You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
A weird thing happened yesterday. Happened to be watching "Raiders of the lost arc" on Sky HD. It looked awful. The definition was superb, but in the transition to high definition, several scenes looked as if they were on set and many of the props were unrealistic. It amazed me (and Mrs T) how "artificial" it looked. Many scenes looked as if they were on a set (looked realistic in normal definition). I've never noticed it with modern "made for HD" films. I don't think I'll look at old films in HD any more....or is it just me?
i've only seen a couple of HD films and I thought the same thing. Everything looked a bit real (rather than dramatic) - like watching a home video from a camcorder. Everything was in focus, and it distracted me.
I decided that it had lost the 'suspense of disbelief'.
Dave
Some do others don't.
Spaghetti Western collection look stunning in HD.
Anyone watched any of the Blu Ray HD remastered Bond movies?
Wonder what they are like?
Mad men is amazing in HD
I think it goes without saying that if you notice the picture quality the plot is crap :o) Having said that however, I do frequently notice the quality of the photography in Branagh's Wallander (standard definition), but in terms of evocative imagery rather than sharpness 🙂
has to be said, the film i noticed it most on was 'national treasure 2', which i was watching 10 minutes of while waiting for a takeaway to arrive before watching a better film.
lets just say, i wasn't distracted by the plot 🙂
Dave
I know quite a few prop and model makers for film and tv, and they reckon they now have to put a lot more work in cos HD, having about five or so times the number of pixels as sd does pickout flaws in the build or frame that sd would not have done.
My wife works in vfx for film and tv and she says pretty much exactly the same, and she's been on teams that have won Emmys and have been nominated for Oscars, so I'm just going to agree with what she says.:)
When did you last watch Raiders in SD on a big telly? ACE film, but you can spot quite a few less than convincing sets without needing HD and a big telly.
I'm still waiting for a HD TV to make me think 'WOW' as not been impressed by anything I have seen in HD yet, am probably alone on this one though
My 40" 1080p Bravia continually blows me away on HD stuff filmed outside of studio sets. The BBC Natural History series are breathtaking, but even regular tv properly filmed in HD is impressive.
I love my HD and would hate to have to go back to grainy, blurry SD!
HD is only as good as the source material.
Many people have screens too small to notice the benefits of 1080P - I saw a 22" 1080P set the other day - you'd need to be about a foot away or something stupid to get the benefit.
I can go round to a mates house and watch HD content and it's barely distinguishable from my SD content - it's all about the set-up.
For SKY, Die Hard 4.0 can't be beaten for reference material - with a decent set-up it's like looking through a window.
With regards to the 'looks like a film set' comments - 100HZ scanning can be a culprit, even to the extent of watching Eastenders etc - looks like you're watching it being filmed, not the actual video copy. I have a Samsung TV and the 100HZ Motion Plus is awful for normal viewing.
Kit list:
Samsung LE40A656 LCD screen
Sony Blu-ray
Yamaha AV amp
Kef AV speakers
Sky HD
Everything will look far far better on most HD TVs if you fiddle around and set it up properly. Usually just turning off a few gimmicks and resisting the temptation to watch everything with colours, sharpness and contrast turned up to 11 can make a huge difference.
The biggest culprit in making stuff look crap and a bit fake is the trend for 200hz or 600hz or whatever ludicrous hz options. Switch it on and your telly starts inventing extra frames of information for you to see in between what was actually recorded. The upshot of which is that a beautifully shot 24fps film can end up looking like cheap interlaced video. Watching regular European tv broadcast at 25fps on a telly that claims 100hz is letting your TV invent 75% of what you see. It might make some people think sports look better but it can make a film look like a cheap soap opera. If you have it, try turning all that stuff off and see how it looks (of course you might like it, it's a subjective thing).
I'm still on a 32 inch CRT and I prefer it to most of the flat screen jobs that I've seen, I've seen some amazing pictures on flat screen but not as many that would make me change my CRT,
PJ.
TV people were worried about this before HD came out. They were saying that they take loads of shortcuts with sets, makeup, props etc because they know the viewer won't be able to tell when it's screened on a telly. But in HD, they will. I think they had to remodel a lot of long-standing sets.
As for the film, well I dunno. I don't tend to buy old films on blu-ray though for that very reason. I mean how good can the original be? Most of my blu-rays are modern films which look fantastic
I mean how good can the original be?
Film even old ones is higher quality than HD tv.
Film even old ones is higher quality than HD tv.
not the sound tracks 🙁
I'm not arguing that HDTV per se is bad- - it's not. "Planet Earth" on bluray is incredible. It's just that I've been surprised seeing "old" films. Firstly just how clear they look in HD (appear to be proper HD quality, not a HD rendition of a poor quality film, if you see what I mean). However, mostly it's that the clarity really shows up lots of flaws. It looks like the actors are on a theatre stage rather than reality. To give examples for Raiders - In the submarine scene, you can clearly see waves through the portholes which show it to be hollow, there's a scene taken inside the sub and at portside at night which is very clearly on a set (whereas it looks "realistic" in SD), there's a bazooker that's clearly built using jubilee clips, some of the army vehicles paintwork looks like props rather than the real McCoy. Finally the lighting looks a bit odd - as if you're looking at somebody on a set rather than the real perceived environment. I've not noticed it in modern "made for HD" films, only the old ones where they were, perhaps, not expecting some of the flaws to show through as others have said.
Which is why they redo the sounds SfB.
Yeah tinners don't think anyone disagreed poor effects do just look that but raiders props always looked fake though just even more so now.
...the old ones where they were, perhaps, not expecting some of the flaws to show through as others have said
The "old ones" were made to be projected on large screens using high quality film stock. I suspect this is more to do with a general increase in film budgets rather than anything to do with tiddly "high-def" TV screens.
Yup there's very much that Rio, that now they can almost any conceivable thing can be produced in an extremely convincing manner for a budget equal to what rather shoddy looking effects did. Added to that home quality making these for more obvious and you have the above problem.
However, mostly it's that the clarity really shows up lots of flaws.
One of those 'be careful what you wish for' type scenarios...
In a Viz top tip style - Instead of purchasing an expensive HD TV and HD source, simply watch television without your glasses on. Then when something good comes on, put them back on and - hey presto! Instant HD!
As posted above - SD / HD is very much part of the TV terminology...
Old films were shot in celluloid, no pixel count, better than HD.....
does it make a difference if the film/programme is filmed in HD rather than in older movies that weren't to how it looks on a HDTV?
does it make a difference if the film/programme is filmed in HD rather than in older movies that weren't to how it looks on a HDTV?
^^^
Old films were shot in celluloid, no pixel count, better than HD.....
Yes true. But a lot of 'HD' transfers to blu-ray etc. are being done from crappy old prints rather than going back cleaning up the neg and then digitising it. Costs more that way of course.
Lots of films are still shot of film and then digitised for the edit, then put back on film for projection. The digital master can then be used for blu-ray/broadcast compression etc. Didn't used to be an option so many old films only exist as old prints, of varying quality.
Another element in all of this is how the material is compressed and sent to you. Different channels and different broadcasters/providers use different amounts of compression and many have 'HD' channels that are actually only broadcasting in 720p which your digibox/TV/Amp or whatever then scales up to 1080p. All of those hurt the way it looks too.
Of course all this is irrelevant to the fact that if they make bazookas out of jubilee clips, it might just look crap however you watch it.
Old films were shot in celluloid, no pixel count, better than HD.....
There is a grain size however.