History Channel's WWII in HD..um...not so much really...

[ddeclue]

I don't see what the point is in claiming that this documentary is in HD when the original film stocks used are apparently almost all 16mm and very poor quality.

Some of it is interesting but it really isn't much different than any other WWII documentary on the History Channel.

:(

[DainBramaged]

1. Mythbusters, works for me every Wednesday

[ddeclue]

5. Reruns.. started there.

[endless october]

2. it's different because it's actually history.

that's rare on HC these days.

[dysfunctional press]

14. the next three years are going to be chock full o' mayans and nostradamus and the end of the world..

oh my!

[endless october]

16. exactly.

i noticed they even had a brand new Nostradamus series coming up. most likely i won't watch it.

but even that's better than the cryptozoology madness that they've been filling their programming schedule with. documentaries where they don't find animals that don't exist are boring.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

3. Film is high definition.

It's essentially analog. So theoretically you'll get a better picture if it's reproduced for HD as compared to standard TV.

But yeah, it'll still have all the grainy scratches and bled out colors the old film stock had.

[ddeclue]

4. 16mm isn't "high definition" - 70mm is "high definition"

16mm is low definition grainy crappy..I have a HD sat receiver and TV.. it just means the grainy film is grainy in HD.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

6. 16 mm refers to the width of the film.

It's got nothing to do with resolution.

[ddeclue]

8. Of course it does. The wider the film the higher the resolution.

Please don't pretend to lecture me on the world of "analog". I'm an engineer and I've done both analog and digital video.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

9. Don't feel bad.

A lot of people spend a lot of money on HD TV without really thinking about what it means.

[ddeclue]

10. No I'm not disappointed with my equipment, just with this particular show.

[Statistical]

15. Engineer or not you are 100% wrong.

http://www.cinematechnic.com/super_16mm/resolution_of_super_16mm.html

16mm has more than enough fidelity for a flawless HD transfer IF high quality equipment was used in filming and high quality film was used.

Film has no resolution, so it is neither HD nor "not HD". The maximum resolvable resolution when converted digitized far far far exceeds that of HD. 35mm has roughly 24 megapixels of maximum resolvable information under perfect conditions. That is roughly 12x 1080P.

[ddeclue]

17. It's OBVIOUS that GRAIN size in combination with film width limits resolution

and watching the show clearly indicates just how POOR the 16mm film resolution actually was back in the 1940's.

:crazy:

[teamster633]

7. Not too impressed at this end, either.

I'd much rather re-watch The World at War. Maybe this is the motivation I needed to do so. As for the whole HD thing, which is what interested me in the first place, I don't quite get why they're running it on the regular cable feed as well. In any case, so far all I've managed to do in watching it is to irritate my wife, who doesn't share my interest in WWII, particularly when she's trying to sleep.

[Saboburns]

11. I've been enjoying it just the same.

Wonderful, provocative show.

[guitar man]

12. Yeah all that means is

That it has been dubbed and encoded into a high definition video format, the quality of the source material is limited so it will only ever look so good. It would be like recording a scratchy old record to SACD format, you'd wind up with an amazingly accurate recording of a scratchy old record.

[cynatnite]

13. I've liked some of it. Found it very interesting and I like the footage. n/t