|
||||||||
Vidfired B & W episodes |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#76 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Wigan
Posts: 4,881
|
I think I understand better now the point you're making.
I don't have a problem with it being cleaned up beyond what was on the "master tape". To me the removal of defects such as dirt and film scratches is perfectly acceptable. Why preserve a defect like a tape dropout or a hair in the film camera? These are the type of things the people who were involved back in the day would have corrected if they could have. It's not as if the originators intended for those defects to be present. The key thing for me is that the correction of defects such as those doesn't alter the original artistic or technical intent of the creators. In a similar vein, but taking it a step further, is the preparation of HD versions from material originally shot on film. The technical requirements for HD are there because it was film, but things like Spearhead from Space and the BBC's Pride and Prejudice adaptation were only seen in and intended to be seen in SD. That's all good too in my opinion. Those shows and others like original Star Trek and The Next Generation look great! I am so glad they went back to the original film for these. |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#77 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 5,045
|
Quote:
I think I understand better now the point you're making.
I don't have a problem with it being cleaned up beyond what was on the "master tape". To me the removal of defects such as dirt and film scratches is perfectly acceptable. Why preserve a defect like a tape dropout or a hair in the film camera? These are the type of things the people who were involved back in the day would have corrected if they could have. It's not as if the originators intended for those defects to be present. The key thing for me is that the correction of defects such as those doesn't alter the original artistic or technical intent of the creators. In a similar vein, but taking it a step further, is the preparation of HD versions from material originally shot on film. The technical requirements for HD are there because it was film, but things like Spearhead from Space and the BBC's Pride and Prejudice adaptation were only seen in and intended to be seen in SD. That's all good too in my opinion. Those shows and others like original Star Trek and The Next Generation look great! I am so glad they went back to the original film for these. So whilst it is technically possible to get a HD-quality image from 16mm film, it is much harder to do so because of the limitations of 16mm. |
|
|
|
|
|
#78 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: West London
Posts: 6,931
|
Quote:
My query lies with what should they actually call this, rather than calling it something that it technically isn't. "Cleaning up"?
Will that do?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#79 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Wigan
Posts: 4,881
|
Quote:
In theory film does have infinite resolution because it's an optical and not electronic medium. However, in practice this is not the case, because 16mm film is smaller and therefore much less detailed than 35mm film. Getting such quality prints for the blu-ray of Spearhead was only possible due to the unusual amount of effort in handling and transferring the film reels so that they could be scanned at their absolute maximum possible resolution. For blu-ray and online releases of cinematic films, this is much easier to do at the same or higher quality than the Spearhead blu-ray because the film stock chosen was not only of 35mm or 70mm variety, but also of a much higher quality in general than could be afforded from the budget of a Saturday teatime BBC1 family programme 46 years ago.
So whilst it is technically possible to get a HD-quality image from 16mm film, it is much harder to do so because of the limitations of 16mm. |
|
|
|
|
|
#80 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: West London
Posts: 6,931
|
This has nothing whatsoever to do with Doctor Who of course, but just for interest, in the case of Pride and Prejudice, i did the original transfers for its 1995 transmission, and for the DVD release some years later.
I'm not very happy with the original transfers now, although everyone was very pleased with them at the time. Viewing them now I think they look very red! When I had to revisit the programme quite some years later, to produce a 16:9 widescreen version for DVD release (the original transmission version was only ever done in a 15:9 letterboxed 4:3 transfer) it was a real budget job. I had to work with the original worn and buckled prints, and wasn't really given enough time to get the best out of them, or do any cleaning up. Also all the titles only existed on 4:3 tapes and had to be electronically aspect ratio converted, which didn't do them any favours, especially when the last film shot had to be included too as there was a dissolve into the end titles! On one episode I remember the last shot was a whole two minute long scene! Needless to say there was no budget to re-make them. It was not a good job in any respect I'm afraid. By contrast, no expense was spared when the HD Blu-ray version was produced (not by me sadly!) The original AB roll camera negatives were used, which is essential for HD transfers from 16mm. You're on a loser straight away if you try to use prints. The titles were completely re-made in HD of course, and all the optical work re-made electronically.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#81 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Wigan
Posts: 4,881
|
Fascinating insight, Dave-H. Thank you. As just consumer of these things, I'd only read review comments about the DVD release when the blu rays came out. I think anyone would appreciate there's always more that could be done with these things, if there was the time and the budget.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#82 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 142
|
Quote:
Old stuff doesn't have to look cr*p just because it's old. *sigh*
|
|
|
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 00:13.


