Printable View
I know this is the wrong section so move as necessary but I thought I'd probably have the best chance of getting it answered here so....
I noticed a 720p x264 of the 1954 movie Prince Valiant and since I'm pretty sure the original film never existed in that kind of resolution I was wondering ( without getting too technical) how is that possible? :unsure:
I'm glad you asked, instead of assuming. A lot of people don't understand this, so don't worry about coming off as ignorant. (I didn't understand it till recently, a yearish or so ago, myself).
Most movies (with the exception of recent ones like avatar) are shot on film, instead of with digital cameras. These films then can be scanned with varying amounts of vertical lines, that ultimately determine the final resolution. Therefore old films can still be produced on UHD when it rolls around as the next big thing.
Old films are still higher resolution than 1080p, they were made for giant screens.
From AVS:
"Film > BD
1080p is 2 Megapixels. Compare a 2 Megapixel digital 4x6 photo to a 35mm film one sometime.
While 1080p and BD are "high" definition for a TV.... they are extremely low resolution.
Imagine a 12 Megapixel camera in 16x9 mode. That's 4616 x 2600 compared to Blu-rays 1920 x 1080."
Movies were shot on 35mm film, which has a higher resolution then HD IIRC. So as long as the master film is intact and in good shape, they can make it into HD even if its an old move.
So older movies are only grainy because the film has begun to deteriorate?
IE787:
Check out Battleship Potemkin, Sunrise, etc. I believe Metropolis is due out in November?
I noticed that supposedly in wide release too.1927's answer to AvatarQuote:
Originally Posted by Aristocles
Just doing some quick browsing I found this which seems to say :unsure: that 35mm resolution is more or less the same as digital HD
http://www.filmschooldirect.com/samp...HD_vs_35mm.htm
Older movies are grainy because of the way they were produced/developed, degradation etc.
Also, will people stop saying film has higher resolution? Film has no resolution at all, since it's analog, and resolution relates to the amount/density of pixels. The answer I gave before was perfectly fine. HD movies are still possible because when being produced as digital media movies are usually converted from film into high "resolution" 4000+ scan line images/frames, then the resolution is pulled down to general HD viewer media levels (1080/720).
Listen up pedant:Quote:
Originally Posted by ringhunter
Analog film is spoken of this way because: Although "film is an analog medium, so it doesn't have "pixels" per se,...film scanners have pixels and a specific resolution."
Now while your delicate sensibilities may be forever dulled by such mannerisms, such is life...
Great. So we agree that your previous reply was all wrong, right? The film itself doesn't relate to the resolution, it's the way it's converted to digital viewer media, and it's the dependence on the quality/accuracy of the scanner that dictates its final resolution.
Since you started with the hostility, allow me to retort at a similar level.
I'm not really the one who needs to do the learning, now, am I?Quote:
Originally Posted by Aristocles
The question in this thread was clear. He wanted to understand how film pre-HD-fanatic era can still be scaled to a "high definition" resolution. Arguing that it's because those movies were made for big screens (which is a property of light, by the way), and comparing them to digital cameras only highlights an outstanding mind.