I notice Casablanca is available in HD-DVD. Does high definition really do anything worthwhile for a black-and-white movie?

Yes, they do benefit from the higher resolution. What is HD suppose to look like that B&W films wouldn't benefit from the additional lines of resolution? Maybe I am missing something in your inferences. It might help if you explain/flesh out your thoughts, so we know what's behind your comments. As you might be able to tell, I am trying not to flame you....and giving you the benefit of the doubt

color is such a small part of the overall information (although important, don't get me wrong). HD helps everything.

I saw raging bull in HD on satellite, it looked great. If you really think about it, b&w films aren't just black and white, you've got all the gradations of grayscale in between actual black and white. HD produces these colors more accurately. Then you've got the added resolution.

I understand what rboster is getting at.

I think the aswer to your (hdmi4ever) question is yes. You brought up a movie that was made in black and white because they had to. But I recall (while I didn't see it) Raging Bull being touted as incredible when it was released on Laserdisc. More modern films will use black and white for artistic reasons. From everything I have ever heard, getting an HDDVD treatment (or even DVD from VHS) will always benefit.

In regards to is it worth it for such an old film, plenty of people around here have explained that film still yield higher resolution than what we (Most of us at least) are capable of at home.

Dave

Something like Blair Witch Project probably wouldn't see much improvement, but anything on a decent-quality filmstock will definitely benefit from the higher resolution.

Sin City will look good I presume. Or Elephant Man. I think you mean that you don't like old films probably.

Something like Blair Witch Project probably wouldn't see much improvement, but anything on a decent-quality filmstock will definitely benefit from the higher resolution.
The Blair Witch Project originates on standard-def video which was converted to film for theatrical release. So, it'd show no improvement at all.

I think they can benefit the same or more than color. B&W is very sharp, and usually much sharper than Color movies of the same time period. Watch Good Night and Good Luck in HD. It was indeed shot in color but is B&W, you cann definately see that HD and B&W are quite good matches.

Yep, a cleaner, higher rez picture is all the more enjoyable, regardless if its in color or B&W...I recently popped in Young Frankenstein (I know, thats Fronkenstein) and it did seem to have some new life into it from the A2's upscaling, I could only imagine an HD version looking really sweet.... ::::crosses fingers:::

Good Luck, and Good Night. looks marvelous. Black and white does indeed benefit greatly, which isn't surprising when you think about how much it improves shadow detail.

I think they can benefit the same or more than color. B&W is very sharp, and usually much sharper than Color movies of the same time period. Watch Good Night and Good Luck in HD. It was indeed shot in color but is B&W, you cann definately see that HD and B&W are quite good matches.


I got Good Night and Good Luck from Netflix and it looked pretty impressive.

[QUOTE=Schils]Yep, a cleaner, higher rez picture is all the more enjoyable, regardless if its in color or B&W...I recently popped in Young Frankenstein (I know, thats Fronkenstein) and it did seem to have some new life into it from the A2's upscaling, I could only imagine an HD version looking really sweet.... ::::crosses fingers:::[/QUOTE

Totally agree Frodrick !

Get Casablanca and you may change your mind. It is stunning on HD DVD.

Yes, they do benefit from the higher resolution. What is HD suppose to look like that B&W films wouldn't benefit from the additional lines of resolution? Maybe I am missing something in your inferences. It might help if you explain/flesh out your thoughts, so we know what's behind your comments. As you might be able to tell, I am trying not to flame you....and giving you the benefit of the doubtI think of it as trying to put gravy on cardboard to make it taste good. Yeah, it would taste better than raw unflavored cardboard, but it's still cardboard!

Casablanca just GLOWS in HD. The blacks are deeper and richer, the whites luminous, and the detail is incredible. You can see the jewelry glittering on the cocktail dresses around tables three or four rows back from the piano. The extras in the bar scenes take on greater personality. It's a terrific movie that gets even better when you can see it more clearly.

Anyone who thinks that older films can't benefit from a good restoration and the full HD treatment should be strapped in a chair and forced to watch Casablanca. But then I never did understand those who feel films shot in B&W, or 4:3, are somehow second-class entertainment.

Get Casablanca and you may change your mind. It is stunning on HD DVD.OK, I'll bite. I put Casablanca in my Blockbuster queue.

I think of it as trying to put gravy on cardboard to make it taste good. Yeah, it would taste better than raw unflavored cardboard, but it's still cardboard!

So...... what you're saying is B&W must = crap? If so.......... wow, just wow.

I think of it as trying to put gravy on cardboard to make it taste good. Yeah, it would taste better than raw unflavored cardboard, but it's still cardboard!

I guess my gut feeling about your initial post was correct. I didn't know Ted Turner visited these forums.

I can't wait to see Schindlers List on HD DVD. Oh man... :eek:

Just another post from another member, who seem not to appreciate film in particular. I've noticed other posts that express a similar sentiment about comedies and serious-minded drama, as opposed to the "2 Fast, 2 Furious" mentality.

Then there are posts crabbing about grain...and what a lousy transfer the offending title makes when transferred to high-def.

Is it my imagination, or did this (and other) forums used to attract more knowledgable participants? I've noticed the same degenerting phenomena on other forums as well.

There seems to be a large influx of members who don't even understand the basics of film structure or various styles of cinematography. When soft filtering is used, it's said that it was shot "blurry". But...beneath that soft halo, there's a solid foundation that still benefits from higher resolution, better color rendition. Not to mention the superior sound component.

I despair for the future of high-def in general, either HD or BD. And to think we had such a hard fight on our hands with the acceptance of aspect ratio, during the earlier days of SD-DVD. Now we have a much broader range of issues on which to inform John Q Public, before they embrace a new format...and then...let's toss in an ugly and publicly confusing format war.

You know...the big studios wouldn't mind in the least, if the entire future of high-def software went right down the toilet. We're not going to get any assistance from the top.

Just another post from another member, who seem not to appreciate film in particular. I've noticed other posts that express a similar sentiment about comedies and serious-minded drama, as opposed to the "2 Fast, 2 Furious" mentality.

Then there are posts crabbing about grain...and what a lousy transfer the offending title makes when transferred to high-def.

Is it my imagination, or did this (and other) forums used to attract more knowledgable participants? I've noticed the same degenerting phenomena on other forums as well.

There seems to be a large influx of members who don't even understand the basics of film structure or various styles of cinematography. When soft filtering is used, it's said that it was shot "blurry". But...beneath that soft halo, there's a solid foundation that still benefits from higher resolution, better color rendition. Not to mention the superior sound component.

I despair for the future of high-def in general, either HD or BD. And to think we had such a hard fight on our hands with the acceptance of aspect ratio, during the earlier days of SD-DVD. Now we have a much broader range of issues on which to inform John Q Public, before they embrace a new format...and then...let's toss in an ugly and publicly confusing format war.

You know...the big studios wouldn't mind in the least, if the entire future of high-def software went right down the toilet. We're not going to get any assistance from the top.

It's all part of the dumbing down of society.

Just another post from another member, who seem not to appreciate film in particular. I've noticed other posts that express a similar sentiment about comedies and serious-minded drama, as opposed to the "2 Fast, 2 Furious" mentality.

Then there are posts crabbing about grain...and what a lousy transfer the offending title makes when transferred to high-def.

Is it my imagination, or did this (and other) forums used to attract more knowledgable participants? I've noticed the same degenerting phenomena on other forums as well.

XBox 360 add-on + PS3 = nightmare.

So...... what you're saying is B&W must = crap? If so.......... wow, just wow.No. But to me, a good B&W film is good because of its story and acting, not because of its visuals. The B&W may create an ambience that enhances it, like what was done for Sin City (which I liked a lot). But I don't expect that Sin City in HD would have been a significantly better experience.

Anyway, I'm new to the HD-DVD scene, and my A2 just shipped today. You've convinced me to give the B&W films a chance. But they won't be at the top of my list.

No. But to me, a good B&W film is good because of its story and acting, not because of its visuals. The B&W may create an ambience that enhances it, like what was done for Sin City (which I liked a lot). But I don't expect that Sin City in HD would have been a significantly better experience.

Anyway, I'm new to the HD-DVD scene, and my A2 just shipped today. You've convinced me to give the B&W films a chance. But they won't be at the top of my list.

Shouldn't all movies be judged by it's story/acting, not just B&W ones?

A lot of professional video cameras have B&W viewfinders because it's actually *easier* to see detail in B&W than color. Color tends to blur the details because it's sampled at a much lower resolution than luminance.

--
Steve

Just another post from another member, who seem not to appreciate film in particular. I've noticed other posts that express a similar sentiment about comedies and serious-minded drama, as opposed to the "2 Fast, 2 Furious" mentality.

