When did films go HD?

[Just]

Wasn't sure if this should be in the other HD forum as it sort of covers both, but specifically for HD-DVD or Blu-Ray releases - around what year(s) did studios switch to recording films in 720 or 1080?

As it seems to me to be pretty pointless buying anything filmed before a few years back if they were not originally shot in a HD format, much the same as buying the Dirty Harry films on DVD hoping for better pic quality.

[Sammy709Sony930]

The *film* that they are shot on (albeit analogue) is better than HD quality, so they can be digitized to HD easily.

[Tempest]

errr, wern't most films actually shot on FILM ?

Only (possibly) a few very latest things would be shot on digital I'd have guessed.

One could say, even Laurel and Hardy was shot in HD.

[DeadKenny]

All films are HD just by the fact that 35mm film is far higher resolution than standard def TV.

In fact 'film' is higher definition than digital HD generally. I believe 35mm film would typically be equivalent to about a 20mp camera. Digital HD cameras are no where near that, nor is HD-DVD/Blu-Ray (which is only about somewhere between 1 and 3mp !).


Edit: snap :D

[Tempest]

Indeed, even our old family movies, shot on Silent (Super 8) Films (processed at boots for £5 for 50 feet) was HD in comparison with modern video.

I think many people don't realise how junk video is to REAL (old) film.

[bradavon]

As far as getting HD Master ready a good few years back now.

[R-T-C]

This is a common mis-conception that could hamper HD's market. The confusion mostly stems from the fact that some films are "shot on HD video" these days (eg. Once Upon a Time in Mexico), which really confuses people as it seems to distinguish 35mm film from HD.

[Just]

Ah, ok - fundamental lack of knowledge about film def then on my part - so as long as the original film is available and has been stored well then we can go back and do more justice to older films that DVD has done so far?

[GAmbrose]

Yes, much more.

Gary A

[GProject]

In fact 'film' is higher definition than digital HD generally. I believe 35mm film would typically be equivalent to about a 20mp camera. Digital HD cameras are no where near that, nor is HD-DVD/Blu-Ray (which is only about somewhere between 1 and 3mp !).
20mp is the highest obtainable resolution though, not an average - it would have to be a good stable shot, with correct lighting. I think I've read that the average number of usable pixels from film averages somewhere around 12-13mp.

And of course, we can calculate current US HD resolutions:
720p = 1280 x 720 = 921,600 pixels (0.9216 mp)
1080p = 1920 x 1080 = 2,073,600 pixels (2.0736 mp)

So there's still some way to go yet.

[RobDickinson]

Yep, the master film is typicaly very high quality, the prints you see in cinemas are usualy 3rd or 4th generation from that and are far reduced quality.

Wouldnt suprise me if a good HD-DVD is very close to a realistic resolution of some prints, albeit with differnent problems (scratches vs artifacts etc).

Digital cinema projectors are what 4kx2k or so?

[Space Duck]

This answered the question I was gonna post :) Does that mean we'll wait and wait and wait for yet more super definative editions of our fave movies only to have the trumped by the Ultimate super duper edition?

[Just]

Yep - one of the reasons I asked the question was while thinking about Ultra-def that is due out in another 5/6 years time, which by the look of it will be able to go even further if we have the headroom GProject has outlined.

[zantarous]

Yep - one of the reasons I asked the question was while thinking about Ultra-def that is due out in another 5/6 years time, which by the look of it will be able to go even further if we have the headroom GProject has outlined.

Remember HD has been around as a concept since the 70's and 80's but it is only in the last 10 years (in the US and Japan at least) been able to by a HD TV. I would say that you are probably looking at a similar time scale for any other format, the current HD format will be with us for a long time to come.

[cjb110]

What was that Japanese broadcasters HD demo from last year? that was at a stupidly high res. So high that it made some viewers sick (i think due to the lack of 3d to the moving image).

As far as i know one of the biggest issues is bandwidth, we don't have the ability to transfer the image data from wherever it is stored (and it wont be a spinning disc if its 20mp's!) at the 30/60fps needed. Personally I'd guess that higher res movies will be delivered in a flash memory based format, as it can reach the high bandwidth (just look at the geforce 8800gtx) and its not massively complicated to make.

