually).

Like Peter said, that was fascinating, Craig! When I was in film school I was amazed at how good some of the "old" movies looked. Some silent films from the '20s looked very nice. In particular, I remember "The Passion of Joan of Arc" was stunning. I now own it on DVD. I also have "Once Upon a Time in the West," and was pleasantly surprised by the image quality.

And to think I almost passed over reading this part of the thread.

Thanks Craig.

When I gave my quick answer earlier in the thread, I was hoping Craig would chime in....but assumed he wouldn't since he hasn't been around much. (For those of you that are fairly new to the forum, this is only one of the reasons why Craig is so missed around here!)

I only hoped that he would chime in on the topic, but instead he "bonged" like some big-ass cathedral!

Excellent read, Craig! Hang out with us more, will 'ya?

Great read, Craig. You are missed around here.

Finally watched the HD DVD version of The Adventures of Robin Hood last night. It looked terrific. Was disappointed to find my ability to suspend reality, and be swept up in the story, has been diminished by more modern movies and computer generated special effects.

For example, in the past, when Robin and his men are "sneaking" into the Archery contest, I was able, without thinking about it, to overlook that Robin, et al., were easily recognizable, simply accepting that, though I could easily recognize them, none of the villains could. It wasn't even noticed that the disguise was more implied than literal (realistic).

Last night, I found myself saying "oh c'mon! The bad guys would know Robin in that getup from a mile away." And, of course the violence is stylized rather than graphic. "What? No blood spurting from those sword thrusts, no limbs hacked off and flying through the air?

Truth be told, I'm not certain which is the better way. The "reality" path is certainly more honest. But, just as when we changed from radio to TV ("theater of the mind" to visual reality), something is lost when moving from stylized fantasy to graphic reality. The ability to fantasize is a joyous gift. Perhaps that's why, since reading is "theater of the mind," I still love to read.

It would make sense that you younger people, though able to intellectually grasp my meaning, do not understand, emotionally, why I'm waxing poetic about the past. But, just stay alive long enough and you will. There is a price to pay for progress.

I've had the Robin Hood disc awhile but got hooked on all the special features included on the disc. I've been watching most of those over the past few days. Fun to see the 70 year old, behind the scenes stuff, IMHO. YMMV.

North by Northwest is another good example from Lowry. They do some very amazing work and is as close to HD as I've ever seen.

I'm a little confused what it is they are doing now that DTS bought them out. Are they still performing transfers and why did DTS buy them out in the first place??

I understand where you are coming from Jack. I still love a good John Wayne movie though, no matter how 'low tech' they are. The searchers and the the cowboys are still great movies and look excellent on HD.

Love both those movies, Mike. IMHO, The Searchers is a classic. Interestingly, my favorite JW movie is one in which he plays a very atypical JW role as a naive, not too bright, Swedish merchant seaman during WWII, The Long Voyage Home (although, The Quiet Man gives it a run for it's money). Since he's not the main star, and since his role is quite different from the norm, I guess one could say it really isn't a "JW movie" per se. I love it nonetheless.

Work has been beyond crazy. Beowulf was absolute murder...90+ hour weeks. I've not had time to stop by! Sorry!

btw...Beowulf in IMAX is real good. It's not just eye candy...Neil Gaiman proves again he's a great writer. If you like that genre, be sure not to miss it.

re: DTS/Lowry...I was seriously considering moving from IMAX to Lowry before DTS bought them out. I've always wanted to be involved in film restoration. I love film, and I love history, so it's a great mix of the two. BUT...when I heard DTS, a publicly traded company, bought them out, I knew it was the beginning of the end. Sadly I was right. They've laid off a ton of people, and now do very little restoration work. It's really sad.

That is a fascinating read Craig, easy enough for even us old folks to comprehend ... thanks and welcome back big fella!

I just did pick up my HD DVD copy of 'The Adventures of Robin Hood' no more than an hour ago from Best Buy, so therefore I didn't read your descriptive post regarding the movie Jack, I'll wait until after I watch this DVD.

While there and minding my own business in the AVR aisle a sales kid comes up and ask if I needed any help, I asked him if they sold the Denon AVRs ... 'Denon??, never heard of them, do they make receivers?' --- 'Uh, never mind.' --- 'Have you looked at the Bose 3-2-1 System? It's the best home theatre system out right now!'

Right then I remembered why I almost never make it past the CD/DVD aisles at Best Buy.

Oh lord...

And it will get me a nice commission if you buy it!

Scary, huh? Really makes one wonder how many uninformed folks are talked into buying a Bose system by these kids.

I thought that Best Buy did sell Denon stuff, I do remember looking at a 3808 at a Best Buy somewhere.

Probably in a Best Buy with a Magnolia tacked on.

Yeppers, I do believe that was the one Ken. I was down in Jensen Beach (30 miles south) a few weeks ago and that is where I looked at the Denon, it's a Best Buy/Magnolia store.

The fact that Gaiman was the writer is what's making me actually consider the long trek to Vancouver (closest IMAX, if an hour drive and 2 hr ferry ride could even be considered close) to check it out in 3D.

Up here Future Shop (and, consequently, their owners Best Buy) sells the Denon xxx series (up to 888) but I don't think I've seen any of the higher end stuff.

Make a day of it in Vancouver. That's a crazy trip just for a movie, but it's such a nice city...plan an entire day around it and go!

That's sad to hear about Lowry Craig. Their restorations are wonderful. I watched Beowulf a couple weeks ago. It freaked me out. I just can’t get into those computer animated “real” looking humans. Cool movie and great sound, but just too weird for me to really get into it. I wonder if it’s better in 3D or IMAX?? I suppose it would be.

Richard, if you get the itch to buy a 3808, 6th ave is doing the call in sale again. 1099 and free shipping, or for an extra bill, you get an extra year of warrantee. You have to call them to get the special price. It is not an on-line price.

Jack, thanks for the tip. I'll have to get that one. In truth, I like all J/W movies. Oh, if you guys haven't seen the Dirty Dozen on HD, it's good. The best I've ever seen it (and it's one of my all time favorites). Mutiny on the Bounty was great too.

I sure with they'd transfer more of the classics onto HD/BR.

I did a very loose and quick review of the 321 system my father has a few weeks back, luckily the hockey game came on and I cut the session short

I'm glad you didn't, Rick. Avoiding my comments was the right thing to do. I look forward to your thoughts when you've seen it.

I'll reiterate a part of my post that won't tip off anything about the movie or my impressions. The disc has a ton of special features. You might browse through them to see if any might interest you. Being the movie buff that I am, I loved many of them but YMMV.

I've got a brief story about the making of the movie that shouldn't spoil anything. Olivia DeHavilland, in an interview on TCM few years ago related a story that I loved. As you may, or may not know, having worked together on quite a few movies, she and Errol Flynn had some level of romantic connection. It has been rumored that he was very much in love with her, but she, though attracted to him and caring about him, couldn't face a life with the hard drinking, womanizing Flynn. Anyway, during one kissing scene, she was ticked at him for some reason, so she kept intentionally blowing the scene forcing a large number of passionate kisses. After any number of takes she was maliciously satisfied to notice that Flynn was (paraphrasing what she said, but close) "having a little problem with his tights,"

I don't know your taste in movies, Mike, so I want to be clear that The Long Voyage Home is more of a character study than an action movie. Great performances by some of the best character actors of the era.