I don't understand how something that wasn't filmed in HD can benefit from playing on an HD telly
Also i find HD makes many things look like cheap soapa operas
( Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Mon 15 Aug 2011, 10:54, 1 reply, 14 years ago)

35mm film has a far, far higher "resolution" equivalency than even HD sources.
I've quoted "resolution", because resolution is meaningless to an analogue source. Simply put, 35mm film was capable of capturing far more detail per inch of screen than most projectors and CRT screens were capable of showing. When you put that into HD, it's better, but still nowhere near the quality that 35mm actually captured.
( Kroney, Mon 15 Aug 2011, 10:56, Reply)

that wasn't so bad...
*kills self*
( Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Mon 15 Aug 2011, 10:57, Reply)

Good 35mm film stock has a rough pixel equivalency of 4320p
compared to the 1080p of modern hi def TVs
( Kroney, Mon 15 Aug 2011, 11:05, Reply)

And now that digital cameras are becoming popular in film-making
the original filmstock is actually becoming worse. So it's likely that if we have another jump in home TV pixel counts, Transformers 3, for example, will have absolutely no difference in quality as it was filmed in 1080p.

Casablanca, on the other hand, which was filmed on a much higher equivalency thanks to 35mm, will look a damned sight better.
( Kroney, Mon 15 Aug 2011, 11:09, Reply)

Transformers 3 wasn't filmed in 1080p
though, was it? Or am I getting the wrong end of the stick.

P.S. Excellent explanation - I've lost count of the number of people I've had to explain this to.
(Himjim died a little more inside on, Mon 15 Aug 2011, 11:15, Reply)

I have no idea, it was just an example.

( Kroney, Mon 15 Aug 2011, 11:17, Reply)

Fancy a beer, you frightful oik?

( Monty Boyce, My cheese game is strong, Mon 15 Aug 2011, 11:30, Reply)