Another day, another ignorant article about high definition. This time it's Peter Bradshaw, film critic for Guardian.co.uk, claiming Humphrey Bogart would have any cameraman approximating a "high definition" effect thrown off the set. Blatantly ignoring the fact that movies of that era were made on 35mm film with more resolution than even 1080p Blu-ray can display, Bradshaw claims that instead of a HDTV, viewers would be better off with a standard definition projector and DVDs. This is all in response to a recent Sky ad campaign (check out the video with Sir Anthony Hopkins dropping in Rutger Hauer's Blade Runner monologue after the break, plus the original) promoting the broadcaster's new HD transfers, allowing home viewing of many older films in quality that would be impossible unless you'd seen it the first week in theaters, and with sound that likely surpasses anything available at the time. What someone should explain to Mr. Bradshaw and so many others with this misconception is that HDTV allows us to see the movie closer to the way it was meant to be seen when it was originally mastered, with all the detail that was present. Provided a high quality transfer, there's plenty of reasons to catch old flicks in a new format, so spread the word.
Well, in his defense ... if the movie is good enough, it shouldn't matter what you watch it on.
Now, what bothers me are when people watch movies in high definition 120hz setting that makes them look like hi-def video. Stores have their TVs set like that to attract buyers. It's good for Sports, Nature, video Sitcoms, News programs, but for film movies, it makes them look like a home movie with good lighting. Please use the 24p mode, the way film was intended.
That's true to some extent. A crap movie is still crap in HD. Resident Evil, Alien vs Predators or Underworld (for example) would still be steaming piles of crap even if they were projected onto the side of a mountain.
But if you're watching a *good* movie, why not benefit from seeing it with the biggest screen and the highest definition you can see it in. Even older movies can benefit massively from HD in the detail they reveal. I really don't understand why a movie reviewer of all people would be against HD. Does this person derive no additional benefit from watching a movie in a theatre as opposed to on DVD?
The only good thing about 24p is that these 120Hz TVs happily convert it to 48fps. How they then update the screen smoothly I do not know, nor care, but it looks infinitely more pleasant than 24fps. I hate going to the cinema now, its juddery, blurry and too dull. I really do not understand cinema purists as in my opinion, modern HDTVs are far superior, much more comfortable on the eyes.
Sure, there are artifacts as inventing none-existent frames can never be perfect, but at 24fps there is such drastic differences from one frame to the next that I feel dizzy and you can't make out the detail in the scene anyway (this is at the cinema as well as HDTV). The higher the frame-rate, the smoother the transition, the more detail you can perceive. There is even talk of Hollywood adopting 48fps as soon as its cost effective to do so. People forget, 24fps only exists because it was the worst frame-rate they could get away with, it was about money, the cost of film, how quickly the camera can expose the film, it was NEVER about being the best frame-rate for human viewing. Just like how MP3 is "good enough" for most people, its not ideal by any means, as is 24fps.
I prefer to watch any movie in HD format, but there are times when I don't have that ability to do so and watching an older movie on an older TV is fine by me when I get involved in the story.
Sometimes when a picture is too good, you stop and say to yourself "Wow, this picture quality looks really good." This brings you out of the story if only for a moment. Of course, you can say the opposite if you got some old VCR copy of a movie with scan lines and snow and be like "Wow, this picture quality is crap."
I'm a movie buff and HD enthusiast (which is why I visit this site), but I'm just saying I think I know where he's coming from. I think it's like when people compare vinyls to CDs. Some love the analog, while others can't stand it and need the digital remastering.
With all that said, this critic really doesn't deserve that much defense because of his anger towards HD. It's as if he's comparing HD viewing to colorizing b&w movies or dubbing foreign films or Pan & Scan. Like it was already stated in the blog, HD does make films of the past appear more like they were intended. There are many older Hitchcock films that I wish were remastered in HD and I'm sure Hitchcock would love it too. No offense to Bogart, but he wasn't the director.
I think Peter Bradshaw just remembers watching movies on an old round, blurry television and wishes that all were shown like that to bring back his childhood days. I'm sure he doesn't mind these comments, since we are just criticizing a critic and how can he be upset with that?
it doesnt matter if you feed a 120hz tv 24, 30, or 60fps- it's still going to be displayed @ 120hz. i think what bothers you is the dejudder processing, as TVs set in retail demo modes usually have this at full strength.