Then there are posts crabbing about grain...and what a lousy transfer the offending title makes when transferred to high-def.

Is it my imagination, or did this (and other) forums used to attract more knowledgable participants? I've noticed the same degenerting phenomena on other forums as well.I hear you, Mr. Elitist. But I don't care if you think that only professional cinematographers are worthy of the privilege of watching HD-DVD or film in general.

I think of it as trying to put gravy on cardboard to make it taste good. Yeah, it would taste better than raw unflavored cardboard, but it's still cardboard!

You are kidding right ? :o

There are hundreds if not thousands of great films in black and white. I've seen several broadcast and more recently in HD optical. The resolution is there in the film bringing it to HD raises it just as it does a recent film color.

This thread is just another pathetic example of how the forum has changed. Such a comment would have been unheard of in early DVD days. Just like all of the folks who suddenly notice grain. :D

Art

Shouldn't all movies be judged by it's story/acting, not just B&W ones?Story and acting alone? Then why bother with HD? Why bother with color? Why bother with high fidelity audio tracks (TrueHD, etc.)? Why use a projector with a 100-inch screen instead of a 32-inch TV?

The movie experience is a combination of story and acting, plus the visuals and audio.

There are hundreds if not thousands of great films in black and white.I know. But none have impressed me visually (other than deliberate use of B&W to create an ambience). They impress me with their other characteristics.

Story and acting alone? Then why bother with HD? Why bother with color? Why bother with high fidelity audio tracks (TrueHD, etc.)? Why use a projector with a 100-inch screen instead of a 32-inch TV?

The movie experience is a combination of story and acting, plus the visuals and audio.

We're just saying that your logic is flawed, very flawed. You think that B&W films don't benefit from the extra resolution and detail from HD, only color films do, which is false.

Take a look at dvdbeaver.com, their comparisons of the different dvd versions of b&w films.

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDCompare7/twilightzone.htm

Take a look at this comparison and it is VERY easy to see the difference between a more detailed picture and something not cleaned up.

VVVVVV - thats not how I think, I was just trying to bring up a point to the OP. I don't think B&W films should automatically be put into the "use-your-brain, not visually impressive" category.

Shouldn't all movies be judged by it's story/acting, not just B&W ones?

I tend to seperate movies in basically two categories:

1. Movies that should be judged based on the quality in all aspects such as story, acting, cinematography, and directing. (Examples: Citizen Kane, Raging Bull, Midnight Cowboy, etc.)

2. Movies that you shut your brain off, so you can relax a little and just enjoy the dumbness of a flick, despite the lower quality of the finished product. (Example: Fast and the Furious franchise, Crank, Evil Dead series, etc.)

People usually choose to enjoy only one and not the other. I never understood why people have shame in enjoying a dumb flick, while others are too "cool" to check out more artistic movies. Movies are entertainment, whether it be a "guilty pleasure" or an "artistic journey", so why not be more open minded?

Though there are movies out there that fit in one category, but are still universally accepted as great movies (Goodfellas for example).

I tend to seperate movies in basically two categories:

1. Movies that should be judged based on the quality in all aspects such as story, acting, cinematography, and directing. (Examples: Citizen Kane, Raging Bull, Midnight Cowboy, etc.)

2. Movies that you shut your brain off, so you can relax a little and just enjoy the dumbness of a flick, despite the lower quality of the finished product. (Example: Fast and the Furious franchise, Crank, Evil Dead series, etc.)

People usually choose to enjoy only one and not the other. I never understood why people have shame in enjoying a dumb flick, while others are too "cool" to check out more artistic movies. Movies are entertainment, whether it be a "guilty pleasure" or an "artistic journey", so why not be more open minded?

Though there are movies out there that fit in one category, but are still universally accepted as great movies (Goodfellas for example).

I agree with this in the concept of movies as entertainment for what ever reason floats many titles for many different reasons. Give us the best possible looking and sounding version of every one released. A great film that his great use of light and shadow as part of the cinematography gets better with HD. Films like Flyboys, Aoen Flux and The Hulk become watchable because they look and sound great.........the rising tide floats all boats.

Calling some of these greats cardboard ! :rolleyes:

The Great Ziegfield
The Thin Man
Spellbound
The Grapes of Wrath
The Maltese Falcon
Key Largo
Frankenstein
King Kong
Psycho
Double Indemnity
Dracula
Metropolis
The Third Man
The Big Sleep
All Quiet on the Western Front
The Treasure of the Sierra Madre
42nd St

Just to name a very few.

Art

We're just saying that your logic is flawed, very flawed. You think that B&W films don't benefit from the extra resolution and detail from HD, only color films do, which is false.I don't know and I haven't seen any B&W in HD. I'm just explaining my expectation, and I am fully aware that my expectation could be proven wrong.

The cardboard analogy seems to have hit some nerves, and maybe I should have chosen something else.

On the same note, would you expect a film with an audio track, recorded in mono in 1939 with a microphone that had the frequency response and other characteristics no better than a modern $30 mic to sound much better if encoded in 24-bit/192 kHz TrueHD instead of 16-bit/48 kHz? I would expect not. But that doesn't mean it would sound bad ... Judy Garland's "Over the Rainbow" in the Wizard of Oz from 1939 was a great song, recorded in mono, probably with a microphone no better than today's $30 mics. But I don't expect that encoding it in 24-bit/192 kHz TrueHD would make it sound noticeably better than whatever bitrate it has now on the regular DVD. Again, that expectation could be wrong, but it is a reasonable expectation not deserving of condescending replies.

I don't know and I haven't seen any B&W in HD. I'm just explaining my expectation, and I am fully aware that my expectation could be proven wrong.

The cardboard analogy seems to have hit some nerves, and maybe I should have chosen something else.

On the same note, would you expect a film with an audio track, recorded in mono in 1939 with a microphone that had the frequency response and other characteristics no better than a modern $30 mic to sound much better if encoded in 24-bit/192 kHz TrueHD instead of 16-bit/48 kHz? I would expect not. But that doesn't mean it would sound bad ... Judy Garland's "Over the Rainbow" in the Wizard of Oz from 1939 was a great song, recorded in mono, probably with a microphone no better than today's $30 mics. But I don't expect that encoding it in 24-bit/192 kHz TrueHD would make it sound noticeably better than whatever bitrate it has now on the regular DVD. Again, that expectation could be wrong, but it is a reasonable expectation not deserving of condescending replies.

I would say that you would be correct about the audio portion, I don't think anyone will be able to argue that. However, visually, the films can still be very impressive. I think you'll give them a second look once you take a look at Casablanca!

The cardboard analogy seems to have hit some nerves, and maybe I should have chosen something else.

On the same note, would you expect a film with an audio track, recorded in mono in 1939 with a microphone that had the frequency response and other characteristics no better than a modern $30 mic to sound much better if encoded in 24-bit/192 kHz TrueHD instead of 16-bit/48 kHz? I would expect not. But that doesn't mean it would sound bad ...

I think you are making the assumption that just because it was filmed in B&W that is was done so on crappy equipment. Not always the case.

I don't know and I haven't seen any B&W in HD. I'm just explaining my expectation, and I am fully aware that my expectation could be proven wrong.

The cardboard analogy seems to have hit some nerves, and maybe I should have chosen something else.

On the same note, would you expect a film with an audio track, recorded in mono in 1939 with a microphone that had the frequency response and other characteristics no better than a modern $30 mic to sound much better if encoded in 24-bit/192 kHz TrueHD instead of 16-bit/48 kHz? I would expect not. But that doesn't mean it would sound bad ... Judy Garland's "Over the Rainbow" in the Wizard of Oz from 1939 was a great song, recorded in mono, probably with a microphone no better than today's $30 mics. But I don't expect that encoding it in 24-bit/192 kHz TrueHD would make it sound noticeably better than whatever bitrate it has now on the regular DVD. Again, that expectation could be wrong, but it is a reasonable expectation not deserving of condescending replies.

If you had the chance to see Wizard of Oz over TNT HD as soon as the titles came up and it looked so spectacular (sepia black and white film) I just about defecated. I've seen this film in every format and in a commercial theater. It never looked close to this. Sound tracks are different subject but the images just were incredible. HDDVD will only improve on this trust me.

My screen shots leave much to be desired but if you have ever seen the DVD what this image shows in comparison is almost beyond desription. The great film in black and white will be boosted just as much and deserve the royal treatment



http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p146/CarlosMeat/Oz02a.jpg



http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p146/CarlosMeat/Oz03a.jpg

So the Stooges were on Columbia, which side has them, BD or HD? :D :p

I would like to expand on my earlier comments by adding, that I do think there's a very useful and rightful place for purely entertaining titles, that some refer to as "popcorn movies". I own many of them, both in SD and HD. But the same general rules of the game still apply, with regard to production techniques and production standards.

