[pjp]

This morning Sky were advertising bond fims to be shown in HD. As these where not made in HD how can these be shown in HD?

[Broadz]

AS they were made in a much higher resolution than HD is capable of displaying (the same as pretty much every movie that has had a cinema release since the 1960s) - dead easy. Just lower the resolution to high definition capability and you're laughing.

[Bravia]

Most movies from the 1950s onwards were shot on film which has a much higher resolution than a standard SD TV screen.

[KettyKrueger]

Originally Posted by pjp74

This morning Sky were advertising bond fims to be shown in HD. As these where not made in HD how can these be shown in HD?

They were shot using film (35mm?). Film is not digital and has infinite resolution (perhaps not infinite but far larger than 1080p).

This is true of any older film.

Trust me, they will look awesome. If they've been remastered properly, it will look like any new(er) movie.

[StevieBuck]

As the other guys said, film has a much higher resolution than HD - so when it is transferred it can easily be encoded to HD standard.

If you have ventured into Blu-ray yet, you could check out the Blu-ray versions of the Bond films which were recently released.

[Bravia]

Ironically some early TV programmes were shot on film which means, for example Star Trek from the 1960s could be now broadcast in HD, but Star Trek The Next Generation which was shot on videotape (I believe) in the 1980s can't.

[GasDad]

Originally Posted by Bravia

Most movies from the 1950s onwards were shot on film which has a much higher resolution than a standard SD TV screen.

Err what were movies filmed with before the 1950's

[NicolasB]

Originally Posted by KettyKrueger

If they've been remastered properly, it will look like any new(er) movie.

That's quite a significant "if" unfortunately. Some 1960s movies on Sky HD look stunning (The original Michael Caine version of The Italian Job, for example). Equally, some much later movies look absolutely atrocious (Body Heat springs to mind - you could easily have mistaken that for SD).

Doing a proper transfer of an old movie requires a great deal of time and effort. They need to go back to the original negatives and reconstruct it; it can take hours to construct a single frame because (for example) the different sections of the negative will have shrunk by uneven amounts. They also have to digital compensate for scratches and tears in the film. Rough and ready transfers can be done simply by scanning a cinema print, which is probably a fourth or fifth generation copy: the result is far lower in quality.

[contraste]

Originally Posted by GasDad

Err what were movies filmed with before the 1950's

Ditto!

BTW you can find some superb HD transfers of pre 50's films.

[Trollslayer]

Cimena grade film has an effective resolution of about 2,000 lines I think, good enough to conversion to 1080p.

[BrianMc]

Originally Posted by Bravia

Ironically some early TV programmes were shot on film which means, for example Star Trek from the 1960s could be now broadcast in HD, but Star Trek The Next Generation which was shot on videotape (I believe) in the 1980s can't.

Many such shows could have problems with the special effects!

"Buffy the Vampire Slayer", for example, (ok - fantasy rather than SF!) was filmed but then transferred to video to add the special effects. It is doubtful, even if the film elements still exist, than anyone could make an HD version now.

[sizedoesmatter]

Originally Posted by GasDad

Err what were movies filmed with before the 1950's

So mentioning the 30's will be a real shock then.

Gone with the Wind,
Adventures of Robin Hood
Wizard of Oz

to name three

[paul_round]

Most visual efects fo movies are done at 2048 X 1556, more than enough resolution for HD (which is 1920 X 1080)

[loz]

I suspect that when the OP's first post is a question like this, he already knows the answer...

[mattk69]

Originally Posted by loz

I suspect that when the OP's first post is a question like this, he already knows the answer...

why would that be then !!

[loz]

Originally Posted by mattk69

why would that be then !!

because I am a cynical, suspicious old thing.

[Bravia]

Originally Posted by GasDad

Err what were movies filmed with before the 1950's

I think you misunderstood. I didn't say nothing prior to 1950 was (effectively) HD, but the further back you get the more likely it is to be 16mm or 8mm black and white, therefore not likely to meet today's viewers expectations as regards HD. I would say that it was during the 1950s when 35mm film and colour became more common.

The later poster who gave three examples of films shot in the 1930s is also missing the point. I could give examples of films shot in the 1960s on low quality stock. So what? The OP did not understand why 1960s Bond films could be HD. My response was to illustrate that you could go back even further. I was not attempting to create a Wikipedia like definitive timeline of film stock quality.

[rossco_99]

Originally Posted by sizedoesmatter

So mentioning the 30's will be a real shock then.

Gone with the Wind,
Adventures of Robin Hood
Wizard of Oz

to name three

The question was what were they filmed on, not were there films before 1950!

[DJ2liveUK]

i've also wondered this and now feel enlightened by what I have read, thanks to all.

[contraste]

Originally Posted by Bravia

I think you misunderstood. I didn't say nothing prior to 1950 was (effectively) HD, but the further back you get the more likely it is to be 16mm or 8mm black and white, therefore not likely to meet today's viewers expectations as regards HD. I would say that it was during the 1950s when 35mm film and colour became more common.

The later poster who gave three examples of films shot in the 1930s is also missing the point. I could give examples of films shot in the 1960s on low quality stock. So what? The OP did not understand why 1960s Bond films could be HD. My response was to illustrate that you could go back even further. I was not attempting to create a Wikipedia like definitive timeline of film stock quality.

35mm has been the standard gauge for motion pictures since silent movies were made. When 16mm stock was introduced it was referred to as sub-standard (not as in quality but size) and was very, very rarely used for theatrical features. 16mm came into it's own for television filming as the cameras were compact and produced good quality images for that medium.

Even if the rare 16mm stock derived motion picture was released theatrically, it was blown up to 35mm as that is the standard gauge for projection around the world.

Only in the last few years has digital recording and projection made any inroads against 35mm film for all but low budget features.

8mm is a purely amateur gauge.

[loz]

a list of films shot on 16mm
Category:Films shot in Super 16 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Some recent ones including The Wrestler (Micky Rourke)

[contraste]

Originally Posted by loz

a list of films shot on 16mm
Category:Films shot in Super 16 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Some recent ones including The Wrestler (Micky Rourke)

Most in that list are low budget and/or documentaries.

Interestingly, the same section of Wikipedia can list only 22
films that are shot in 35mm, in total!

Wikipedia is not always the best source for definitive information.

The Wrestler is is an interesting example of how low budget films use the (Super) 16mm format. Shot on super 16, mastered as Digital Intermediate (2K) and theatrically released on 35mm (Anamorphic).

Another (relatively) low budget feature - Slumdog Millionaire was filmed using a mixture of 2K digital and super 35mm 3-perf, ultimately released on 35mm (Anamorphic)

Super 16 is a great format but is still subordinate to 35mm for theatrical titles. Digital will dominate eventually IMHO (who knows in what format) but the RED camera system is a very interesting development.