|
Hey, so I have a quick question. I've looked through a few pages of this tech support and didn't find anything relevant, so I figured I wouldn't be bitched at too hardcore for making this, forgive me if I've missed something, as it was unintended.
Anyway, I'm a huge Bond fan, and they're on iTunes now for $9.99 in HD. But they're $4.99 for SD, and they weren't filmed in HD. So my question is: Are old films/movies going to *actually* be better quality in HD? I don't want to waste money when I could be doubling the content for the same price, unless there is a tangible quality difference.
FAQ for fun, not specifically relevant:
1. Hossinaut, are you an HD junkie?
-Why yes, yes I am.
2. Hossinaut, who is your favorite Bond?
-Daniel Craig!
3. Given this, how did you like Skyfall?
-It was a good transition, in my experience, but I'd prefer the storylines developed in Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace revisited in Bond 24 and 25, because I thought those were the best Bonds yet, and that their storylines were less cheesy, were less over-the-top silly like the old Bond villains were.
4. But Hossinaut, weren't the individual villains just as crazy and strange as the old ones in the new ones?
-Why yes, yes they were. However, the individuals are not the villains. Just like with Spectre, it was the group, not the individual, that Bond was fighting against, whether he knew it or not. This may not be a big enough of a difference to you, but it is to me.
5. So you must hate Javier Bardem's character in Skyfall.
-Yes and no. Yes, because he's pretty much the epitome of the cheesy, over-wrought villain that I am hoping the Bonds are moving away from. No, because I think he played a pivotal role in the transition from the old to the new. He caused the end of Judy Dench as M. I loved her as M, but I think she was also from the older guard. His character's role ended up doing a lot of the moving and shaking for moving MI6 away from the old and towards the new.
6. Hossinaut, it sounds like you like new.
-Indeed, I truly do. I think all the aspects of the new ones are better than the old ones.
7. So who is your favorite old Bond?
-Sean Connery, which is why I had to ask the question in the first place! <3
|
Old james bond movies if I'm not mistaken were shot with 35mm film. 35mm from what I've seen can be viewed in 1920*1080 almost crystal clear... 35mm film imo is better quality than HD unless your watching 4k movies on like a 4k screen.
so the HD will be vastly superior to the SD regardless of "filmed format"
|
Boblhead is right. HD and SD are both approximations of the source material -- HD is a better approximation.
|
Oo, thank you very, very much for this information <3 :D
|
On January 01 2013 14:53 deo1 wrote:
Boblhead is right. HD and SD are both approximations of the source material -- HD is a better approximation.
While this is true in theory, in the end it comes down to how good the HD remastering of the original content is done.
There are a lot of 'old' movies coming out on blu ray which dont look better than the (decently) upscaled DVD release (not every DVD is the same quality too for that reason)
In this particular case i heard good things about the image quality of the 007 blu ray release so you should be good getting HD 
|
35mm has "actual resolution" bigger than 1080p. Most new films are still filmed on film instead of "HD" so even the new films are scanned and digitized so the transfer from film to digital is the key part in making HD videos look good. In the case of the 007 series they spent several months doing the transfers and tweaking every bit of the film and they look amazingly good on blu-ray (I have the box set).
There's never really a reason to buy anything SD unless HD isn't available. Even in the worst transfers the HD will be better than SD.
From wikipedia:
The actual resolution of 35 mm camera original negatives is the subject of much debate. Measured resolutions of negative film have ranged from 25-200 lp/mm, which equates to a range of 325 lines for 2-perf, to (theoretically) over 2300 lines for 4-perf shot on T-Max 100. Archivists generally agree that 4k scanning of 35mm is more than adequate for archival purposes.
|
They're all shot on film, and then scanned and compressed to a digital format, with a good bit of post-processing in between. If the original source was in good condition, then you will most definitely enjoy the HD format more than the SD counterpart. The only way to make an educated decision is to find a sample of each quality, but even then it will vary between the films. I too have heard good things about the blueray 007 aniversary release, if that's anything to go buy, go for the HD if you can afford it,
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