That's all.

I knew that the charge of "elitist" would be hurled at me sooner or later. My point is, that these forums, in general, seem to have been more thoroughly populated with devotees of the art and craft of filmmaking, as it applies to home entertainment software.

Go ahead...throw the next stone.

Or maybe I should simply shut-up and start shifting more of my time to The Home Theater Forum, where such posts are run out of town real quick.

Or maybe I should simply shut-up and start shifting more of my time to The Home Theater Forum, where such posts are run out of town real quick.


If you mean the OP then HTF is a better place. Like I said a lot the last few months(especially since HDDVD was released) AVS Forum has changed.

Art

I think they can benefit the same or more than color. B&W is very sharp, and usually much sharper than Color movies of the same time period. Watch Good Night and Good Luck in HD. It was indeed shot in color but is B&W, you cann definately see that HD and B&W are quite good matches.'Tis true; B&W is normally sharper than color. Since there's way less information to process colorwise, it usually turns out sharper and crisper. Then again, I was weaned on the original Twilight Zone, so B&W doesn't bother me one bit.

I would say that you would be correct about the audio portion, I don't think anyone will be able to argue that.

I'd argue about what they recorded with. I still use wonderful microphones manufactured in the 40s, 50s and 60s. Geez, the Telefunken U47 was introduced in 1946. Now if you want to talk about what they recorded it to..... ;)

I know. But none have impressed me visually (other than deliberate use of B&W to create an ambience). They impress me with their other characteristics.

I take it you don't like photography either? maybe you should educate yourself on what makes good photography and cinematography. This is a rare art form nowadays in the "Dukes of Hazzard" style big-budget blockbusters that rely more on CGI than cinematography to convey power, emotion and story.

I know. But none have impressed me visually... They impress me with their other characteristics.

Actually you probably have but you simply didn't realise it, hecne why you were drawn into the movie. The best effects are the ones you don't notice.

On the same note, would you expect a film with an audio track, recorded in mono in 1939 with a microphone that had the frequency response and other characteristics no better than a modern $30 mic to sound much better if encoded in 24-bit/192 kHz TrueHD instead of 16-bit/48 kHz? I would expect not. But that doesn't mean it would sound bad ... Judy Garland's "Over the Rainbow" in the Wizard of Oz from 1939 was a great song, recorded in mono, probably with a microphone no better than today's $30 mics. But I don't expect that encoding it in 24-bit/192 kHz TrueHD would make it sound noticeably better than whatever bitrate it has now on the regular DVD. Again, that expectation could be wrong, but it is a reasonable expectation not deserving of condescending replies.

Though a nice example this does not apply to film. Why? Becasue the resolution film is capable of (black/white or colour stock) still exceeds that of standard tv and even high definition tv resolutions.

To make a more accurate audio analogy think of it like the original black and white frames are a mono 48bit/192khtz recording. Such a recording exceeds the specs of DVD so it gets down converted to say DD which not only means lower bit depth and sampling rate but also introduces more compression artifacts. So obviouslly moving it to a HD format would allow a beter representation as it one could preserve the origional sampling rate, bit depth and use lossless compression.

Now if you think above is a good reason to upgrade consider the fact humans are more visually orientated than we are audiotory (who here would rather live life blind than deaf?), then transfering flim, be it B/W or colour to HD makes for a great improvement.

The Blair Witch Project originates on standard-def video which was converted to film for theatrical release. So, it'd show no improvement at all.

Not so. 1/2 of Blair witch was shot on 16mm.
The black and white part. That would look significantly better in HD.

Just compare the HD version of Good Night and Good Luck to the SD version

Im glad someone else got in with an audio reference before me. Not only were the Neumann mikes (the U47, U87 etc) unaprallaled for clean warm string tone and vocals for instance but I recal - when I was working as classical and jazz music producer twenty years ago and we had begun recording to Sony Umatic digital for the early days of CD, the amount of frame buzz and other noise and ref problems with "modern" mikes were sometimes so bad we reverted to 30s/40s vintage RCA ribbon mikes (like the 77DX) which gave a beautiful clean uncolored sound with minimal buzz, hum etc.

Im simply amazed the subject of B&W even arose as a negative thread, but Im only interested in HD insofar as it's a bonus for me as cinephile rather than a videophile.

first black bars, then grain, now B+W... what's next...?

first black bars, then grain, now B+W... what's next...?

Actors.

Let's just watch computer generated characters with perfect complexions. Might as well make everyone look good in HD.

color is such a small part of the overall information (although important, don't get me wrong). HD helps everything.
FWIW, color (chroma) normally gets about 1/3rd of the bits, with the B&W data (luma) getting 2/3rds.

Rent Good Night and Good Luck. There's a lot of people smoking in those whacky not-so-politically-correct 50's. Smoke always shows the benefits of HD. Also, look at the detail of some of Straitharn's (sp?) tweed and otherwise-detailed jackets. If you still ask "Why bother" after seeing this title on HD-DVD, then I'm not sure any of us can explain it to you, if you're even genuinely interested to begin with.

The only problem I have with the viewpoint is that it seems you're saying they shouldn't even release certain types of films on HD, that certain movies don't "belong." If you don't want to buy B&W films, comedies, or straight dramas, that's fine, but it doesn't mean that just because you don't appreciate or care about the difference HD can make, they shouldn't even release them at all. That's the concern some of us have, that the amount and variety of titles available to us could be affected by these attitudes.

There is certainly no shortage of movies out now that I wouldn't buy, but I'm not about to say they shouldn't be releasing them just because they don't appeal to me. There is room for all types of films on an HD format.

It's all part of the dumbing down of society.

Precisely. I despair, I really do.

If you don't want to buy B&W films, comedies, or straight dramas, that's fine

You might as well buy BD. ;)



(Disclaimer: the above was a tongue-in-cheek jab at the title choices by Fox/Disney/Sony and not a knock on the format.)


Now on to the question "Black and white movies in HD-DVD? Why bother?"

If you ever had seen a B&W movie at the theater you wouldn't ask.

I feel to take quality filmed classics and treat it with HD can only give us perceptions of what it may have been like for our parents or grandparents to view these classics in the theater only better with our HT size panels. Good Night Good Luck was excellent and Sin City HD broadcast is amazing everytime I've seen it as a piece of eye candy art though I don't know if I'll ever figure the whole thing out it presents lots of wow. The Old calssics I've seen only get better and cannot see how it could be worse than scenario unless the film grade was poor as GIGO results.

Last year I recall seeing the King and I broadcast in HD and did it's quality ever pop - it looked like they filmed it yesterday with quality HD Cameras.

My point is that it can only make it better and for those of us that grew up watching B/W old movies with a thousand commercials on a weenie size CRT it's refreshing to see quality B/W in HD and I look forward to an HD Classic channel in the future - one can enjoy both and see an evolution of our own history in the different film generational transitions that are very interesting. My wife is an avid classics movie watcher and I often view and find some of the humor or implied sexual innuendo humorous as hell and quite entertaining. Casablanca was a piece of history that lives on today and done by actors that cannot be matched today with the likes of Brad and Anjolie - I mean actors not eye candy. Please do name a cast today that could match that of Casablanca and perhaps a reason I don't recall it being done as a remake. JMO ;)

I know. But none have impressed me visually (other than deliberate use of B&W to create an ambience). They impress me with their other characteristics.
If that means that lack of color in itself is enough for you to not to be impressed your taste in images is 'somewhat narrow'. If it means you have only seen 'bad' examples for black and white there are many good ones too. You can start with all Oscar nominees for black and white photography and move on from there.
By the way, only the black and white (luminance) part of any film (color or not) is fully resolved in consumer HD (upto the max 1920*1080), the color part is subsampled (4 times less pixels), so the natural question would be if color movies benefit from HD or if it's not worth bothering. Not the other way around. And yes, color films benefit greatly from HD too.

The only problem I have with the viewpoint is that it seems you're saying they shouldn't even release certain types of films on HD, that certain movies don't "belong." If you don't want to buy B&W films, comedies, or straight dramas, that's fine, but it doesn't mean that just because you don't appreciate or care about the difference HD can make, they shouldn't even release them at all. That's the concern some of us have, that the amount and variety of titles available to us could be affected by these attitudes.I hope that every movie and TV series ever made will eventually be put onto an HD format. But since the studios are so slow and selective about putting their titles onto HD, I figured they would choose the few movies that could benefit most from being in HD. I did not expect that B&W movies would fall into that category. However, from what you guys have been saying apparently my expectation will be proven wrong. And I will be happy to be wrong, since it means I'd be able to enjoy the classics in a new and better way than I expected.

