[rufnek2k6]

Hi, i was wondering whether there is a visual difference between films being upscaled to HD and films being FILMED in HD. Im thinking those being filmed in HD would e much better quality. Seen some of the content that microsoft/windows offer through media player and there is quite a difference between some of the clips.

[Jarrak]

Yes quite a big difference.
The upscaled picture is created from the original SD resolution data with all the missing bits "made up" by a complex mathmatical equation while the HD native picture has all the detail there to begin with.

[rufnek2k6]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jarrak

Yes quite a big difference.
The upscaled picture is created from the original SD resolution data with all the missing bits "made up" by a complex mathmatical equation while the HD native picture has all the detail there to begin with.

Thanks for confirming my suspicions. So does that mean all the classic movies (i.e. Original Italian Job) will be upscaled HD versions? and is this true for more recent movies or can they get proper HD footage from the original tapes?

[Jarrak]

Movies shot on 35/70mm film (that's about 99.5% of them) can be scanned into a computer and easily generate 4000 lines of information and HD only needs 1920 lines
Brand new HD masters are created from the original film stock with the final result depending more on the quality of the original print which can have a lot of grain, dirt and scratches. If you remember Lucas spent a bit of cash on cleaning up the SW masters before he added all new CGI effects and the same principle is being applied to a lot of the older movies for HD presentation. However a lot is not all of them since it's costs money and even some of the early hd-dvd/blu-ray releases have been taken from less than perfect masters.

[JimRockford]

Yea so when a film neg is being scanned into HD res it's essentially being downscaled.

[wullien]

Unless it is being filmed on digital camers.

I remember seeing film 2005 and jonathan woss getting excited about a film that was the first to not use real film.

Also I believe that BBC filmed Bleak House on HD digital cameras only

[Jarrak]

The use of HD video cameras is gaining ground in both TV and the movies.
The last season of Enterprise, Dead Zone, SG1 and Atlantis all use HD video and for movies Sin City and Revenge of the Seth to name two were all digital.

[Jarrak]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimRockford

Yea so when a film neg is being scanned into HD res it's essentially being downscaled.

In effect yes since the analogue film holds more information that the current 1080p/24 format requires.

[FINGERS20]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rufnek2k6

Hi, i was wondering whether there is a visual difference between films being upscaled to HD and films being FILMED in HD. Im thinking those being filmed in HD would e much better quality. Seen some of the content that microsoft/windows offer through media player and there is quite a difference between some of the clips.

There is a big difference between upscaled transmissions and a programme which has been filmed with HD cameras and transmitted in HD. You can spot it pretty well instantly. I notice it especially on face shots. A lot of the stuff on HD channels has been upscsaled unfortunately. There are some gems though such as Jeff Corwin's wildlife programmes and SG1 and Stargate Atlantis. Give it 18 months and most of the new series will be in HD. I can remember when very few programmes were in widescreen and that didn't seem to take long to take off.

[late8]

The BBC's Planet earth is staggering quality on SD Freeview.. so things filmed in HD look good whatever your on. The HD version would be even better but its all about the cost too....

In the 60-70's all you needed to do was to buy a Colour TV... Now you need a HDTV, a HD Signal from a HD Set top box and a subscription (BBC HD is free)

How do they expect the vast majority of people (Who now have freeview) to take up HD TV When you need a Sky Subscription of £15-45 PLUS £10 for HD + another £10 for the record option + a £299 box!!! that's ridiculous! - because of that HD TV will be a much slower start. Not to mention the fact that all the new 1080p TVs are coming out and new HDMI -even when the first one hasn't got going yet..confusing people even more. People (me included) are just going to sit back and not bother!

[Jarrak]

How much were the first generation 625 line colour televisions and how did that price compare to the average working wage?

I would not be surprised if that technology was as expensive back then as HD can be right now when you factor in inflation and other factors
Lets not forget it took years for colour to become the defacto standard and that was only with 3 channels not the hundreds we have now and widescreen is still in the minority.

HD will take a long long time and no broadcaster right now is even saying that HD is going to replace SD, even the BBC have only commited to 100% HD production not broadcast.

[m1ket]

the main issue is the quality of the negative thet studios are capturing the film from, if its an older film it may have degraded slightly

also if the studio takes the time to clean up the image after capturing it, removing film scratches etc

[loz]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jarrak

How much were the first generation 625 line colour televisions and how did that price compare to the average working wage?

I would not be surprised if that technology was as expensive back then as HD can be right now when you factor in inflation and other factors

That is entirely right.
Colour TV was very expensive when first launched, and sets remained so for some time. Though many (most?) people used to rent then rather than buy - remember when the high street was full of TV rental shops? - so that helped soften the blow.

[soulboy77]

Quote:

Originally Posted by loz

That is entirely right.
Colour TV was very expensive when first launched, and sets remained so for some time. Though many (most?) people used to rent then rather than buy - remember when the high street was full of TV rental shops? - so that helped soften the blow.

Yes, I remember my parents renting the same colour set for years. In the end they were paying 50p a month for the thing.

[Geoff_W]

The first colour TV I ever saw was a 22" Philips in a huge wooden cabinet. It cost £400 in 1968, and could only be viewed in a dark environment.

Geoff

[performingmonk]

This is why 35mm film will never die despite filmmakers having the opportunity to shoot with HD video.

[meltcity]

Quote:

Originally Posted by m1ket

the main issue is the quality of the negative thet studios are capturing the film from, if its an older film it may have degraded slightly

also if the studio takes the time to clean up the image after capturing it, removing film scratches etc

Further to the above, older film stock has less resolution than modern film stock. Modern 35mm film for example is considered to have similar resolution to 70mm film from the 60s.

Even if old films are scanned at 4k (4000 lines) resolution, most of them are unlikely to have anything near 4000 lines of resolveable detail. Some may even be no better than SD resolution.