Not exactly overwhelmed by HD...

Forums › Home Theatre (including HTPC and EPG Collector) › Not exactly overwhelmed by HD...

1 | 2 | 3

534 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 5

#158350 20-Aug-2008 14:33

motogpnz:
Spyware:
NCIS is shot on 35 mm film, so the idea of using SD or HD digital video cameras is erroneous. The film is telecined into 1080p24 etc. No major US programs are shot with video cameras. Video cameras are generally only used for news and studio based shows, e.g., Ellen in 4:3 SD or Rove 16:9 HD (not US but proves my point).

That explains a lot. Surely programmes shot in native 1080 HD will be better than film. Haven't seen a movie or US drama yet that matches Rove or the cricket for image sharpness.

Most movies are shot using 35mm film and then digitised for DVD/Blu-ray and other distribution. Film has much greater resolution than 1080 pixels so that isn't a problem.

Some shows tagged as HD have a decidedly SD feel to them though. Not sure of the reasons for the variation.

old3eyes

9158 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1364

Subscriber

#158352 20-Aug-2008 14:41

motogpnz:
Spyware:
NCIS is shot on 35 mm film, so the idea of using SD or HD digital video cameras is erroneous. The film is telecined into 1080p24 etc. No major US programs are shot with video cameras. Video cameras are generally only used for news and studio based shows, e.g., Ellen in 4:3 SD or Rove 16:9 HD (not US but proves my point).

That explains a lot. Surely programmes shot in native 1080 HD will be better than film. Haven't seen a movie or US drama yet that matches Rove or the cricket for image sharpness.

I believe that a 35mm frame is about 20Mega pixels compared to a 1080P frame of 2 Megapixels. So in theory programs shot on 35mm should be alot better and can be converted to the next gen of Hidef 2160P ??

Star Trek TOS was shot on 35mm ans was released on HD DVD last year and looked great. Star Trek TNG was on NTSC video format and there's no way this can be made to look go on Hidfef format. It looks bad enough when it was shown on prime a couple of months ago.. Guess the tapes have deteriated over the years

Regards,

Old3eyes

digitalepsilon

41 posts

Geek

#158356 20-Aug-2008 14:55

stuzzo:
motogpnz:
Spyware:
NCIS is shot on 35 mm film, so the idea of using SD or HD digital video cameras is erroneous. The film is telecined into 1080p24 etc. No major US programs are shot with video cameras. Video cameras are generally only used for news and studio based shows, e.g., Ellen in 4:3 SD or Rove 16:9 HD (not US but proves my point).

That explains a lot. Surely programmes shot in native 1080 HD will be better than film. Haven't seen a movie or US drama yet that matches Rove or the cricket for image sharpness.

Most movies are shot using 35mm film and then digitised for DVD/Blu-ray and other distribution. Film has much greater resolution than 1080 pixels so that isn't a problem.

Some shows tagged as HD have a decidedly SD feel to them though. Not sure of the reasons for the variation.

I think the choice of format (35mm or HD) is an artistic choice for the director, producer and cinematographer rather than a choice of technical superiority. In terms of production costs, shooting with HD cameras would probably be cheaper, but wouldn't give the visual effect needed. In terms of sharpness, I can't see why recently scanned film can't look as good or even better than native HD video material. Film also has the advantage of being re-scanned in the future at 4K or 8K resolutions or higher as technology progresses beyond what we have now. Video-sourced material is largely resolution locked and won't look any better in the future even as technology progresses, even if you do upsample it.

Film and video (HD or SD) also produce very different image characteristics (chemical vs electronic sensor). For me, drama/action shows shot in video look decidedly more tacky and cheap than those shot in 35mm. For example, the BBC's Doctor Who is one that is shot in video (not HD yet) and certainly doesn't have the look of a film-based show, even with post production filtering they use to try and give it a film look. It is a good show, but would be even better shot in 35mm.

digitalepsilon

41 posts

Geek

#158363 20-Aug-2008 15:09

old3eyes:
motogpnz:
Spyware:
NCIS is shot on 35 mm film, so the idea of using SD or HD digital video cameras is erroneous. The film is telecined into 1080p24 etc. No major US programs are shot with video cameras. Video cameras are generally only used for news and studio based shows, e.g., Ellen in 4:3 SD or Rove 16:9 HD (not US but proves my point).

