Something Old, Something New, Something Borrowed, Something Blu

Can Old Movies & TV Benefit From HD?

While it’s easy to expect new films to look great on Blu-ray what does surprise people is how old films, even those in black and white, can really shine in high definition. Admittedly this is affected by the quality of the original print, the time and expense spent on remastering, and the skill of the technicians involved. But with a bit of elbow grease, money, and a lot of love the stars of yesterday can sparkle just as brightly as those of tomorrow.

Warning: The following contains numbers and is just a tad bit geeky.

Like Standard Definition TV and DVD, High Definition is measured in lines. Films on Blu-ray have a resolution of 1920x1080. That is to say there are 1920 horizontal lines and 1080 vertical lines. Blu-ray is therefore capable of a resolution of just under 2K. Those good old DVDs only had a resolution of 480 lines. Film on the other hand isn’t measured in lines and technically doesn’t have resolution in the same way. However, to keep life simple you can say that 35mm film is roughly equivalent to anywhere between 4k and 6k. Right there you can see that film is capable of producing an image with a greater resolution than is available on the latest home technology.

In real simple terms this means that film is theoretically able to produce a better picture than that found on Blu-ray. But…

Before releasing an old film on Blu-ray a studio ‘should’ prepare a new version. This ideally involves having the original negative scanned in at 4K, or even at 6K. The highest number is desired to ensure the master can be used in the future when resolutions in home cinemas increase. However, as with anything, this can be expensive so studios sometimes don’t bother and only do a 2K version. The film then has to be examined frame by frame and any damage or dirt is removed. To some extent this can be done by computer (but can cause problems with over excessive DNR). The film may also need to be color corrected, as it could have faded or age may have played havoc with the original color balance. When this is completed a copy is then made at a lower resolution that is suitable for Blu-ray. As you can imagine all of this is time consuming and costly. So while films like Gone with the Wind are given the full treatment because the studio knows there will be a return on their investment, it’s unlikely that something like Arthur Askey’s Bees in Paradise would ever get the full VIP, 4K treatment.

Bear in mind the above has been simplified. There are many other complications that can be caused by the original negative being Technicolor, cinemascope, vistavision etc. It’s also hard to determine the correct color balance of a really old film when nobody is alive to remember what it originally looked like.

So what about TV? Well, I’m glad you asked.

In the world of TV there are even more complications. In the USA during the sixties a lot of TV enjoyed the luxury of being shot on 35mm film. That’s why the original series of Star Trek looks fantastic on Blu-ray. It has lush colors, it’s clear, sharp, and almost looks like it was shot yesterday. In the UK things were not as great. Classic shows from that period like Callan, The Sandbaggers and Dr. Who were made on the smallest budget possible. For Dr. Who this meant that the interiors were filmed using videotape and the exteriors were shot on 16mm film. They did this because videotape was cheap to record with (and reusable), but the cameras were too big and bulky to use on location so they would then switch to film. When watching an episode you can easily tell the difference between the two formats. Unfortunately neither videotape or 16mm film have a resolution that can provide the clarity that is required for Blu-ray.

So there you have it. Old films are capable of producing stunning images on modern projectors and TVs… Sometimes.

Going with the Grain

When DVDs started to became mainstream there were many arguments about whether the films should be in fullscreen or in their original aspect ratio. Many consumers had to be educated on why they were seeing black bars on square TV sets and why this was correct, and not due to a broken copy. It seems that while this discussion has now been muted by the introduction of widescreen TVs, a new problem has appeared with the appearance of Blu-ray. This HD format had created a debate regarding the importance of film grain.

Grain naturally occurs in film. It is caused by microscopic particles of silver halide that when exposed to light turn silver and create the image. Now the grains are tiny, but they cling together in different quantities, and it’s this density of groups that causes grain to be visible. There are a number of factors that determine how grainy a film can be. It can be affected by the type of film that is being used and the shooting conditions (amount of light etc), and these are combined with the artistic decision of the director and the director of photography. It’s this last point that’s the most important.

Studios have been recently trying to remove grain under the misapprehension that this makes a film look better. It has led to some recent Blu-ray releases being ruined by the excessive use of what is called Digital Noise Reduction (DNR). The first Blu-ray release of Gladiator (2000) is a perfect example of this. In order to achieve the smooth clean look that digital film has, the noise reduction was turned up to eleven. This not only removed the offending grain, but also the texture in an actor’s hair, the pores on their faces, and in some instances the process even deleted flaming arrows. Luckily the film has been re-mastered with a more forgiving DNR applied. This isn’t the first time this has occurred Patton (1970) and the second release of Predator (1987) also suffered at the hands of an over enthusiastic engineer. One easy way to tell if there has been some DNR performed is to look at the actors faces. This visual scrubbing often leaves them looking smooth and plastic like a Gerry Anderson puppet.

It’s obvious that some balance needs to be achieved between making the print look pristine and retain the original look of the film. A Blu-ray release that has received some unfair criticism is Bullitt (1968). It lacks the clearness of other releases (of films produced around the same date) and has quite a fair amount of grain. Unfortunately this has lead people to dismiss the transfer as being below par. However, this look is intentional, and is probably close to how it would have been seen on its initial cinema release. The director, Peter Yates, intended this Steve McQueen film to have a documentary appearance. Right down to using non-actors in some of the scenes, and having McQueen do most of the driving sequences. The grain is then not a mistake but a creative decision.

The problem is the consumer doesn’t understand this and when they see a grainy film on Blu-ray they believe that there is something wrong. However, this isn’t so. What consumers need to realize is that Blu-ray is not about making every film look like it was shot with a digital camera, but is in fact supposed to present the film in the way it would have been seen on its first theatrical performance.