NitrateVille.com

There was a nice little sub-discussion on the "It Happened One Night in HD" thread about films being restored more sharply that they were seen in the new prints shown in 1930's theaters.

It can be a bit distracting to see makeup lines, bad teeth, boom-mike shadows and other odd details that are showing up (occasionally) in razor sharp dvd prints.

I grew up on terrible patched-up 16 mm prints on the late show (c1960's) I'm so grateful for the dvd era.

Yet I now have to wonder what was once unthinkable---can an old film be reproduced TOO clearly?

Absolutely! If the distractions you enumerated become obvious.

Let me reveal something shocking: the only hi-def TV I've ever seen was on the giant screens I couldn't avoid viewing while looking for something on a couple of occasions over the last few years in a Best Buy store (which I do my best never to enter, but must when I can't wait for a mail-order). They were to me hideous, & I was trying hard to avert my eyes, but the images were inescapable.

Having seen transfers and having seen original prints, there are seldom scenarios where you're seeing "more" on TV. The only instance I can think of this is Technicolor prints, where the end result was admittedly softer.

The TVs are set way too bright and sharp in stores. Of course, they're fighting with banks of fluorescent lights, probably not the conditions in your living room.

I adjusted mine to a "cinema" level which I find very pleasing, using Star Wars as a reference (figuring I'd seen it in theaters more than anything else made in modern times). Looks like film, maybe not exactly, but it doesn't look as bright as a neon sign and as sharp as a migraine, which was the important thing.

When I got my first colour television set, (it cost the Earth), it was delivered by two service technicians who spent about two hours in my house setting it up. In those days TV channels used to transmit a test pattern in the mornings for the very purpose of setting your television receiver up.

Nowadays one visits a shop and comes out with a TV set under one's arm. When you get it home you are confronted with an instruction book obviously written by someone who's last job was as a scientific engineer at NASA. It takes then most of the day to try and work out what all the instructions mean and apply them to the TV set and actually get it working. Finding out how to adjust the picture and sound probably takes another two or three months until you one day accidentally come across the controls for these.

So, in short, yes, tweaking around with the settings can make the picture more in tune with an actual cinematic experience.

Film is forgiving. The gradation curve
is a work of art. Black and white was originally
presented with pinpoint whites that sparkled and
inky blacks that dove to the deep depths.

Most HD monitors simply cannot present black and
white this way outside of a professional editing suite.
Black and white televisions actually did a better job
presenting classic movies. Perhaps not in terms of
resolution but definitely in grey scale measurements.
I can understand a young person not being impressed
with black and white because most of them never
saw how good it can look in a theater.

Syd, I can remember years ago seeing nitrate prints (now illegal to project?) in a few repertory houses.

The effect was like 3-D, you could see far back into the scene, the silvers were really silver, and eyes
glistened with expression.

I don't see that very often on dvd. I see more of a clinical sharpness, characters that seem cut out and removed from their backgrounds, and makeup lines more than glistening eyes. Hard to explain. Maybe theses are digital artifacts.

Phillyrich: There are still a few nitrates being projected, The Stanford Theater in Palo Alto from time to time (not recently) The Toronto Film Society lists a nitrate of Rebecca in their upcoming early August Eastman House weekend. I understand the Billy Wilder Theater at UCLA can show some of UCLA's nitrates if they want but have been staying away since they are in the Hammer Museum building and there are issues. Not sure if New York's MOMA is still trotting out a nitrate or two

Alternately, the other day, Greenbriar Picture Shows offered a piece showing just how good we have it with technology these days.

http://greenbriarpictureshows.blogspot. ... e-got.html" target="_blank

Old movies in high def can be a little unnerving sometimes. I was watching "Golddiggers of 1933" in hd streaming recently and it just knocked my socks off - you could see the individual coins clearly on the outfits in the opening number and it just made me really wonder how they made those costumes. It's a number I've probably seen dozens of times over the years, but seeing it with that clarity gave me a chill - did audience in the 30s see it this clearly?

It also made me notice something that I had seen before, but not paid much attention to. There's a point where Joan Blondell is singing to the camera and, as she continues singing, she goes off-screen and the camera pans down the chorus line as each member of the chorus shows her face. Then, still singing, Blondell pops up at the very end.

The whole thing is done in one continuous shot. In the HD version, you can really see that the did a "freeze" of a few frames on each of the chorus members as the camera pans so you get a better look at them. And somehow the soundtrack stays in synch.

You can see the sequence I'm talking about here, starting at 19 seconds:



Seeing the film grain "freeze" on the HD version makes this little post-production trick really stand out. You don't notice it as much on dvd (or even on the super nice 16mm original I had access to at one point).

I still miss my old CRT TV's especially for B&W. Far better contrast and tonal graduation than LCD 's. Also super smooth clear horizontal motion and panning unlike the blurry jerkiness of LCD and digtal projection at the cinema.

entredeuxguerres wrote:Absolutely! If the distractions you enumerated become obvious.

Let me reveal something shocking: the only hi-def TV I've ever seen was on the giant screens I couldn't avoid viewing while looking for something on a couple of occasions over the last few years in a Best Buy store (which I do my best never to enter, but must when I can't wait for a mail-order). They were to me hideous, & I was trying hard to avert my eyes, but the images were inescapable.