That explains a lot. Surely programmes shot in native 1080 HD will be better than film. Haven't seen a movie or US drama yet that matches Rove or the cricket for image sharpness.

I believe that a 35mm frame is about 20Mega pixels compared to a 1080P frame of 2 Megapixels. So in theory programs shot on 35mm should be alot better and can be converted to the next gen of Hidef 2160P ??

Star Trek TOS was shot on 35mm ans was released on HD DVD last year and looked great. Star Trek TNG was on NTSC video format and there's no way this can be made to look go on Hidfef format. It looks bad enough when it was shown on prime a couple of months ago.. Guess the tapes have deteriated over the years

Actually, Trek TNG, DS9 and Voyager were all shot in 35mm film. However all post production work (visual effects mainly) was done in NTSC video since producing visual effects on 35mm film was (and still is) prohibitively expensive for a TV show. The final episode masters of those Trek shows was always NTSC 480p format. There is rumours of Paramount going back to the raw 35mm negatives, rescanning those and then redoing every single visual effect shot in HD. To say that's a massive task is an understatement though.

AncestralGeek

91 posts

Master Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#158407 20-Aug-2008 17:05

Wish I had taken more notice.

Recently I watched a documentry about one of the major film studio's scanning all/some of its movies from film to hard drive. The operator was touching up each frame as required but while the speed of the scan and the data produced from each frame was mind blowing (about one frame per second, sorry forgot the resolution) it was also the software that was being used for the touching up. Scanning in 3,000 35mm slides at the moment and could really do with that software.

So much to learn, so little time.

bm12music

5 posts

Wannabe Geek

#158413 20-Aug-2008 17:12

How much of TV3 and SS is actually broadcast in 5.1. My amp always shows 5.1 channels input when on those channels but so far everything I have watched only has sound from the two front speakers? I'm using an optical connection from the HDi box

Geekzone

Want to support Geekzone and browse the site without the ads? Subscribe to Geekzone now (monthly, annual and lifetime options).

Rhygar

86 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 1

#158421 20-Aug-2008 17:25

spazz: I know people keep calling the transition from SD to HD as the same magnitude as black and white to colour, but you know what? I really don't see it. I see enhanced clarity, sure, but nothing that's particularly mind-blowing. Perhaps I'm missing something? I have:

A Sony Bravia V-Series KLV-V32A10, it's about a year old. It's 32" and only 1080i, not 1080p, and has a resolution of 1376 x 768.
Contrast 1300:1
HDMI switcher with PS3 and MySky HDi connected
Is the step up to a 1080p set with a 3000:1 contrast ratio really worth it? (i.e. will it change my picture dramatically?)

Is it possibly worth getting my set professionally calibrated?

At the end of the day I just feel like HD has been a huge anti-climax. Waited so long for HD content and sure, it's more defined, but gosh, it lacks any sort of 'wow' factor! How have you guys found it?

Have you watched a Blu-Ray mpvie via your PS3? I am continually amazed with the picture quality of Blu-Ray on my 720p projector. If you haven't seen a blu-ray movie yet, head down to your local video store and rent any of the pirates movies or The Fifth Element and you will be amazed by the picture quality.

digitalepsilon

41 posts

Geek

#158426 20-Aug-2008 17:40

AncestralGeek:
Wish I had taken more notice.

Recently I watched a documentry about one of the major film studio's scanning all/some of its movies from film to hard drive. The operator was touching up each frame as required but while the speed of the scan and the data produced from each frame was mind blowing (about one frame per second, sorry forgot the resolution) it was also the software that was being used for the touching up. Scanning in 3,000 35mm slides at the moment and could really do with that software.

The restoration project for The Godfather (to be released on blu-ray and DVD later this year) scanned the original negatives at 4K resolution (4096x3112) per frame and required a total of about 160 terabytes of storage. Gives you an idea for the data rates and archival requirements for these films.

cyril7

9075 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2499

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#158429 20-Aug-2008 17:58

Film and video (HD or SD) also produce very different image characteristics (chemical vs electronic sensor). For me, drama/action shows shot in video look decidedly more tacky and cheap than those shot in 35mm. For example, the BBC's Doctor Who is one that is shot in video (not HD yet) and certainly doesn't have the look of a film-based show, even with post production filtering they use to try and give it a film look. It is a good show, but would be even better shot in 35mm.