Something like Blair Witch Project probably wouldn't see much improvement, but anything on a decent-quality filmstock will definitely benefit from the higher resolution.


Speaking of...Xbox LIVE has Blair Witch Project in HD as a download right now.

You are kidding right ? :o

This thread is just another pathetic example of how the forum has changed. Such a comment would have been unheard of in early DVD days. Just like all of the folks who suddenly notice grain. :D

Art

Art, I havent been around hear anywhere near as long as you, so I havent seen much change.
I think this forum has more very young folks then when I first joined.
They were brought up on formulaic Hollywood CGI laiden action flicks, video games, and MTV. So yeah, old B&W films would be borring to them.
It all comes down to a basic lack of imagination. Most modern films do not require much thought or imagination from the viewer. The movies that do challenge the viewer are the ones that stick around for many years and become classics. How many B&W films do you suppose are on AFI's "best films ever made" list? That's my 2 cents anyway.

How many B&W films do you suppose are on AFI's "best films ever made" list?

41 give or take:


A Place In The Sun (1951)
A Streetcar Named Desire (1951)
All About Eve (1950)
All Quiet On The Western Front (1930)
Bringing Up Baby (1938)
Casablanca (1942)
Citizen Kane (1941)
City Lights (1931)
Double Indemnity (1944)
Dr. Strangelove (1964)
Duck Soup (1933)
Frankenstein (1931)
From Here To Eternity (1953)
High Noon (1952)
It Happened One Night (1934)
It's A Wonderful Life (1946)
King Kong (1933)
Modern Times (1936)
Mr. Smith Goes To Washington (1939)
Mutiny On The Bounty (1935)
On The Waterfront (1954)
Psycho (1960)
Raging Bull (1980)
Schindler's List (1993)
Some Like It Hot (1959)
Stagecoach (1939)
Sunset Boulevard (1950)
The Apartment (1960)
The Best Years Of Our Lives (1946)
The Birth Of A Nation (1915)
The Gold Rush (1925)
The Grapes Of Wrath (1940)
The Jazz Singer (1927)
The Maltese Falcon (1941)
The Manchurian Candidate (1962)
The Philadelphia Story (1940)
The Third Man (1949)
The Treasure Of The Sierra Madre (1948)
To Kill A Mockingbird (1962)
Wuthering Heights (1939)
Yankee Doodle Dandy (1942)

The defense rests, your honor.

...and it took us 3 pages to tell the OP this!!!

I'm not so sure about one of the movies on that list, unless its creator REALLY tinkered with it again.

Edit: okay, now it's gone.

I'm not so sure about one of the movies on that list, unless its creator REALLY tinkered with it again.

LOL! Great eye there. Fixed.

I couldnt have said it better myself.
Thanks Grubert.
And that's only the AMERICAN films :D

I notice Casablanca is available in HD-DVD. Does high definition really do anything worthwhile for a black-and-white movie?
I consider "Casablanca" one of my reference films. I have seen it over 40 times and I feel that I've just seen it for the first time, having bought and viewed the HD-DVD copy. Stunning! :D

Precisely. I despair, I really do.
In class now I have say "flammable" instead of "inflammable," with comes from"inflame" and has a Latin origin, because people go, "In-flammable? You mean it don't burn?" :(

I feel to take quality filmed classics and treat it with HD can only give us perceptions of what it may have been like for our parents or grandparents to view these classics in the theater only better with our HT size panels. Good Night Good Luck was excellent and Sin City HD broadcast is amazing everytime I've seen it as a piece of eye candy art though I don't know if I'll ever figure the whole thing out it presents lots of wow. The Old calssics I've seen only get better and cannot see how it could be worse than scenario unless the film grade was poor as GIGO results.



I look forward to an HD Classic channel in the future.


From your lips to God's ears... ;)

...and it took us 3 pages to tell the OP this!!!

NO.
We just all love to through in our 2 cents :D

Hey, hey hey guys!
How come no one responded to this? Isn't this what AVS is about? Learning, educating and enlightening?
HDMI posted:
I hope that every movie and TV series ever made will eventually be put onto an HD format. But since the studios are so slow and selective about putting their titles onto HD, I figured they would choose the few movies that could benefit most from being in HD. I did not expect that B&W movies would fall into that category. However, from what you guys have been saying apparently my expectation will be proven wrong. And I will be happy to be wrong, since it means I'd be able to enjoy the classics in a new and better way than I expected.
I think you'll be glad you did.

I've been posting about the decline of AVS for awhile now but look this is positive!
HDMI should be commended for having an open mind and not getting initmidated.

I've been posting about the decline of AVS for awhile now but look this is positive!
HDMI should be commended for having an open mind and not getting initmidated.

I would actually say that s/he has a closed mind because of their unwillingness to accept that B&W movies CAN look good. :)

I'm sure that opinion will be changed once they view Casablanca

HD may not help them much, but I would love to see the Marx Brothers in HD.

I would actually say that s/he has a closed mind because of their unwillingness to accept that B&W movies CAN look good. :)What unwillingness? You must be talking about somebody else. I have already accepted the possibility that they can look good, and Casablanca will be on its way before long.

What more do you want? :confused: Do I need to buy every B&W HD-DVD movie ever made and build a shrine to Bogart? :p :eek:

What unwillingness? You must be talking about somebody else. I have already accepted the possibility that they can look good, and Casablanca will be on its way before long.

What more do you want? :confused: Do I need to buy every B&W HD-DVD movie ever made and build a shrine to Bogart? :p :eek:

Nothing, as you can see by the smiley face in my post, I wasn't trying to be too serious about this. :)

I think the Blu-ray and HD forums specifically need to calm down :) This place has gotten way too crazy, in a negative way.

What unwillingness? You must be talking about somebody else. I have already accepted the possibility that they can look good, and Casablanca will be on its way before long.

What more do you want? :confused: Do I need to buy every B&W HD-DVD movie ever made and build a shrine to Bogart? :p :eek:
That's a good start... ;)

I understand what rboster is getting at.

I think the aswer to your (hdmi4ever) question is yes. You brought up a movie that was made in black and white because they had to. But I recall (while I didn't see it) Raging Bull being touted as incredible when it was released on Laserdisc. More modern films will use black and white for artistic reasons. From everything I have ever heard, getting an HDDVD treatment (or even DVD from VHS) will always benefit.

In regards to is it worth it for such an old film, plenty of people around here have explained that film still yield higher resolution than what we (Most of us at least) are capable of at home.

Dave

It would have been possible to make Casablanca in color, just because it is old doesn't mean it had to be black and white.

Was a choice in 1942.

Since this thread title is "Black and white movies in HD-DVD? Why bother?"
Besides the fact some of the greatest movies of all time were originally filmed in B&W being the number one reason to preserve them to HD digital, there's other reasons too.

Many, many B&W films were originally hastily authored to SD DVD when the medium was still very young. Those original film to DVD transfers were low or no budget projects with no restoration efforts and sadly, the picture quality of the film suffered on the SD DVD because of a bad film master. Now with Hi Def DVD (choose your flavor) Hollywood has the chance to finally do justice to some of the B&W classics like Casablanca. For many aging B&W films, HD may be their last hurrah so we're praying that the powers that be give us one really great copy of our cherished favorites to have and to hold forever.
Other near great B&W films like "The longest Day", "Rebecca" "12 O’clock High", "The Lost Weekend" "A night to Remember" and many, many others need restoration and would be stunning on HD DVD.
We can only hope that Hollywood lets us spend our hard earned money on some of our cherished restored B&W favorites before it’s too late for them!

What unwillingness? You must be talking about somebody else. I have already accepted the possibility that they can look good, and Casablanca will be on its way before long.

What more do you want? :confused: Do I need to buy every B&W HD-DVD movie ever made and build a shrine to Bogart? :p :eek:

Yes ,you did and I for one respect very much your considering the alternative side of this.

Art

So... does this thread title include Sin City?

From Here to Eternity in high def would be great.

The restored Metropolis would be worthwhile ...
The Devil and Miss jones (non x rated)
African Queen
Cary Grant , Bogart . Old gangster movies like white heat , roaring 20's , little ceaser .
petrified forest ...
Bring em on

Bob

So... does this thread title include Sin City?

Interestingly , I watched my HD copy of Sin City last night. It has quite a bit of color and some scenes tyhat have various tones of yellow and brown over the entire image. this doesn't include things like the colors of eyes, blood,dresses,beds and of course yellow villians !