24 fps is not the frame rate of film choice because the studios were pinch pennies. It's because that's an ideal frame rate for the optical illusion that is moving pictures. Also, 120 hz was originally intended for video games. And that's what it's great for. Movies, not so much. Wave your hand in front of your face. There is motion blur. Because our eyes see motion blur. The crisp lines around everything in 120hz makes everything feel cheap and video-y. 120hz was put into blurays to sell TV's and blurays. It's just marketing. They know some videophiles will adopt whatever they put out. But HD is better resolution. If you want a projected theater experience, buy a f*#king HD projector, you boneheads. Take a wild guess if an HD projector looks better than an SD.
"What someone should explain to Mr. Bradshaw and so many others......"
When you're at the point of advocating sitting people down to lecture them about how they ought to be appreciating this correctly you really ought to be seeing that something is wrong.
I like HD. Really, I do. But the current wholesale pretense that simply affixing the label 'HD' to anything makes it great is part of where this is all going wrong.
I've seen great Blu-rays, HD DVDs, HD TV and .mkv encodes.
But more than a few are barely any better than an upscaled DVD.
High Definition once came to broadcast TV for free (when we in Europe went from 425 line TV to 625). Now corporate greed ensures it is treated not only as a high ticket item to buy in the form of the HD TV (that was the case before) but we are also expected to pay a premium for the channels delivering HD content & any pre-recorded content we buy. This is new and IMHO responsible for the low take-up.
People can make a big deal about %'s if they like but the real 'give-away' is how they avoid the specific numbers like the plague.
For most people most of the time HD really isn't that big a deal and by charging the premium currently expected they are merely ensuring that take-up is happening at a crawl.
I think what the Guardian's film critic is saying is that the best films do not need flashy effects, they are carried by the strength and quality of the writing, directing and acting. IMHO in stark contrast to the almost 100% shallow infantile dross Hollywood rots minds with today.
Just an FYI. 625 lines is not an official HDTV format. 720 is the minimum.
I agree on marketing people calling everything HD. HD radio is the worse, since it's lower fidelity than standard CD. And then there's the HD sunglasses... Sheesh.
Explaining to an ignorant "expert" with a pulpit that home video formats are still trying to catch up to 35mm is an occasionally necessary public service.
miko34, I read a big review on the new 120/240Hz sets and the gist of it was that since Film is 24 fps and TV 60 fps it's a point that becomes moot in the long run. I have a 1080p24/30/60 DLP and the only time I see motion blur or any deficiency is when the maker of the disc (DVD's Un-upscaled via Component look great on DLP) puts little care in the pressing/processing or the program provider, can be at many levels, puts too much compression on it. Otherwise all is just great with my lowly 1080p24/30/60. As I rant below (post on EngadgetPrime).
What I don't get, and it's probably something stupid simple or just plain fraud, is how they show split screen comparisons of 60HZ vs 120Hz on the same screen. Huh?! If it's a 60Hz screen the 120 should look like crap. If it's a 120, then the 60 is a degraded and inaccurate representation? That's false advertising, isn't it?
As to the main topic and as I posted (with a bit of editing) to it on EngagdetPrime:
Two nights ago I stumbled on "The Road to Hong Kong" with Bing Crosby, Bob Hope and Joan Collins on HBO in HD. It was amazing! I was captivated by the beauty of it even though it was in black & white AND I have DISH which is having a picture quality problem that is not rendering blacks properly. Even with this malady, and it was 1080"i" it was incredible and I don't usually watch these kinds of movies. But this was a treat, I felt like I was in a gallery staring at a masterpiece. It was just plain Nutz! Well then so am I.
I have watched it several times since and it gets better each time. This will greatly influence my Blu-Ray purchases in the future. But as sighted, it now up to the studios and what care they take or put into the transfers that will make or break this venue.
Also I realized that it fit the screen perfectly, no letter boxing, which also made me realize that the original was in Cinemascope which means that the master was probably 2.35:1. So the ends of this were cut off since it was 16:9. This means HD is the new SD and 2.35:1 (whatever that may be termed) is the new HD. I have seen an ad for a new 2.35:1 LCD hitting the market this Fall. 16:9 HD is already obsolete.
I see no problems with transferring older movies because I have seen several that were a good cross section of the genre that were just perfect. And as it has been pointed out the 35mm masters of these films can produce a resolution that's beyond Blu-Ray. So . . .