I did see some months ago HD technical notes for Produces that was put out by the BBC. In that producers are given the choise of 720p, 1080i and 1080sF. Interestingly for drama productions producers were recommended to use either 720p or 1080sF and for documentries, current events and chat show type stuff 1080i. Obviuosly the filmic nature of 1080sF was the draw card that drama producers liked, film like temporal characteristics but without the production costs of film.

Cyril

gavynz

3 posts

Wannabe Geek

#158449 20-Aug-2008 19:15

The difference on a 42" Panny PV7 when watching HD football(the Phoenix and the english premiership) IS night and day.

I'm talking 100% better here.

The prem(and overseas HD sports) broadcast in 720p is better than any local HD content however. Sky has completely stuffed up IMO going the 1080i route for the sports channels. WhySky why? I heard it was because of a focus group response, and only then because 1080i sounds better. How pathetic is that?!?

stuzzo

534 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 5

#158498 20-Aug-2008 22:34

gavynz:
The difference on a 42" Panny PV7 when watching HD football(the Phoenix and the english premiership) IS night and day.

I'm talking 100% better here.

The prem(and overseas HD sports) broadcast in 720p is better than any local HD content however. Sky has completely stuffed up IMO going the 1080i route for the sports channels. WhySky why? I heard it was because of a focus group response, and only then because 1080i sounds better. How pathetic is that?!?

If that is the case then Sky is broadcasting that 720p Premiership video as 1080i though or that's what my display indicated for the Chelsea/Portsmouth game.

So much for the "we'll broadcast it as we get it mantra". It's got to have an effect on quality and I don't feel the Premiership video is as tight as say the TV1 720p.

Samsung

Shop now on Samsung phones, tablets, TVs and more (affiliate link).

AncestralGeek

91 posts

Master Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#158532 21-Aug-2008 08:20

Do you have HD ouput on your MySky HD unit set to Pass Through or 1080i.

So much to learn, so little time.

timestyles

424 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 1

#158544 21-Aug-2008 08:56

stuzzo:
motogpnz:
Spyware:
NCIS is shot on 35 mm film, so the idea of using SD or HD digital video cameras is erroneous. The film is telecined into 1080p24 etc. No major US programs are shot with video cameras. Video cameras are generally only used for news and studio based shows, e.g., Ellen in 4:3 SD or Rove 16:9 HD (not US but proves my point).

That explains a lot. Surely programmes shot in native 1080 HD will be better than film. Haven't seen a movie or US drama yet that matches Rove or the cricket for image sharpness.

Most movies are shot using 35mm film and then digitised for DVD/Blu-ray and other distribution. Film has much greater resolution than 1080 pixels so that isn't a problem.

Superman returns (2006) was I think the first major movie to be shot on video, I saw it and the quality was pretty good, you wouldn't have noticed any difference between video and film.

stuzzo

534 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 5

#158551 21-Aug-2008 09:12

AncestralGeek:
If that is the case then Sky is broadcasting that 720p Premiership video as 1080i though or that's what my display indicated for the Chelsea/Portsmouth game.

So much for the "we'll broadcast it as we get it mantra". It's got to have an effect on quality and I don't feel the Premiership video is as tight as say the TV1 720p.

Do you have HD ouput on your MySky HD unit set to Pass Through or 1080i.

I deliberately used passthrough for the test. Was getting 576i on Sky SD ,720p for Freeview HD TV1, and the Sky Premiership was showing 1080i.

Happy to be corrected though if people disagree.

stuzzo

534 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 5

#158585 21-Aug-2008 10:41

Have just noted from another thread and from internet checks that TV1 Olympic coverage is actually shot in 1080i and converted to 720p for broadcast here.

If I'm right about the fact Sky is converting UK 720p sports to 1080i for it's broadcast then the word "irony" comes to mind (let's not debate it's context).

While a lot of the performance level of HD centres around the mathematics of mpeg etc format shifting must have a significant impact on quality. Oh for a single format. Maybe we need communism after all!

1 | 2 | 3