I've learnt that movie film was used for TV shows as late as the 1990s, maybe even the early 2000s. So were any railfan videos made during this time shot on a film format that has a higher level of detail that the television standards of the time?
16mm motion film scans quite well to 1080p HD. That's about it's limit as far as native resolution goes (and detail is lost in shadows or if push-processing is involved).Hence excluding narrower film formats. Doesn't this depend on film speed?
Quite expensive to shoot on, especially after video became widely available to consumers in the early-mid 1980s. Although there were probably a few gunzels running around with Bolex cameras and the like up until then. Super8 was far more common though.Surely pretty cheap when compared to cinema formats - 35mm and wider.
Fun fact - Home and Away was shot on 16mm right up until the mid-2000s. And most TV news footage was shot on 16mm before 1980. Industrial scale labs were required at each tv station.So even some Australian shows were shot on film! The only people who would have seen them on film would have been the ones doing the show editing. So if Home and Away was shot on film until that time, have older episodes been remastered in 2k?
Most motion picture film was pretty slow (ie. Typically ISO 50 - 200). ISO 50 is generally able to resolve to HD, ISO 200 quite grainy.All motion picture film was surely fast enough for 24fps, at least in broad daylight, and maybe fast enough for 25fps or even 30fps. The resolving power for a given film speed would depend on film format, larger formats giving a better definition for a given film speed.
Up until about 10 years ago film had better dynamic range than HD video. Thus if it was shot on film and professionally scanned it looked noticeably better. Still quite a lot of feature films are still shot on 35mm to get a filmic look. Mad Men was one of the last TV serials shot on film. Very rare for TV shows today.A lot of feature films shot on film are apparently shot on 70mm, which does exceed 4k. Even if a movie is shot on film for the cinema, the only ones who see it on film these days would be the ones doing the editing, not many rolls of film needed for each title.
A lot of American TV was shot on 30 fps film. Both 16 and 35mm. Hence when it's frame interpolated to 25 fps (50i in broadcast), it can look different. NTSC video likewise from 60i to 50i.Weren't a lot of American T.V shows actually shot at just under 24fps? Their refresh rate (just under 60Hz) being fitted by the way they scanned some frames and others.
Feature films shot at 24 fps were simply 'sped up' on the telecine to 25 fps (50i).Maybe movies made for the cinema were simply sped up to fit our refresh rate, but when using film to shoot a T.V show shown in this country and other 50Hz countries, it might as well be 25fps.
Getting back to film - lots of variables based on what it was shot on (B&W, colour negative, colour reversal) and how it was transferred to prints. Ie via interpositive-internegative, or via Digital intermediate to laser printed film. Amateurs often shot on colour reversal so that the developed film could be projected. (No need for expensive intermediates).What about using film to make a video? Say shooting on colour negative film and then transferring it to videotape. What I'm looking for is railfan videos done like that.
Hence why many film restorations to Bluray begin with 4k or higher scans of original camera negatives if possible.This applies to T.V shows shot on film, and when such transfers are done, and the original negatives are well preserved, the remaster can really blow the minds of viewers.
In the very early days of TV, yes.A lot of American TV was shot on 30 fps film. Both 16 and 35mm. Hence when it's frame interpolated to 25 fps (50i in broadcast), it can look different. NTSC video likewise from 60i to 50i.Weren't a lot of American T.V shows actually shot at just under 24fps? Their refresh rate (just under 60Hz) being fitted by the way they scanned some frames and others.nd the original negatives are well preserved, the remaster can really blow the minds of viewers.
Blu-ray has been around for over a decade,And it's already a legacy format.
is it more expensive than DVD was back in 2005?Yes.
Just goes to show how successful DVD has been (and still is) and how poorly Blu-ray has performed in comparison.Sales are so bad that Samsung and LG have both stopped production of new model Blu-ray hardware. They had 52% market share between them.
Okay, so plenty of Blu-ray players, if not all, can surely play DVD too, yet plenty of DVD players manufactured since then still cannot play Blu-ray.
Could it have been more successful had it not been for that format war?Definitely not.
See this page for a list of railfan videos on Blu-ray.Sorry, I forgot you tend to take everything literally.
It feels like they were very resistant to change before downloads and later streaming services but suddenly became as open to change as silicon valley when they could switch to downloads.
Just goes to show how successful DVD has been (and still is) and how poorly Blu-ray has performed in comparison.If anyone wants to buy a new DVD player today, surely they could always buy Blu-ray, which was a success in some markets like Japan. But I wonder how many recent buyers have even heard of Blu-ray.
4K UHD content on Blu-ray discs has kept optical video disc sales and equipment ticking along. But it's really just been adopted by the serious video/moviephile.There is also no possibility of even 2k content on DVD, hence the idea of a Blu-ray rerelease of content originally shot on 16mm film, which has that level of detail.
There was no possibility of 4K content on HD-DVD.