Art

What more do you want? :confused: Do I need to buy every B&W HD-DVD movie ever made and build a shrine to Bogart? :p :eek:

You DON'T have a shrine to Bogart built? Get to work! :mad:








;)

You DON'T have a shrine to Bogart built? Get to work! :mad:








;)

Yeah , get to work already !! And catch High Sierra , treasure of Sierra Madre and the Maltese Falcon for a break !! :)

No. But to me, a good B&W film is good because of its story and acting, not because of its visuals. The B&W may create an ambience that enhances it, like what was done for Sin City (which I liked a lot). But I don't expect that Sin City in HD would have been a significantly better experience.

Anyway, I'm new to the HD-DVD scene, and my A2 just shipped today. You've convinced me to give the B&W films a chance. But they won't be at the top of my list.

My elder brother objects to B&W as well. His attitude is if the studio doesn't care enough about its public to colorize (after all, people PAID to have color TV), then he doesn't care to waste his color TV's capabilities displaying it.

He used to raise a similar argument regarding FullFrame Vs Widescreen -- If the studio doesn't care enough about its public to fill the TV screens they paid for, then he doesn't care enough about their releases to waste his TV's scanline capabilities displaying them.

I consider both arguments nonsensical, but I'm guessing they are shared by many. Generally speaking, I prefer a really well shot B&W film to the typical color film. I can't explain why, but I find the image quality to be more powerful. Perhaps the chroma content actually has the effect of somewhat obscuring the luminous content. Don't know, but I definitely appreciate B&W when done well.

41 give or take:


A Place In The Sun (1951)
A Streetcar Named Desire (1951)
All About Eve (1950)
All Quiet On The Western Front (1930)
Bringing Up Baby (1938)
Casablanca (1942)
Citizen Kane (1941)
City Lights (1931)
Double Indemnity (1944)
Dr. Strangelove (1964)
Duck Soup (1933)
Frankenstein (1931)
From Here To Eternity (1953)
High Noon (1952)
It Happened One Night (1934)
It's A Wonderful Life (1946)
King Kong (1933)
Modern Times (1936)
Mr. Smith Goes To Washington (1939)
Mutiny On The Bounty (1935)
On The Waterfront (1954)
Psycho (1960)
Raging Bull (1980)
Schindler's List (1993)
Some Like It Hot (1959)
Stagecoach (1939)
Sunset Boulevard (1950)
The Apartment (1960)
The Best Years Of Our Lives (1946)
The Birth Of A Nation (1915)
The Gold Rush (1925)
The Grapes Of Wrath (1940)
The Jazz Singer (1927)
The Maltese Falcon (1941)
The Manchurian Candidate (1962)
The Philadelphia Story (1940)
The Third Man (1949)
The Treasure Of The Sierra Madre (1948)
To Kill A Mockingbird (1962)
Wuthering Heights (1939)
Yankee Doodle Dandy (1942)

And I want to see everyone of them in HD on my 110 inch screen.

I notice Casablanca is available in HD-DVD. Does high definition really do anything worthwhile for a black-and-white movie?

??? why not? better dynamic range and sharpness.

I tend to seperate movies in basically two categories:

1. Movies that should be judged based on the quality in all aspects such as story, acting, cinematography, and directing. (Examples: Citizen Kane, Raging Bull, Midnight Cowboy, etc.)

2. Movies that you shut your brain off, so you can relax a little and just enjoy the dumbness of a flick, despite the lower quality of the finished product. (Example: Fast and the Furious franchise, Crank, Evil Dead series, etc.)

People usually choose to enjoy only one and not the other. I never understood why people have shame in enjoying a dumb flick, while others are too "cool" to check out more artistic movies. Movies are entertainment, whether it be a "guilty pleasure" or an "artistic journey", so why not be more open minded?

Though there are movies out there that fit in one category, but are still universally accepted as great movies (Goodfellas for example).

:)
BRAVO

Bogie was, is and will always be THE MAN.

:)

Then there are posts crabbing about grain...and what a lousy transfer the offending title makes when transferred to high-def.

Is it my imagination, or did this (and other) forums used to attract more knowledgable participants? I've noticed the same degenerting phenomena on other forums as well.

There seems to be a large influx of members who don't even understand the basics of film structure or various styles of cinematography.
Perfectly put, thank you. This sort of thing really irks me. No offence to the original poster intended.

That and the "Why are there black bars" posts.

The restored Metropolis would be worthwhile ...
The Devil and Miss jones (non x rated)
African Queen
Cary Grant , Bogart . Old gangster movies like white heat , roaring 20's , little ceaser .
petrified forest ...
Bring em on

Bob
African Queen is in color. It IS, however, also one of the few remaining AFI Top 100 Films NOT yet released on DVD. :(

African Queen is in color. It IS, however, also one of the few remaining AFI Top 100 Films NOT yet released on DVD. :(

I forgot that is color ,
Been waiting for this to be on dvd forever . crazy its not except bootlegs for big bucks...
Fun movie too !!

There does seem to be a large in flux of people in A/V forums these days that have just purchased their first HD display and audio systems. I think this is what is happening. Eventually these people for the most part will be educated.

We all need to have some patience and try to remember back to when each of us did not know anything of aspect ratio's, progressive scan, and 5.1 audio sources. :)


To answer the question of B&W being worth it? You betcha, my SO and I are big time old movie fans, lots and lots of B&W and Native 4:3 in our library, I welcome the re-releases of non-colorized versions in HD big time.


On a plus note, my African Queen Laserdisc is really quite good, good enough that I may not ever upgrade it.

I have a ld player still , its does 480p ..
should try to e-bay a few ...

I replaced a few of my LD's and stopped. I find generally the version I have on LD is the version I want. Close Encounters was that last straw, the SE version is the special one for me, the last DVD released is not as good of a movie in my opinion.

I have around 1000 LD titles, I see no reason to get rid of them at all. I am an old movie buff, and 100's of my LD's are not available on DVD and probably never will be, let alone HD-DVD and/or Blu-ray.

But I don't expect that Sin City in HD would have been a significantly better experience.

You do realize that Sin City was filmed digitally with HD cameras, right? An HD presentation will not only boast a flawless transfer, it is the way the movie was intended to be seen.

It's a shame you seem to have a limited appreciation of B&W or otherwise vintage films, but Casablanca should help turn that around for you. It gets more play on my system than any other HD DVD I own (including winners like Goodfellas, Casino, The Sting, and Seabiscuit).

A good movie is a good movie is a good movie.

There does seem to be a large in flux of people in A/V forums these days that have just purchased their first HD display and audio systems. I think this is what is happening. Eventually these people for the most part will be educated.

We all need to have some patience and try to remember back to when each of us did not know anything of aspect ratio's, progressive scan, and 5.1 audio sources. :)


To answer the question of B&W being worth it? You betcha, my SO and I are big time old movie fans, lots and lots of B&W and Native 4:3 in our library, I welcome the re-releases of non-colorized versions in HD big time.


On a plus note, my African Queen Laserdisc is really quite good, good enough that I may not ever upgrade it.

I've a modest library of B&W Academy Ratio LD releases in my collection. I was seriously hunting titles during the great LD sell-off in the late 90's. They fill 8 33" shelves with another shelf+ worth on the floor (many having already been winnowed out via DVD replacements). Even used, they were a big investment, but I'm very glad to have them (including my copy of "African Queen"). Though I'm sure there's a number of people on this forum with far more titles than I :).

I replaced a few of my LD's and stopped. I find generally the version I have on LD is the version I want. Close Encounters was that last straw, the SE version is the special one for me, the last DVD released is not as good of a movie in my opinion.

I have around 1000 LD titles, I see no reason to get rid of them at all. I am an old movie buff, and 100's of my LD's are not available on DVD and probably never will be, let alone HD-DVD and/or Blu-ray.

Whenever I pick up a DVD with LD replacement in mind, I don't actually replace unless the DVD version wins in both video and sound (I perform a shoot out). If I prefer the LD in either capacity, then it stays (frequently they both have plusses and so they both stay).

Two examples where I prefer to watch the LD over the DVD are "Bullitt" and "The Warriors", but I kept the DVD versions as well. Examples of not keeping the DVD are "Candyman" and "Enemy Of The State". On the other hand, "Twelve O'Clock High" DVD beat out the LD :).

When there are different versions available, I treat them as different films, after all -- that's what they effectively are :). I just hope Lucas stops producing new versions of Star Wars -- takes up too much space and I like his newer ones less and less than the originals.

It's a shame you seem to have a limited appreciation of B&W or otherwise vintage films...Now you are the one jumping to conclusions and are sadly mistaken. I asked a question about B&W movies in HD because I have never seen one, and have not been impressed visually by B&W films. That does not mean I lack appreciation for B&W or classic films in general.

Quite the opposite, if anything. I hardly go to the cinema anymore because I am increasingly fed up with the formulaic films that Hollywood keeps churning out today, thinking that $50 million in special effects and a $20 million actor in the 3rd sequel of something will make a good movie.

