[Link]
Blacked Raw V110 - review by Captain Jack| Author | Post |
|---|---|
| secluded Observer Member 741 Posts 11/03 |  Posted - Mar 18 2009 : 5:04PMI've a question for technical expert: some directors shot movies in 35mm some years ago. Would it make sense to transfer those movies into blu-ray? In other words: can I expect those movies to be re-released? [Link] |
| Mike Quasar Zero Tolerance Reluctant pornographer 1765 Posts 7/01 | Posted - Mar 18 2009 : 5:33PM [Link] |
| john lyons Senior Member Co-founder of Vinegar Syndrome 1188 Posts 1/08 | Posted - Mar 18 2009 : 5:56PM [Link] |
| Jaktarn Senior Member 4798 Posts 5/05 | Posted - Mar 18 2009 : 6:13PM [Link] |
| secluded Observer Member 741 Posts 11/03 | Posted - Mar 18 2009 : 6:36PM Mike (or another insider), is it a difficult process? I guess, it's hard to judge but when will we see the releases approximately coming? Will it take months or years? Thanks in advance. [Link] |
| Mike Quasar Zero Tolerance Reluctant pornographer 1765 Posts 7/01 | Posted - Mar 18 2009 : 6:43PM [Link] |
| john lyons Senior Member Co-founder of Vinegar Syndrome 1188 Posts 1/08 | Posted - Mar 18 2009 : 10:09PM Watch just about any medium to bigger budget X rated film made before 1985 and chances are it was shot on 35mm. [Link] |
| john lyons Senior Member Co-founder of Vinegar Syndrome 1188 Posts 1/08 | Posted - Mar 18 2009 : 10:15PM Your average XXX feature made in 1980 will look more crisp than a new Hollywood movie because, unlike the former, it was edited on film. [Link] |
| poof Member 19 Posts 3/09 | Posted - Mar 19 2009 : 1:15AM Film isnt a sharp or clear medium by any manner. Yes it holds alot of color information, but it is infact quite blurry, which you can see if you ever look at a single frame of film, but this is part of what gives it its quality. There is a definite difference between watching a native 35mm film and watching native HD on an HD display. With 35mm you cant discern every pore on an actors face like you can with HD, and who would want to. Anyways your questions a bit moot because porn, to my knowledge, has never been shot in 35mm, maybe except for caligula. It was simply way too expensive for even the biggest budget porn. All retro porn was shot on 16mm until the 80's where everyone went to tape. Thats not a bad thing though, because even 16mm is still being mixed in with 35mm productions to this day, and quality high grain 16mm can be visually identical to 35mm, especially after the native ~16k 35mm frame is compressed down to 2k/4k for theater distribution. Its important to understand though, that resolution does not equal sharpness, clairty, or cleanliness (thats up to the production to do). Think of resolution as how far you can zoom into a sharp picture before it becomes blurry; that doesnt mean you can discern this with the naked eye, its just information thats there. lyons - what 80's film looks more crisp and clean than the modern hollywood high resolution piles that come out every week? If retro films looked crisp and clean, they wouldnt look retro. Edited by - poof on 3/19/2009 1:20:52 AM [Link] |
| Anime Nut Senior Member Too cool for Zuul 1925 Posts 6/06 | Posted - Mar 19 2009 : 1:21AM Yes, it is certainly possible and logical to transfer movies shot on film. It's happening constantly with mainstream movies, so why not porn? However, it's still too soon to "expect" those movies to be released on BD. The porn BD's that are being released right now have to start selling better before companies can start looking to the classics. I figure it costs more to transfer film to Blu-ray than it does for movies already shot in HD. [Link] |
| Mike Quasar Zero Tolerance Reluctant pornographer 1765 Posts 7/01 | Posted - Mar 19 2009 : 1:37AM Unfortunately the expectations for porn have degenerated from hollywood aesthetics to low-quality tube site clips, some of which appear to have been shot on a camera phone. Edited by - mike quasar on 3/19/2009 1:38:26 AM [Link] |
| poof Member 19 Posts 3/09 | Posted - Mar 19 2009 : 1:45AM I have to agree though, even if the old film had been archived correctly (a big if since major picture's negative prints dont always get first class treatment since its a very expensive longterm commitment) I dont see anyone paying the costs to get it transfered to blu-ray, and theres no reason to because it wouldnt look the same. If you want film to look like film on a standard digital display (<40"), your best bet is DVD. The biggest con these HDTV manufacturers try to pull of on the public is to show SD footage on an HD monitor. Yeah, of course its going to look like crap, your stretching footage that was meant to be displayed at 480 interlaced lines of resolution onto a monitor that has 1080 progressive lines. Not only do you have upsampling of resolution, you have deinterlacing which effectively reduces its resolution by half, so your only actually seeing 240 lines which are stretched out to 1080. Blu-ray? Yeah, ok. People could buy a HTPC for half the price, get whatever resolution they want, and not have to be treated like a criminal from the entertainment industry. Edited by - poof on 3/19/2009 1:47:41 AM [Link] |
| john lyons Senior Member Co-founder of Vinegar Syndrome 1188 Posts 1/08 | Posted - Mar 19 2009 : 2:00AM If you ran a brand new print over a cheese grater, you'd get that "retro look." That's ware, not a look. [Link] |
| popdog Member 865 Posts 5/05 | Posted - Mar 19 2009 : 5:02PM [Link] |
| john lyons Senior Member Co-founder of Vinegar Syndrome 1188 Posts 1/08 | Posted - Mar 19 2009 : 7:12PM Besides, there have been a number of excellent hardcore movies made in the last 20 years which were shot on film and deserve theatrical exhibition. [Link] |
| Use the code below to link to this topic or a specific post. |
| URL of this thread |
| Link to this post with HTML |
| Link to this post with Forum Code |