High Definition Transfers

Message

Godot · #26 Post by **Godot** » Thu Dec 08, 2005 4:59 pm

Hmm. So, what your're basically saying that we should stop investing in current dvds and wait for HD?

No, quite the opposite. I think the quality of the current DVDs, especially when progressively scanned (480p), and upconverted (as many newer DVD players feature), and digitally transferred to the monitor (or projector) via DMI or HDMI, will be comparable to the first round of HD-DVDs (when both are viewed on HDTVs). So I would wait on HD-DVD, until I see how their value (how many extra features they cram into the HD media, the quality of the video improvement) compares to the known value of current DVD. I think the additional elements necessary for HD-DVD (an HDTV, DVI/HDMI cables) will get lumped in with HD-DVD media evaluations as "proof" of the improvement of HD-DVD over the current media. However, if you were to use those same elements now, combined with an upconverting DVD player, I think you would notice an improvement on the current 480p standard DVD video quality.

Godot · #27 Post by **Godot** » Thu Dec 08, 2005 6:59 pm

And Mr Tribe why don't you marry Mr Godot?

Because I'd have to renounce my Republican Party membership, and membership has it's privileges*, which means I'd have to leave Orange County. I'd probably have to move to L.A. county, or (shudder) Riverside County. And that's if I could convince Tribe to move out here; what if he demands that we live in Toledo? I don't handle freezing cold and 10 feet of snow. And he hangs out with icky union scallywags; what, like CEOs, CFOs, CTOs and ExecVPs don't have rights? He pro'lly wouldn't let me watch FoxNews anymore, and then how would I know who's undermining our core values and endangering our troops with their treasonous whining?

This ain't fuckin' Oz, you know.

*Aside from the secret handshake, access to clean toilets, opportunities for promotions and pay raises, and real estate listings for all-white neighborhoods, I would most miss the covert gas stations set up for RNC use: fuel processed from oil pumped directly from Iraq and ANWR, and I filled up my Hummer last night for $15 ... that's $0.60 a gallon, dude. Put that in your pansy Hybrid and smoke it.

Tribe · #28 Post by **Tribe** » Thu Dec 08, 2005 10:58 pm

Godot wrote:
And Mr Tribe why don't you marry Mr Godot?

Because I'd have to renounce my Republican Party membership, and membership has it's privileges*, which means I'd have to leave Orange County. I'd probably have to move to L.A. county, or (shudder) Riverside County. And that's if I could convince Tribe to move out here; what if he demands that we live in Toledo? I don't handle freezing cold and 10 feet of snow. And he hangs out with icky union scallywags; what, like CEOs, CFOs, CTOs and ExecVPs don't have rights? He pro'lly wouldn't let me watch FoxNews anymore, and then how would I know who's undermining our core values and endangering our troops with their treasonous whining?

This ain't fuckin' Oz, you know.

Ya know, he gave me the exact same line the last time I proposed to him when I caught him crossing a picket line...

Tribe

Tribe · #29 Post by **Tribe** » Thu Dec 08, 2005 11:03 pm

CURRENT CONDITIONS
Toledo, OH: Light Snow/Fog and 25Â°F (-3Â°C)
Humidity: 86% Barometer: 30 in Wind: 9 mph E Visibility: 1 mi

CURRENT CONDITIONS
Anaheim, CA: Clear and 62Â°F (16Â°C)
Humidity: 30% Barometer: 30 in. Wind: 0 mph Visibility: 10 mi.

Tribe

Gordon · #30 Post by **Gordon** » Thu Dec 08, 2005 11:08 pm

Frames-per-second is irrelevent in a high-def transfer - right?

So when a silent film element is transfered to high-def - as with any film element - the speed doesn't have to be altered - right?

So a 16-20fps silent films will all run at the correct speed in Blu-Ray DVD - right? No more unintentionally funny Keystone Cops speed-up on so many landmark films, yes? That will be one less thing to worry about.

Am I right or am I right?!

peerpee · #31 Post by **peerpee** » Thu Dec 08, 2005 11:35 pm

A film is transferred at whatever speed the machinery is set to. Regardless of whether it's SD or HD.

ben d banana · #32 Post by **ben d banana** » Fri Dec 09, 2005 1:01 am

For you to fully realize the benefit of Blu-ray/HD DVD you'll not only need a new player and discs, but a new TV as well, correct? None (or very few) of even the recently released 1080p sets are actually able to receive the 1080p signal that will be output. It seems like a pretty costly undertaking, and I'm plenty happy with my new plasma and upconverting Oppo DVD player.