So I have been more and more turning towards older films and foreign films. In recent months I have watched Amélie, Easter Parade (can't forget Fred Astaire's performance in the shop!), Summer Stock, and Andy Hardy Meets Debutante. Tsotsi, Nosferatu (the 1922 version), Taxi Driver, and the original version of the Manchurian Candidate are in my BB queue, and Ben Hur just arrived a couple days ago (but I'll wait until the weekend when I have the over 3 hours available to watch it).

Now you are the one jumping to conclusions and are sadly mistaken. I asked a question about B&W movies in HD because I have never seen one, and have not been impressed visually by B&W films. That does not mean I lack appreciation for B&W or classic films in general.

Quite the opposite, if anything. I hardly go to the cinema anymore because I am increasingly fed up with the formulaic films that Hollywood keeps churning out today, thinking that $50 million in special effects and a $20 million actor in the 3rd sequel of something will make a good movie.

So I have been more and more turning towards older films and foreign films. In recent months I have watched Amélie, Easter Parade (can't forget Fred Astaire's performance in the shop!), Summer Stock, and Andy Hardy Meets Debutante. Tsotsi, Nosferatu (the 1922 version), Taxi Driver, and the original version of the Manchurian Candidate are in my BB queue, and Ben Hur just arrived a couple days ago (but I'll wait until the weekend when I have the over 3 hours available to watch it).

It was merely an assumption about your personal tastes based entirely on your handful of comments on the topic. I appear to have been off-base, and for that I apologize. I, for one, concur wholeheartedly with your assessment and subsequent condemnation of modern Hollywood blockbusters and their dubious social value. There is certainly a place for unabashed escapist filmmaking, but it nauseates me to hear the grossly uninformed proclaim the latest big budget hack job a worthy mainstay in the annals of cinematic masterpieces.

I still disagree that a B&W film is comparatively lacking in visual impact when juxtaposed with its full color counterparts. Framing, composition, negative space, and contrast are among the fundamental artistic devices that are every iota as relevant, film stock notwithstanding. In fact, in the absence of color information, the significance of certain key concepts is potentially magnified, and proper execution of said facets is rendered exponentially more critical in delivering the intended presentation.

Bottom line, you're gonna love Casablanca. Great flick, impeccable restoration and transfer.

How many B&W films do you suppose are on AFI's "best films ever made" list? That's my 2 cents anyway.AFI? PffffT! I didn't notice Metropolis (1927) amongst the bunch. Because of its age, I'm not sure how much more it could be improved by HD, though.



I'm not so sure about one of the movies on that list, unless its creator REALLY tinkered with it again.

Edit: okay, now it's gone.I didn't see the original posting; does the removed title begin with an 'L', by chance?

I still disagree that a B&W film is comparatively lacking in visual impact when juxtaposed with its full color counterparts.I didn't say they were necessarily lacking, it's just that I haven't been impressed by what I've personally seen. I've been impressed by the singing, dancing, story, and acting, but not the visuals. But I haven't seen very many B&W films, and I've never seen one on the big screen or in HD. So my expectations have been clouded by my prior experience with them (or lack thereof).

AFI? PffffT! I didn't notice Metropolis (1927) amongst the bunch. Because of its age, I'm not sure how much more it could be improved by HD, though.

I didn't see the original posting; does the removed title begin with an 'L', by chance? It was recently restored. The DVD I saw looked marvelous. I would love to see it on HD DVD or at least see what my HD XA2 can do with it.

i got the PAL version of metropolis and it's stellar.

:)

I notice Casablanca is available in HD-DVD. Does high definition really do anything worthwhile for a black-and-white movie?

La Haine says hi.

I saw the restored Metropolis at the Michigan Theater in Ann Arbor a few years ago , it was spectacular ! Unfortunbately, for some unknown reason, they decided to add edge enhancement to the DVD which really knocked it down from the film presentation. Hopefully the HDDVD will do it justice.

Art

Casablanca is one of the more amazing looking HD-DVDs I own, even though I've only had a chance to spot check it. But the scenes I did watch define 'razor sharp' about as well as anything I own or have rented. AMAZING for a film of its age. And La Haine is a superior film PQ-wise. That's definitely one of my favorites too.

Art, the PAL collector's whoopie SE version looks pretty good and EE free to me. If there's one thing I hate is EE.

:)

The Hitchcock films will rock the house for PQ on HD DVD soon. Psycho...The Birds.... these B&W films will be like an entire NEW experience again.

We picked up Happy Gilmore on HD DVD and yes - while not B&W and not of the "action movies only gain from HD" school of thought - even that movie looks GREAT in HD.

I saw the restored Metropolis at the Michigan Theater in Ann Arbor a few years ago , it was spectacular ! Unfortunately, for some unknown reason, they decided to add edge enhancement to the DVD which really knocked it down from the film presentation. Hopefully the HDDVD will do it justice.

Art

Art

Art, that was a weird post...

:)

The Hitchcock films will rock the house for PQ on HD DVD soon. Psycho...The Birds.... these B&W films will be like an entire NEW experience again.

Has The Birds been decolourised for HD then?

Now you are the one jumping to conclusions and are sadly mistaken. I asked a question about B&W movies in HD because I have never seen one, and have not been impressed visually by B&W films. That does not mean I lack appreciation for B&W or classic films in general.
You probably haven't seen a decent presentation of a b&w film with exceptional cinematography. Later widescreen b&w films like Sweet Smell of Success, In Cold Blood and Harakiri should look spectacular in high definition, if done properly. As others have mentioned, check out Casablanca on HD DVD.

If I could only get "The Uninvited", The Original "The Haunting" and "The Innocents" on HD...
All classic B+W

Has The Birds been decolourised for HD then?

Um... Yeah, that would be a problem...

fitprod

I did not realize "The Birds" was B/W. I have only seen it in color. :mad:

I did not realize "The Birds" was B/W. I have only seen it in color. :mad:
It was shot in color and is a color film. :rolleyes:

As with most things in life the issues and arguments are not as simple as you'd initially suppose.

With regard to the resolution capabilities of film over the years a number of factors come into play , its not as simple to say that film started with a given resolution and has improved over the years.

When 35mm film initially beacame the norm it used a nitrate film backing. This decayed rather easily and was also a fire hazard. So the industry moved to safety film. Whilst this solved the nitrate stock problems the newer material and production lines were not quite as optimised as the legacy nitrate paradigm so there was an associated loss of sharpness until the newer tyechnologies became more refined.

You can see similar patterns of innovation leading to compromises throughout the development of film technology.

Early film was only sensitive to a limted range of light wavelengths so very specific lighting had to be used : sodium vapour ( I think...I'm not a film historian). Whilst this lent its own set of limitations it did mean that the filmstocks themselves were comparatively very sharp and grain free within this relatively narrow performance envelope.

However there was a need to move away from expensive wavelength limited light sources . As the film became more sensitive to a greater range of wavelengths it became less sharp and necessitated a larger grain structure. So again innovation actually led to an initial compromise of image quality.

Originally 35mm films exposed the entire 35mm "fullap" film frame (call it 4096x3112 if you want a purely comparative resolution figure). The advent of sound processes used an area down the left hand side of the film frame for the soundtrack ; thus the academy film frame was born (3656x2664... I think) . Not only did this limit the available resolution to record the image , the additional sound reading head increased instability in the film path on projection .The optical processing to put the soundtrack onto the film also meant a loss in sharpness and the necessity for academy centred lenses and cameras meant a whole new bunch of innovation to further compromise image quality until optimisation evened the field.

Same cycle can be seen with the advent of colour processes. Technicolor although still hard to better for colour rendition and opacity to this day relies on exposing 3 or even 4 seperate pieces of 35mm film at the same time . Apart from the difficuties in physically maintaining registration and a whole new set of processing technologies this required massive new cameras and lenses with their own associated lack of initial optimisation. technicolor although still celebrated to this day is actually quite a soft format if you want to analyse it purely in terms of resolution capability.

Then you have things like anamorphic formats coming along. Other less obvious paradigm shifts: the move to smaller more portable cameras to give the film-maker a whole new freedom with the camera placement in the 60s leading to whole "new waves" of film making styles that allowed films to break out of the studio and give a grittier more immedaite depiction of "real" life locations and situations. Again innovation in one area meant a compromise at least initially in others.

This even continues today with the digital film replacement formats. Whilst they represent improvements to image pipelines and have a different performance profile to 35mm all things being equal it would be a very fool-hardy individual who declared them to be "better" than current 35mm film stocks from a capture perspective.

So whilst its true to say that some older films will benefit from hidef transfer(ignoring long term deteriation ) its not necessarily the case that every film is going to contain more resolution than say SD video for arguments sake.