So are you saying you think the images that all big screen Hi-Def TV's offer is hideous? If so, then I certainly won't pay the slightest attention to any future observations or comments you might have on the subject of Hi-Def video. A good quality hi-def transfer from original 35mm film elements will look absolutely terrific on a properly calibrated hi- def TV or digital projector. Sorry to say, Best Buy is not the ideal place to see this. Don't you realize there are literally hundreds of subtle controls and adjustments in the menus of these devices that can affect the picture quality? The staff at places like Best Buy are not necessarily the most qualified to make these adjustments.

Ideally one combines a technical aptitude in tandem with an artistic sense to arrive at the ideal calibration of one's hi-def TV or projector system.

Rob

coolcatdaddy wrote: It also made me notice something that I had seen before, but not paid much attention to. There's a point where Joan Blondell is singing to the camera and, as she continues singing, she goes off-screen and the camera pans down the chorus line as each member of the chorus shows her face. Then, still singing, Blondell pops up at the very end.

Nitpick: You mean Ginger Rogers.

Changsham wrote:I still miss my old CRT TV's especially for B&W. Far better contrast and tonal graduation than LCD 's. Also super smooth clear horizontal motion and panning unlike the blurry jerkiness of LCD and digtal projection at the cinema.

I don't miss mine...because I'm still using it. And just in case it pre-deceases me, I've got two replacements waiting in my garage.

Rob wrote:

entredeuxguerres wrote: Let me reveal something shocking: the only hi-def TV I've ever seen was on the giant screens I couldn't avoid viewing while looking for something on a couple of occasions over the last few years in a Best Buy store (which I do my best never to enter, but must when I can't wait for a mail-order). They were to me hideous, & I was trying hard to avert my eyes, but the images were inescapable.

So are you saying you think the images that all big screen Hi-Def TV's offer is hideous?...Rob

You didn't catch "only" in the above statement?

Your reference to the "hundreds of subtle controls & adjustments" on a hi-def unit inclines me to worry that my two spare CRTs may not be sufficient.

I've got a large plasma screen as my main TV, but in a spare room I have a large Panasonic CRT for watching laserdiscs (there's also a blu-ray hooked up to it, but of course it's not HD), which the current HD TVs don't do any favours. I still like the look of films on a CRT monitor, at least when using an analog video source, which tend to look ghastly on the plasma set.

[quote="Phillyrich"]Syd, I can remember years ago seeing nitrate prints (now illegal to project?) in a few repertory houses.

The effect was like 3-D, you could see far back into the scene, the silvers were really silver, and eyes
glistened with expression.

I don't see that very often on dvd. I see more of a clinical sharpness, characters that seem cut out and removed from their backgrounds, and makeup lines more than glistening eyes. Hard to explain. Maybe theses are digital artifacts.[/quote]


Classic filmmakers could get mileage out of letting a character emerge from and recede to darkness because
of the dramatic effect it generated on a movie screen. That kind of effect is less dramatic on DVD because of
the digital artifact "swirl" that overlays the darkness. Blu-ray only mildly improves that effect.

coolcatdaddy wrote:Old movies in high def can be a little unnerving sometimes. I was watching "Golddiggers of 1933" in hd streaming recently and it just knocked my socks off - you could see the individual coins clearly on the outfits in the opening number and it just made me really wonder how they made those costumes. It's a number I've probably seen dozens of times over the years, but seeing it with that clarity gave me a chill - did audience in the 30s see it this clearly?

It also made me notice something that I had seen before, but not paid much attention to. There's a point where Joan Blondell is singing to the camera and, as she continues singing, she goes off-screen and the camera pans down the chorus line as each member of the chorus shows her face. Then, still singing, Blondell pops up at the very end.

The whole thing is done in one continuous shot. In the HD version, you can really see that the did a "freeze" of a few frames on each of the chorus members as the camera pans so you get a better look at them. And somehow the soundtrack stays in synch.

You can see the sequence I'm talking about here, starting at 19 seconds:



Seeing the film grain "freeze" on the HD version makes this little post-production trick really stand out. You don't notice it as much on dvd (or even on the super nice 16mm original I had access to at one point).

That happens to be Ginger Rogers; NOT Joan Blondell; and I don't notice any film grain freezing?? Whatever do you mean?

Sorry - I've been watching too many pre-codes lately. Yes, it's Ginger.

It's probably easier to see on the dvd version if you happen to have it. Notice as the camera moves down the chorus line and each girl turns and reveals her face. If you watch it really closely, they freeze on their faces for just a few frames. You'll notice the movement of the cutouts they're holding will stop for just a fraction of a second.

coolcatdaddy wrote: I've been watching too many pre-codes lately....

Too many? That's impossible.

entredeuxguerres wrote:

coolcatdaddy wrote: I've been watching too many pre-codes lately....

Too many? That's impossible.

Abso-frigging-lutely!!

It's not just images. 'Way back in the VHS era, the Cabin Fever version of "Teacher's Pet," exposed an interesting editor's mistake. After the music fades out over the end title, if you crank the sound up very, very high, you can hear the conductor say, "Let's try that again."

Or words to that effect.