In the end it's all in the studios court as to how much care they take. As consumers, it's up to us to keep the pressure on for the best that they can give. Or all we're gonna get is Red Tinted, Over Priced, Pocket-Book looking, Wall Mountable Blu-Ray players.
Before (review by an old, outdated, movie reviewer):
"Scorsese is able to get a great performance out of both Pitt and Jolie, but in the end the film is hampered by a tired plot, which is both predictable and monotonous. While not his best work, Scorsese has, at least, asked questions that other filmmakers flinch from"
After (review by EngadgetHD reader):
"The fonts on the opening credits are particularly crisp, and good use is made of objects with sharp edges. Also there's an awesome explosion in the middle, and you can see each ball of fire as it expands in its firey red and blackness. I liked the sound too, they're making great use of all seven channels, and there's good use of the subwoofer. All in all, a great movie."
If you need HD to enjoy the movie, it's a bad movie. Just saying.
I agree with him that I would rather watch movies at home on a standard-def front projector than a ~40-60 inch flat panel HDTV (I have both, BTW). Once you watch a movie on a 10ft screen in your living room, there's no going back, regardless of the number of Ps (480p/720p/1080p/etc).
It's all the same to me. The first time I saw a feature from the 35mm copy I was mesmorized. The same thing happened a few years later when I saw my first HD movie.
If this guy is going to start selling 35mm prints of old movies, he has a point. I cannot help that HDTV's and Blu-ray is the coming format. Don't blame the consumers for the way the studios do to movies and how they decide to mass produce them.
As bad as the acting of the old movies, I don't blame him. I wouldn't watch it on SD, how much more on HD. I'm sorry, but even if the story line was good, the acting was just bad. Too much over emphasis on the emotion rather than appearing natural.
It's amazing to see the sheer lack of knowledge on this board. 1080p good. Old Movies Good. SD Bad. For one thing American Standard Definition is NTSC. Which is a pretty awful standard. Everything bleeds, esp. Red. The europeans call it "Never The Same Color". And they're right. No two NTSC sets have the same color reproduction. Even the same models have to be individually calibrated to match. I make film and video and trust me SD is garbage.
The logic of (and I'm paraphrasing) "if the movie is good enough the resolution shouldn't matter" is ridiculous. Then put saran wrap over your TV to protect it. The resolution doesn't matter. That's crazy.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
posted July 16th 2009 6:51PM
Well, in his defense ... if the movie is good enough, it shouldn't matter what you watch it on.
Now, what bothers me are when people watch movies in high definition 120hz setting that makes them look like hi-def video. Stores have their TVs set like that to attract buyers. It's good for Sports, Nature, video Sitcoms, News programs, but for film movies, it makes them look like a home movie with good lighting. Please use the 24p mode, the way film was intended.
That's true to some extent. A crap movie is still crap in HD. Resident Evil, Alien vs Predators or Underworld (for example) would still be steaming piles of crap even if they were projected onto the side of a mountain.
But if you're watching a *good* movie, why not benefit from seeing it with the biggest screen and the highest definition you can see it in. Even older movies can benefit massively from HD in the detail they reveal. I really don't understand why a movie reviewer of all people would be against HD. Does this person derive no additional benefit from watching a movie in a theatre as opposed to on DVD?
The only good thing about 24p is that these 120Hz TVs happily convert it to 48fps. How they then update the screen smoothly I do not know, nor care, but it looks infinitely more pleasant than 24fps. I hate going to the cinema now, its juddery, blurry and too dull. I really do not understand cinema purists as in my opinion, modern HDTVs are far superior, much more comfortable on the eyes.
Sure, there are artifacts as inventing none-existent frames can never be perfect, but at 24fps there is such drastic differences from one frame to the next that I feel dizzy and you can't make out the detail in the scene anyway (this is at the cinema as well as HDTV). The higher the frame-rate, the smoother the transition, the more detail you can perceive. There is even talk of Hollywood adopting 48fps as soon as its cost effective to do so. People forget, 24fps only exists because it was the worst frame-rate they could get away with, it was about money, the cost of film, how quickly the camera can expose the film, it was NEVER about being the best frame-rate for human viewing. Just like how MP3 is "good enough" for most people, its not ideal by any means, as is 24fps.
I prefer to watch any movie in HD format, but there are times when I don't have that ability to do so and watching an older movie on an older TV is fine by me when I get involved in the story.