Sadly I can think of at least a couple that are amongst my favourite films that I doubt will benefit hugely from hidef mastering: "Seven Samurai" and "Treasure of the Seirra Madre" being another primarily down to filmstock limitations in post war Japan and the heavy use of in camera filtration to create an arid look.

The original King Kong I suspect doesn't contain any more resolution that what you'll get on the current remastered dvd.

And just to set a few things straight that irk me whenever people talk about hidef. The improvement over SD is primarily limited to resolution only , not colour , not intensity range.

And downsampling the colour records in YUV(component) colourspace is not the same as downsampling in RGB . Try it in photoshop or something similar to see how well component colour sampling works , most people are hard pushed to spot any difference between 4:4:4 and 4:2:0 with most imagery. And I don't think a black andf white film has necessarily any advantages to encoding than a colour one. Its still colour video at the end of the day I'm not sure you can just leave the colour records "empty". I'm sure a compressionist will have a better idea.

Art, that was a weird post...

:)

Yea ,since someone said the DVD was fantastic I had to repost since the DVD really degraded the image compared to the restored film. :o

Art

It was shot in color and is a color film. :rolleyes:


Whoops - my mistake.. :)

I saw the restored Metropolis at the Michigan Theater in Ann Arbor a few years ago , it was spectacular ! Unfortunbately, for some unknown reason, they decided to add edge enhancement to the DVD which really knocked it down from the film presentation. Hopefully the HDDVD will do it justice.

Art

hey art... has any information about metropolis on hd dvd been posted anywhere?

i have been looking but haven't found much.

I just saw Paths Of Glory with Kirk Douglas in HD and it's amazing. Same for A Hard Day's Night.

hey art... has any information about metropolis on hd dvd been posted anywhere?

i have been looking but haven't found much.

I can't recall where I read this rumor sorry other than that no solid evidence. :o

Art

I just saw Paths Of Glory with Kirk Douglas in HD I'd buy that in a heart beat, Third Man too. It's nice to dream I guess

Art I too saw the road show of the restored Metropolis, what a revelation.
I also have the Kino DVD and while not as good I still pop it in a couple times a year.
People who haven't seen it are flabbergasted.

The Third Man...

I recall some interview with Orson where they asked him how he brought such dynamism (or some similar word) to the character and he said something like,
"They've been talking about and building my character up for an hour already so at that point I just show up and the effect is there..."
or something like that.

:)


Kane in HD, would make me pretty happy!

I'd love to get Dr. Strangelove in HD. I've watched it about 5 times and there's always lots of things I had missed in previous viewings.:cool:

Holy thread resurrections!

I just recently watched Casablanca on hd dvd. I'm only 26 and never really had time for it. Its a movie my mother would allways watch and well I can see why. Its just an amazing movie , I can't believe its taken me this long to watch it and man Ingrid Bergman is amazing

god yes, she is. Bogie was pretty much a force of nature on screen too.
Check out The Maltese Falcoln next (although currently only on DVD)

Casablanca in HD-DVD is a must have title for the 5 free HD-DVD offer. At least compared to the other titles in the same category. I've seen the colorized version of Casablanca on TV and perhaps they did should have also included it on the disc to broaden its appeal to younger audiences not having seen the film yet. The artistic talent it took to colorize Casablanca is amazing. Casablanca is a classic that does benefit from being in High Def any which way you look at it.

Another movie I'd love to see in High Def is Miracle on 34th Street. I'd like both the colorized and black and white version of that on one disc.. :) Great movie.

god yes, she is. Bogie was pretty much a force of nature on screen too.
Check out The Maltese Falcoln next (although currently only on DVD)

I'm hoping to catch alot of these classics on hd dvd (or even bluray when prices come down)

I don't know if i can watch any of these in dvd. I'm becoming such a snob with my hd collection.

I'd love to see Double Indemnity in HD. I have an old VHS copy that has horrid crackling in the audio track. Third Man and Kane are definite must haves as well.

are there any (classic) Kurosawa flims on HD-DVD at this time? I think I saw that Ran was available but I'm more interested in his older works. Also the Samurai films, 1 2 and 3. I have those all on SD but I'd love to see some nice remastered versions.

In the pre-color days of cinema, cinematographers and directors of photography utilized the elements of light and shadow in the ways that they did because black and white was the medium in which they worked. They were not trying to reproduce the real world in all its colorful splendor. They were working with the varying degrees of contrast in images by very painstakingly deliberate placement of lighting to enhance the dramatic effect and shot composition of a scene.

These pioneering cinematic masters were not "limited" because they didn't have color film. They had a vision of what they wanted to achieve, and through their brilliance were able to create stunning images that, in some ways, would actually be diminished if they were done in color. As a matter of fact, I believe that if these old masters were working in color, their methods would have been entirely different.

Black and white cinematography is entirely different than color cinematography. Certainly, they involve the same basic elements of lighting and the use of shadow and what not, but in some respects, working in black and white is much more difficult and requires a completely different eye when composing a shot. Black and white is a much more subtle and nuanced medium, IMO. When you are looking at an explosion, or a fireworks display, certainly color captures the visceral experience in a much more realistic way than black and white can. On the other hand, if you look at the sewer scenes in The Third Man, for example, can you honestly say that color would have made those scenes more dramatic?

In this day and age, understandably, very , VERY few movies are made in black and white. Color movies are much more a reflection of the taste of contemporary people and the world in which we live. Nowadays, black and white is used for very specific reasons. The use of black and white in Good Night and Good Luck adds a real dimension to the film that makes it look like it really takes place in the 50's TV era. Color would have made it look much more like a "modern" perspective of the 50's. Black and white puts is right there, and we can truly imagine that we are seeing things as they actually were. Obviously, the real world in the 50's WAS in color, but in the world of the movies and in our imaginations, black and white is far more representative.

I am not trying to say that black and white is superior to color. But there are times where black and white truly is superior. If a filmmaker makes a black and white film, whether as a style choice in this modern age, or as the old masters did in the early years of cinema, they are dealing with a very specific communicative medium that is entirely different and more "other-worldly" than the color medium. If you take a film that was shot in black and white and colorize it, you are destroying the essence of what the original intention was.

One further point, especially with reference to the OP's question. The original film negatives of older classic B&W films (assuming they have been well preserved or have been restored) have a higher resolution than 1080p. They can all benefit from being transferred to HD. Not only would they be sharper looking, but the grayscale would be much more enhanced, and the contrast between light and shadow would be DRASTICALLY improved.

One final note...if you want an example of how great black and white photography can be in HD, check out the opening to Van Helsing. Admittedly a cheesy movie at best, but if you ask me, from a visual perspective, the open 6 minute black and white sequence is the best looking sequence in that entire movie.

Well said.

To me to this day, the original "Night of The Living Dead" in B+W, although VERY low budget and at times amateurish, is MUCH creepier and more effective than any of the color "dead" films. They might be interesting, thought provoking, shocking, gory etc... but NONE of them can hold a candle at least IMHO to "Night" as far as eerieness and scariness. "Night" looks exactly like a "Nightmare" come to life. The color ones look more like comic books.

I agree. Very nice write up!

I've seen the colorized version of Casablanca on TV and perhaps they did should have also included it on the disc to broaden its appeal to younger audiences not having seen the film yet. The artistic talent it took to colorize Casablanca is amazing.
All is lost.

I notice Casablanca is available in HD-DVD. Does high definition really do anything worthwhile for a black-and-white movie?

Oh, you had to pick Casablanca as your example!:eek:

I've seen it more than 30 times, mostly with my classes. When I bought the HD DVD it was a REVELATION!!!!! I saw a level of clarity and detail that I did not think possible.

It is one of the best-looking HD DVD discs out there!

I've seen the colorized version of Casablanca on TV and perhaps they did should have also included it on the disc to broaden its appeal to younger audiences not having seen the film yet. The artistic talent it took to colorize Casablanca is amazing.


No.

Casablanca HD DVD is stunning!

Casablanca HD DVD is stunning!

It really is, detail pours out of the most unsuspecting places.

I think they should burn all B&W copies of Casablanca and just distribute the colourized version. On second thoughts, they should remake Casablanca in colour (1.78:1 so no black bars on my Tv) with Vin Deisel and Milla Jokavich and destroy ALL previous versions.

Casablanca in HD-DVD is a must have title for the 5 free HD-DVD offer. At least compared to the other titles in the same category. I've seen the colorized version of Casablanca on TV and perhaps they did should have also included it on the disc to broaden its appeal to younger audiences not having seen the film yet. The artistic talent it took to colorize Casablanca is amazing. Casablanca is a classic that does benefit from being in High Def any which way you look at it.

Another movie I'd love to see in High Def is Miracle on 34th Street. I'd like both the colorized and black and white version of that on one disc.. :) Great movie.