HerrSchreck · #33 Post by **HerrSchreck** » Fri Dec 09, 2005 2:13 am

zedz wrote: Frankly, a lot of major releases now are scraping the bottom of the barrel as far as extra features go. If they can't even fill a single DVD intelligently, I dread to think what they'll inflict on us in the new format (multiple hairdresser commentaries, anyone?).

If they don't find new kinds of quality content to present in the new format, that format is likely to remain in the techhead ghetto.

...Painfully true statement.

Most Basic Example: I love the film noir releases the studios are now packaging in deluxe editions. But how many more times can I listen to James Ursini, with or without Alan Silver, without hangjumping off a fucking ladder into the fireplace & end it all?

Hey Criterion? When is "PETER BOGDONAVICH-- A LIFE IN BONUS FEATURES" coming out? I heard Peter Bogdonavich is doing the commentary to the Peter Bogdonavich intro to the fucking thing.

(That flump is me falling to the floor from a head-bullet, self inflicted, anticipating looking at that man's glasses & hangdog face yet again in ARKADIN)

GringoTex · #34 Post by **GringoTex** » Fri Dec 09, 2005 2:31 am

davidhare wrote:Has anyone seen the "true" 1080 monitors? I frankly prefer 720p as a resolution on practically everything, PAL or NTSC, or even 1080 broadcasts. Maybe because the monitors have to downconvert to match the 768 vertical rez?

I just bought a Sony Bravia XBR 40". It's like nothing I've ever seen. Sold my 42" Panasonic Plasma to the neighbor.

denti alligator · #35 Post by **denti alligator** » Sat Jul 07, 2007 1:29 pm

I'm resucitating this ancient thread to ask a question I'm pretty sure I've asked elsewhere, and it's not exactly related to HD vs SD: when did Criterion start doing progressive transfers?

Rushmore, released Jan. 2000, seems to be progressive, but Cleo from 5 to 7 and Le Million, released May of 2000, are not.

Looking at the release schedule it seems that by June, 2001 they were producing only progressively transferred discs, but then there's the exception (Withnail and I [released July '01]). Also, some relatively early releases (besides Rushmore there's Grand Illusion [released Sept. 1999]) seem also to be progressive. (Or am I wrong about Grand Illusion? It's been a while since I've watched it.)

Were they just experimenting with different digital methods of transferring these films? Why the discrepancy?

miless · #36 Post by **miless** » Sat Jul 07, 2007 2:28 pm

denti alligator wrote:I'm resucitating this ancient thread to ask a question I'm pretty sure I've asked elsewhere, and it's not exactly related to HD vs SD: when did Criterion start doing progressive transfers?

Rushmore, released Jan. 2000, seems to be progressive, but Cleo from 5 to 7 and Le Million, released May of 2000, are not.

Looking at the release schedule it seems that by June, 2001 they were producing only progressively transferred discs, but then there's the exception (Withnail and I [released July '01]). Also, some relatively early releases (besides Rushmore there's Grand Illusion [released Sept. 1999]) seem also to be progressive. (Or am I wrong about Grand Illusion? It's been a while since I've watched it.)

Were they just experimenting with different digital methods of transferring these films? Why the discrepancy?

It has to do (I Imagine) with many things, but mostly budget.
The budget for the Rushmore disc was much larger because there would be more return on the finished product... therefore they could afford to transfer the film at a different facility (they probably got their own Spirit Datacine in 2001, as to why they were all progressive HD transfers since then)
as for Grand Illusion... they had been working on that disc for years, and probably gave it a larger budget as it was a labor of love (and a fantastic film)

denti alligator · #37 Post by **denti alligator** » Sat Jul 07, 2007 2:34 pm

It's hard to believe that conjecture, because it means that they knew of better technology and decided not to use it on several dozen releases over a period of almost two years. I can't imagine them saying, "well, these would look better if we did them progressively, but let's save some money and put out an inferior product."

arsonfilms · #38 Post by **arsonfilms** » Sat Jul 07, 2007 5:08 pm

It actually has to do with when a film was transferred and encoded, which is not always consistent with when it is released. A good analogy is the current trend of pictureboxing films in a 1.33 ratio. Kind Hearts and Coronets was the first 1.33 film released that was pictureboxed, but if you'll notice, a number of 1.33 that have been released since then have not had the same black border. These transfers were done prior to the changeover. Similarly, I would say that the high-profile nature of Rushmore didn't get it a better transfer, but it may have allowed it to be fastracked to release after the changeover, while other non-progressive discs from before were also being put out. Le Million and Cleo weren't given worse treatment, I'd imagine they just had their releases delayed after the transfer and encode were completed. This isn't at all an uncommon occurence in DVD Production; my former company sat on a couple of movies for a few years before they could financially justify releasing them.