[mdiver]

As far as i know one of the biggest issues is bandwidth, we don't have the ability to transfer the image data from wherever it is stored (and it wont be a spinning disc if its 20mp's!) at the 30/60fps needed. Personally I'd guess that higher res movies will be delivered in a flash memory based format, as it can reach the high bandwidth (just look at the geforce 8800gtx) and its not massively complicated to make.

There is already 4k digital cinema in action (4000 vertical lines in place of HDTV's 1920.... I think). Hard disc drives are plenty fast enough to keep up with a compressed movie (MPEG-whatever).
Affordable flash memory is not as fast as blu-ray etc.... but things could change, and 4k cinema would need at least 100Gb which is a lot of flash memory.

[cjb110]

ah this might be it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_High_Definition_Video...mmm which might be the 4k thingy...sony has a projector for but I don't think its got consumer inputs on it!! :)

[GProject]

ah this might be it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_High_Definition_Video...mmm which might be the 4k thingy...sony has a projector for but I don't think its got consumer inputs on it!! :)
It's a very experimental format though, as mentioned in the article.

I know it's wikipedia (pinches of salt at the ready), but that page lists the resoultion of UHDV as 7680x4320 = 33,177,600 pixels (33.1776 mp). It says it has been tested, but where could they get a full 33 megapixel source video from? I don't think there's a way to capture at that resolution, or anywhere close to it.

Also, I like the fact that an eight-layer Blu-Ray disc (200GB) can store 1 minute of uncompressed UHDV. We've got a way to go before this becomes even close to feasable.

[thescrounger]

Yep - one of the reasons I asked the question was while thinking about Ultra-def that is due out in another 5/6 years time, which by the look of it will be able to go even further if we have the headroom GProject has outlined.

Won't see any mainstream use for at least 20 years I reckon, if at all. It's a bit of an excess that won't see any use outside of cinemas.

[AWaite]

I know it's wikipedia (pinches of salt at the ready), but that page lists the resoultion of UHDV as 7680x4320 = 33,177,600 pixels (33.1776 mp). It says it has been tested, but where could they get a full 33 megapixel source video from? I don't think there's a way to capture at that resolution, or anywhere close to it.
I imagine you could just split the source (e.g. film) into, say, 4 smaller areas and capture one at a time, then re-join them. There are sites on the web with huge still images captured this way, so I don't see why it couldn't be done with video.

[DjSatansfury]

So why have some cinemas changed to digital projectors then? Improved quality over shoddy film reels or what?

[PockyMonster]

There is already 4k digital cinema in action (4000 vertical lines in place of HDTV's 1920.... I think).

For some reason, when talking about 2k and 4k its been decided this references the "not so important" horizontal linecount. why? don't know. and why bother with 2k? again.. :)

all this talk of megapixels with regards to video is making my head hurt...

[R-T-C]

So why have some cinemas changed to digital projectors then? Improved quality over shoddy film reels or what?

Partly this, but also to help cut the costs - it can cost several thousand pounds to produce an individual cinema print of a film, however with digital prints which come on a DVD style disc, the individual cost is negligable once the print is set-up in the machine.

This is useful for smaller cinemas who at the moment only get films once they have been shown to death in the multiplexes, and also for cinemas wanting to show old/obscure films where often there are only a few prints in circulation due to cost.

[GProject]

I imagine you could just split the source (e.g. film) into, say, 4 smaller areas and capture one at a time, then re-join them. There are sites on the web with huge still images captured this way, so I don't see why it couldn't be done with video.
Good explanation. Although for video I imagine it would have to be four cameras running simultaneously, not capturing one at a time. Unless it was a very static shot.

[fattyboombatty]

What was that Japanese broadcasters HD demo from last year? that was at a stupidly high res. So high that it made some viewers sick

holy crap! :eek: now, that's how you sell a format :lol:

"...So good it made me sick up all over my wife" - Paul Ross (The Sun)

[Sima]

My Stomach Had A Rip-roaring Rollercoaster Of A Ride!!!1111oneoneeleven11!!

[Lee Rose]

For the size of TVs that will actually fit in out homes, 1080p is good enough. Unless you live in a castle, a mansion, or outside. ;)