TCM on November 13

Will this be the unedited version, the X-rated one?

"Klaatu barada nikto"

The TCM schedule shows it as widescreen now (unlike earlier when I posted) so that's good.

If you were to say there will never be an improvement on the quality of the best film print available of this movie, that would be true. But you seem to be confused about the process of digitizing film. If the print is in good shape, a higher resolution (e.g., 4k) conversion of this film than what current digital television supports will definitely look "better."

"Old grain is old grain. Period."

Sorry LunaticByTheSea, but you're wrong.

Galaxy of Terror was shot on 35mm film with an Aspect ratio of 1.85:1., so if a good quality 35mm print was used as a source a VERY nice HD version could be made.

Read this...

Quote:
Old movies and most new movies are shot in 35 mm wide negative film. Film negative is a very high resolving medium. Resolution in film is measured in cycles/mm (or line pairs per millimeter one pair consisting of one black line and one white line so one cycle (or one line pair ) could be said to be equivalent to 2 pixels, one black and on white) (It's more complicated than that but that's good enough for the example). Film by itself can commonly resolve from 50 c/mm to 400 c/mm (100 pixels/mm to 800 pixels/mm) depending on emulsion stock. But since the image on film is formed by exposing it through a lens and this lens also has it's own resolution limits, the final resolution on the photographed negative is always less that each component's resolution.

For example 70.7 c/mm (141.4 pixels per mm) for photographed fine grained film. Now to the film formats. Depending on the year and format a movie was made in, the image can vary on 35mm shot film from as big as 24mm x 36 mm for VistaVision/Technirama 8 perforation cameras (same as 35mm still photo film) going down through 18mm x 24mm for Silent Films or Full Frame 4 perforations cameras to as small as 9mm x 21mm in Academy Sound Aperture cameras modified for the Techniscope 2 perforation format. There's also a few films made with bigger than 35mm cameras, like 70mm films (22mm x 48mm) and the couple of times used used 55mm and CINERAMA.

So multiplying the four mayor formats dimensions that have been used in 35mm by the pixels per millimeter gives you approx:

A) Academy Sound (Sound movies before 1955): 15mm x 21mm (1.375) = 2160 x 2970
B) Academy camera US Widescreen: 11mm x 21mm (1.85) = 1605 x 2970
C) Current Anamorphic Panavision ('Scope"): 17.5mm x 21mm (2.39) = 2485 x 2970
D) Super-35 for Anamorphic prints: 10mm x 24mm (2.39) = 1420 x 3390

In the process of making prints for exhibition this negative is copied onto other film (negative -> interpositive -> internegative -> print) so the resolution gets decimated with each emulsion copying step and when the image passes through a lens (for example, on a projector) it's reduced once more. Sometimes the resolution is reduced down to 1/6th of the original negative's resolution, and that's with doing things correctly.

So depending on what film element is used for scanning and with what method, the resolution of the image used in the transfer from film can be from less than that of the 1080p x 1920 Blu-ray format to much more. If they use a properly stored and preserved original negative, the BD probably will end up looking better than what you might have seen elsewhere.

EDIT

It turns out Galaxy of Terror IS available on Blu-ray.

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Galaxy-of-Terror-Blu-ray/11035/

Nonsense. 35mm film is capable of resolving detail FAR beyond HD specifications. The grain is dependent upon both the original negative film speed and the "print" quality (it is frequently the case that inferior print stock introduces it's own grain). Let alone larger negative formats which would require less enlargement to produce a given resolution.

If HD isn't HD unless it was shot using digital HD cameras, then why does a film like the original King Kong look sharper and clearer in Blu-Ray? It does...BUT...if you'd ever seen a decent 35mm print shown in a movie theatre, you'd start crying...it's THAT sharp and detailed compared to HD.

Here's a perfect example of how digital, both shooting and projection, comes up short. The sequence in Iron Man 2, where Natalie Rushman is fighting the guards in her black catsuit against an all-white set. I've seen this in 2 different theatres, on Blu-ray and DVD on both Plasma and LCD sets. In each case, there is tremendous "delayed" effect, where you can see multiple "Natalies" on the screen in rapid succession as she moves at speed. It's not smooth, the way projected film would be.

In the end, HD is just video, which makes it much easier to reshoot and edit/tweak/composite to an end result, with virtually no image degradation from generational loss. But at 2K res, it's maybe a match to 16mm film...but just barely.

It was windowboxed on both the SD and HD channels on Time Warner Cable too. VERY annoying!