|
|
Posted by in Technicolor® on 09/26/21 12:01
"夜クローラー" <nightsintodreamsYOHOLMES@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:5vqb51F1nvlq6U1@mid.individual.net...
>> Many catalog titles score high in video quality in reviews because the
>> reviewers are looking at how clean the transfer from the source is,
>> the existence of artifacts, haloing, etc. In most cases, however, this
>> only results in a clean print that still looks like a movie produced a
>> long time ago. In these cases, 99% of consumers will just buy the DVD
>> version if they haven't already.
>>
>
> This is something I'm wondering about and I suppose I won't know until I
> see it for myself, but are movies from 30 years ago (for example,
> Superman: The Movie) really gonna look any better than they did on dvd?
>
No problem if the elements of the film are in good condition or have gone
through restoration. In fact, an argument can be made that films from that
era might actually look better than today's material. SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE
was shot in Panavision which used much more negative area in the 35mm frame
than a Super 35 production like NATIONAL TREASURE II using half the negative
area and probably going through a 2K scan for a digital intermediate. Many
films from the 50's and 60's were shot with larger negatives on slow film
stock and look gorgeous. I recently saw in HD Alfred Hitchcock's TROUBLE
WITH HARRY which was filmed in 8 perf VistaVision. It is just drop dead
goregous and could have been filmed yesterday.
The 40's was the heyday of Black and White and material from that area
transfers nicely to HD as well.
Morgan
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|