Sometimes when a picture is too good, you stop and say to yourself "Wow, this picture quality looks really good." This brings you out of the story if only for a moment. Of course, you can say the opposite if you got some old VCR copy of a movie with scan lines and snow and be like "Wow, this picture quality is crap."
I'm a movie buff and HD enthusiast (which is why I visit this site), but I'm just saying I think I know where he's coming from. I think it's like when people compare vinyls to CDs. Some love the analog, while others can't stand it and need the digital remastering.
With all that said, this critic really doesn't deserve that much defense because of his anger towards HD. It's as if he's comparing HD viewing to colorizing b&w movies or dubbing foreign films or Pan & Scan. Like it was already stated in the blog, HD does make films of the past appear more like they were intended. There are many older Hitchcock films that I wish were remastered in HD and I'm sure Hitchcock would love it too. No offense to Bogart, but he wasn't the director.
I think Peter Bradshaw just remembers watching movies on an old round, blurry television and wishes that all were shown like that to bring back his childhood days. I'm sure he doesn't mind these comments, since we are just criticizing a critic and how can he be upset with that?
it doesnt matter if you feed a 120hz tv 24, 30, or 60fps- it's still going to be displayed @ 120hz. i think what bothers you is the dejudder processing, as TVs set in retail demo modes usually have this at full strength.
24 fps is not the frame rate of film choice because the studios were pinch pennies. It's because that's an ideal frame rate for the optical illusion that is moving pictures. Also, 120 hz was originally intended for video games. And that's what it's great for. Movies, not so much. Wave your hand in front of your face. There is motion blur. Because our eyes see motion blur. The crisp lines around everything in 120hz makes everything feel cheap and video-y. 120hz was put into blurays to sell TV's and blurays. It's just marketing. They know some videophiles will adopt whatever they put out. But HD is better resolution. If you want a projected theater experience, buy a f*#king HD projector, you boneheads. Take a wild guess if an HD projector looks better than an SD.
"What someone should explain to Mr. Bradshaw and so many others......"
When you're at the point of advocating sitting people down to lecture them about how they ought to be appreciating this correctly you really ought to be seeing that something is wrong.
I like HD.
Really, I do.
But the current wholesale pretense that simply affixing the label 'HD' to anything makes it great is part of where this is all going wrong.
I've seen great Blu-rays, HD DVDs, HD TV and .mkv encodes.
But more than a few are barely any better than an upscaled DVD.
High Definition once came to broadcast TV for free (when we in Europe went from 425 line TV to 625).
Now corporate greed ensures it is treated not only as a high ticket item to buy in the form of the HD TV (that was the case before) but we are also expected to pay a premium for the channels delivering HD content & any pre-recorded content we buy.
This is new and IMHO responsible for the low take-up.
People can make a big deal about %'s if they like but the real 'give-away' is how they avoid the specific numbers like the plague.
For most people most of the time HD really isn't that big a deal and by charging the premium currently expected they are merely ensuring that take-up is happening at a crawl.
I think what the Guardian's film critic is saying is that the best films do not need flashy effects, they are carried by the strength and quality of the writing, directing and acting.
IMHO in stark contrast to the almost 100% shallow infantile dross Hollywood rots minds with today.
Just an FYI. 625 lines is not an official HDTV format. 720 is the minimum.
I agree on marketing people calling everything HD. HD radio is the worse, since it's lower fidelity than standard CD. And then there's the HD sunglasses... Sheesh.
-Pie
Just for your information pie, I was specifically referring to the last time here in Europe we saw TV resolution leap (from 425 - 625 lines).
It might not be called HD today but back then it was analogeous to what is happening now.
Was that really so difficult for you to see & understand?
@MFM
Lecturing some layman on HDTV is overkill.
Explaining to an ignorant "expert" with a pulpit that home video formats are still trying to catch up to 35mm is an occasionally necessary public service.
Krisjohn
I'm not sure what you understand about this guy and his role there.
He's actually just a blogger at the paper's website.
It's not as if he's their tech or cinema correspondant or anything.
miko34,
I read a big review on the new 120/240Hz sets and the gist of it was that since Film is 24 fps and TV 60 fps it's a point that becomes moot in the long run. I have a 1080p24/30/60 DLP and the only time I see motion blur or any deficiency is when the maker of the disc (DVD's Un-upscaled via Component look great on DLP) puts little care in the pressing/processing or the program provider, can be at many levels, puts too much compression on it. Otherwise all is just great with my lowly 1080p24/30/60. As I rant below (post on EngadgetPrime).