Arrrrrghhhh!!! No, no no!! Burn every copy and tie Ted Turner to a stake.

Keep Ted Turner and his damned Crayolas away from my movie!
- Orson Welles

After the more "scholarly" post I did a few messages back something else occurred to me.

Ingrid Bergman is pretty flat chested compared to the starlets of today. Maybe Casablanca would be a much better movie if they used CGI to give her bigger breasts. They could also take the scene where she spends the night at Ricks apartment and insert an explicit sex scene with two digitized Bogarts and Bergman's. At the end of the movie, they could digitally adjust the final scene with Major Strausser and have Rick blow his head off.

Surely, the movie would be greatly "improved".

Well...

All great films would benefit from HD. Casablanca is just an example (I hope Warner releases Citizen Kane soon... I'm dying to see it). All aspects of image will gain: contrasts, contours, light effects, texture... everything.
Good cinematography always wins.

After the more "scholarly" post I did a few messages back something else occurred to me.

Ingrid Bergman is pretty flat chested compared to the starlets of today. Maybe Casablanca would be a much better movie if they used CGI to give her bigger breasts. They could also take the scene where she spends the night at Ricks apartment and insert an explicit sex scene with two digitized Bogarts and Bergman's. At the end of the movie, they could digitally adjust the final scene with Major Strausser and have Rick blow his head off.

Surely, the movie would be greatly "improved".

Exactly my thoughts! :D

And why not create a new soundtrack that will take full advantage of today's technology?
Why waste Dolby TrueHD with mono?
Why not erase Sam and replace him with someone more "in tune" with today's audiences... like 50 Cent, Usher, Justin Timberlake?
And instead of "As Time Goes By", why not try a new song?

... I've seen the colorized version of Casablanca on TV and perhaps they did should have also included it on the disc to broaden its appeal to younger audiences not having seen the film yet. The artistic talent it took to colorize Casablanca is amazing. ...
Kids say the darndest things.

Ilsa: Play it Sam....
Sam:....It's gettin' hot in here...so take off all your clothes...

Why can't they re-do the soundtrack to Casablanca while we're at it? I'm sure it would appeal more to young kids if Fifty Cent had a few songs in there. Or they could just remake it! Justin Timberlake and Beyonce should play the leads! :)

Rick: Here's lookin' at you, beyotch! Word!

I notice Casablanca is available in HD-DVD. Does high definition really do anything worthwhile for a black-and-white movie?

I just wanted to let you know you have the WORST name ever. hdmi4ever? HDMI sucks in so many ways!

I'm just going to hope you don't mean it :)

The artistic talent it took to colorize Casablanca is amazing.

No mention of the artistic talent it took to make the film in the first place...???

:confused:

For hdmi4ever to see the benefits of HD make sure you watch Casablanca in a previous release - even the recent DVD - to see the detail difference.

The main thing that shines in all the incarnations is the dialogue!

Holy thread necro, Batman! :eek:

So what is the verdict, hdmi4ever, or is Casablanca still in your queue? lol

Black and white cinematography is entirely different than color cinematography.
But then you immediately say...
Certainly, they involve the same basic elements of lighting and the use of shadow and what not, but in some respects, working in black and white is much more difficult and requires a completely different eye when composing a shot.

There have been entire books written on this subject. You can use certain black and white techniques to produce effects that are difficult in color but you don't have to. All the famous black and white movies used these techniques but for every one of those there were hundreds that didn't. Right now I'm watching "Good Night and Good Luck" from two years ago on HD-DVD. It was shot in black and white and might as well have been shot in color.

Color got its dull reputation during the 60's and 70's when the goal was to get good realistic color in all situations at all costs. Out went backlighting and low key light. In went flood lights and soft lighting. In the 80's some dark movies like Alien started using old black and white lighting techniques to great effect. Directors started using beach bypass to produce dark blacks in color film. They even did things like shoot under fluorescent lights without filters that compensate for their ugly green tint -- this would have been unthinkable ten years earlier. Finally the goal of producing pretty color all the time wasn't always the main goal.

These days everyone uses essentially the same techniques in both mediums because many scenes in color films are very close to monochromatic anyway. For example, a scene lit by a sunset is mostly black and orange therefore all black and white techniques apply. Many scenes are lit by a very narrow range of color (like tungsten lights in indoor scenes).

Watch Gone with the Wind in black and white. It was one of the few Technicolor films that used black and white lighting techniques (Technicolor hated this because they wanted dazzing colors, not shadows).

There is no contradiction in those two comments of mine that you posted. All I was saying was that although you use the same elements in both (in essence, a camera and some lights), you have to treat their uses differently for either black and white or color because the end resulting image is different. The choices a cinematographer would make would differ depending on whether he was shooting one way or the other.

Let's say you shot a scene in color, and then shot the very same scene in black and white using exactly the same setup. You might discover that certain "colors" might not show up as well in black and white. A woman in a bright red dress in a dark room might look fabulous in color, but in black and white, she might blend too much into the background, requiring either a change in costume color, or a different approach to lighting the scene.

A good example of how they differ is in the original Frankenstein movie by James Whale. In order to make the monster look more ghostly, they had to use green make up on his skin, so that in black and white his skin would look more pale and corpse-like. He most certainly doesn't look green, and he's not supposed to. You wouldn't have to do this in color...you would just make up his face the way you want it to look and then light it appropriately.

You are totally correct in how many contemporary movies use black and white lighting techniques in order to enhance the use of shadow and dynamic contrast, as in your example of Alien. However, if Alien was shot in black and white, you would still probably have to make changes in how it was shot. Some scenes might be too dark, some too bright (as in the cryosleep chamber scene at the beginning).

As far as Good Night and Good Luck goes, certainly it could have been done in color, but the choice of black and white was far superior in the way that it reflected the days of early television in the 50's. It was a stylistic choice that put you back in that time and place. As I said previously, if it had been shot in color, it would have looked more like a new millenium look at 50's tv, as opposed to transporting you back to the 50's. Certainly it would have been a good movie even if it had been done in color, but I believe that because of the subject matter, shooting it in black and white dramatically elevated it's ability to capture the atmosphere of that time, and gave the picture a look that deepened the whole experience in a way that color couldn't have.

I don't know I thought La Haine looked pretty good. Not great mind you but good..

I haven't seen any of the other B&W HD-DVDs but I may have to give some more a look.

black and white, vs colour... let's get even more nostalgic! Gimme some more tinted movies please!:D I have yet to see one in HD.

The original "Nosferatu" with the colored tints could be cool!

:)

Let's say you shot a scene in color, and then shot the very same scene in black and white using exactly the same setup. You might discover that certain "colors" might not show up as well in black and white. A woman in a bright red dress in a dark room might look fabulous in color, but in black and white, she might blend too much into the background, requiring either a change in costume color, or a different approach to lighting the scene.
The same problem exists in color. Say your woman in a bright red dress is walking in front of a red background. Same problem, same solution.

A good example of how they differ is in the original Frankenstein movie by James Whale. In order to make the monster look more ghostly, they had to use green make up on his skin, so that in black and white his skin would look more pale and corpse-like.
But here's the funny part: they were using an outdated and unnecessary technique. Kodak had dropped the price of their panchromatic stock in 1926 and studios were switching over to it but even in 1931 they were still lighting and applying make up as if they were shooting the old orthochromatic stocks. They could have used any color for the makeup but they weren't certain how the panchromatic stock reacted with colors yet.

However, if Alien was shot in black and white, you would still probably have to make changes in how it was shot. Some scenes might be too dark, some too bright (as in the cryosleep chamber scene at the beginning).
But these problems also exist in color films and it doesn't change the techniques you would use to solve those problems.

As far as Good Night and Good Luck goes, certainly it could have been done in color, but the choice of black and white was far superior in the way that it reflected the days of early television in the 50's. It was a stylistic choice that put you back in that time and place.
But color existed in the 50's. Not on television but in real life. Was this not a movie about real life? Instead it made it look unreal to me.

Certainly it would have been a good movie even if it had been done in color, but I believe that because of the subject matter, shooting it in black and white dramatically elevated it's ability to capture the atmosphere of that time, and gave the picture a look that deepened the whole experience in a way that color couldn't have.
I didn't think that at all. I think Clooney just figured that shooting the film in black and white would be an easy and inexpensive technique to use. After all, the movie was 90% about the dialog. Similar movies like Conspiracy (http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0266425/) did a better job of dropping the audience into complicated situations from the past and didn't need to use black and white.

black and white, vs colour... let's get even more nostalgic! Gimme some more tinted movies please!:D I have yet to see one in HD.

What movie had the most tinting? I think Intolerance had at least three different tints.