Narshty · #39 Post by **Narshty** » Sun Jul 08, 2007 3:51 am

arsonfilms wrote:Kind Hearts and Coronets was the first 1.33 film released that was pictureboxed, but if you'll notice, a number of 1.33 that have been released since then have not had the same black border.

Not true. It was Forbidden Games (and if we're going to be really picky, Nanook of the North, The Most Dangerous Game and the M reissue were also windowboxed).

miless · #40 Post by **miless** » Sun Jul 08, 2007 5:10 am

Narshty wrote:Not true. It was Forbidden Games (and if we're going to be really picky, Nanook of the North, The Most Dangerous Game and the M reissue were also windowboxed).

M was not picture-boxed... it was pillar-boxed, which is an entirely different matter (it has to do with the original aspect ratio being narrower than 1.33:1 because of the UFA film stock with the sound strip taking up more room, therefore impacting the framing)

pointless · #41 Post by **pointless** » Sun Jul 08, 2007 11:19 pm

I've been amassing HD DVD releases for some months now and have just begun importing from Europe (love the fact that there is no region coding for the format).

davidhare wrote: At one point (only a couple of years ago) Lowy was using 4k ONLY for the "very special" projects like Kane and North BY NW. But the recent Warner delay of already excellent HD masters of North by Northwest, Maltese Falcon and a few other things raises the question again.

Have you read somewhere that they've been delayed due to problems or could it just be that they are waiting for the "right" time (to make the most money, I presume).

davidhare wrote: My biggest question mark surrounds fucking Studio Canal and their endless PALpitchglitch syndrome, as well as the flaws that show up in some (eg Mulholland Dive) transfers when ouput at 1080i. (They disappear at 720p - can someone tell me why? Same goes for some Paramount HD DVD titles.)

I have been worried about the pitch problem, but I've only ordered those releases that I've read reviews where the pitch problem was specifically mentioned to not have occurred.

Have you experienced it yourself? I've read that many folks don't seem to notice it at all and others (with perfect pitch, I guess) go nuts over it.

I haven't read about the 1080i vs 720p difference. I do 1080p from disc to display - would I hear the problem in this case?

What Paramount HD DVD titles have the issue?

Tribe · #42 Post by **Tribe** » Sun Jul 08, 2007 11:42 pm

davidhare wrote: the flaws that show up in some (eg Mulholland Dive) transfers when ouput at 1080i. (They disappear at 720p - can someone tell me why? Same goes for some Paramount HD DVD titles.)

David, if I remember right, you have digital upconverting capability on your DVD player. I do also. On occasion I have a similar problem with certain DVDs...some, particularly older Kinos, are only viewable at 480...others don't show anything at 720 or 1080. I've never detected (or paid any particular attention) any pattern to it.

Tribe

Narshty · #43 Post by **Narshty** » Mon Jul 09, 2007 2:59 am

miless wrote:
Narshty wrote:Not true. It was Forbidden Games (and if we're going to be really picky, Nanook of the North, The Most Dangerous Game and the M reissue were also windowboxed).
M was not picture-boxed... it was pillar-boxed

No, it has black bars on the top and bottom as well. Watch it again.

#44 Post by **Jeff** » Mon Jul 09, 2007 3:29 am

Narshty wrote:
miless wrote:M was not picture-boxed... it was pillar-boxed
No, it has black bars on the top and bottom as well. Watch it again.

miless · #45 Post by **miless** » Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:44 pm

from Criterion's "About The Transfer"

M is presented in its original aspect ratio of 1.19:1, a European process that is much narrower than the 4:3 monitor. The black bars along the side of the screen, called "pillarboxing," are normal for this format, and will be even more pronounced on widescreen televisions. The narrowness of this format is due to the variable density soundtrack, which was positioned to the left of the picture area.