What I don't get, and it's probably something stupid simple or just plain fraud, is how they show split screen comparisons of 60HZ vs 120Hz on the same screen. Huh?! If it's a 60Hz screen the 120 should look like crap. If it's a 120, then the 60 is a degraded and inaccurate representation? That's false advertising, isn't it?
As to the main topic and as I posted (with a bit of editing) to it on EngagdetPrime:
Two nights ago I stumbled on "The Road to Hong Kong" with Bing Crosby, Bob Hope and Joan Collins on HBO in HD. It was amazing! I was captivated by the beauty of it even though it was in black & white AND I have DISH which is having a picture quality problem that is not rendering blacks properly. Even with this malady, and it was 1080"i" it was incredible and I don't usually watch these kinds of movies. But this was a treat, I felt like I was in a gallery staring at a masterpiece. It was just plain Nutz! Well then so am I.
I have watched it several times since and it gets better each time. This will greatly influence my Blu-Ray purchases in the future. But as sighted, it now up to the studios and what care they take or put into the transfers that will make or break this venue.
Also I realized that it fit the screen perfectly, no letter boxing, which also made me realize that the original was in Cinemascope which means that the master was probably 2.35:1. So the ends of this were cut off since it was 16:9. This means HD is the new SD and 2.35:1 (whatever that may be termed) is the new HD. I have seen an ad for a new 2.35:1 LCD hitting the market this Fall. 16:9 HD is already obsolete.
I see no problems with transferring older movies because I have seen several that were a good cross section of the genre that were just perfect. And as it has been pointed out the 35mm masters of these films can produce a resolution that's beyond Blu-Ray. So . . .
In the end it's all in the studios court as to how much care they take. As consumers, it's up to us to keep the pressure on for the best that they can give. Or all we're gonna get is Red Tinted, Over Priced, Pocket-Book looking, Wall Mountable Blu-Ray players.
Perhaps Mr. Bradshaw needs to look into a new line of work. Food critic, perhaps?
Meanwhile, I'll be more than happy to fill his position if the Guardian will pay my moving and living expenses.
Yes, what a great idea.
Before (review by an old, outdated, movie reviewer):
"Scorsese is able to get a great performance out of both Pitt and Jolie, but in the end the film is hampered by a tired plot, which is both predictable and monotonous. While not his best work, Scorsese has, at least, asked questions that other filmmakers flinch from"
After (review by EngadgetHD reader):
"The fonts on the opening credits are particularly crisp, and good use is made of objects with sharp edges. Also there's an awesome explosion in the middle, and you can see each ball of fire as it expands in its firey red and blackness. I liked the sound too, they're making great use of all seven channels, and there's good use of the subwoofer. All in all, a great movie."
If you need HD to enjoy the movie, it's a bad movie. Just saying.
I agree with him that I would rather watch movies at home on a standard-def front projector than a ~40-60 inch flat panel HDTV (I have both, BTW). Once you watch a movie on a 10ft screen in your living room, there's no going back, regardless of the number of Ps (480p/720p/1080p/etc).
"Number of Ps".
Muuuuuaaaaahhhahahahahaha
Some of us are just too young or ignorant.
It's all the same to me. The first time I saw a feature from the 35mm copy I was mesmorized. The same thing happened a few years later when I saw my first HD movie.
If this guy is going to start selling 35mm prints of old movies, he has a point. I cannot help that HDTV's and Blu-ray is the coming format. Don't blame the consumers for the way the studios do to movies and how they decide to mass produce them.
As bad as the acting of the old movies, I don't blame him. I wouldn't watch it on SD, how much more on HD. I'm sorry, but even if the story line was good, the acting was just bad. Too much over emphasis on the emotion rather than appearing natural.
It's amazing to see the sheer lack of knowledge on this board. 1080p good. Old Movies Good. SD Bad. For one thing American Standard Definition is NTSC. Which is a pretty awful standard. Everything bleeds, esp. Red. The europeans call it "Never The Same Color". And they're right. No two NTSC sets have the same color reproduction. Even the same models have to be individually calibrated to match. I make film and video and trust me SD is garbage.
The logic of (and I'm paraphrasing) "if the movie is good enough the resolution shouldn't matter" is ridiculous. Then put saran wrap over your TV to protect it. The resolution doesn't matter. That's crazy.
Cling film. Sorry British readers. Put Cling Film over your TV.........blah blah blah blah