I'm not sure that this is the type of movie that will necessarily benefit much from the HD treatment
What's that supposed to mean? What kind of movie wouldn't benefit from better picture quality?
You know that the movie was created in 1983 in way-better-than-HD quality, right? It is called
film, specifically 35mm film in the case of this movie and most others throughout history. 35mm negatives can easily resolve to 4K digital resolution (~4 times more resolution than 1080p), so all they have to do for the "HD treatment" is to only downgrade the film scan to 1080p instead of all the way down to 480p like they did for the DVD.
In the '80s, most anything with at least a halfway decent budget was shot on film, usually 35mm, from TV shows like Magnum, P.I. or The Dukes of Hazzard, to Cannon Group's B movies, to big budget blockbusters like Rambo: First Blood Part II (only the absolute bottom of the barrel direct-to-video movies and half-hour sitcoms were shot on video back then). This means that their original format is already far superior to what we call "HD" (1080p) today.
The funny thing about that is, most of the bigger budget 1-hour TV shows, and even some big budget movies, started transitioning to shooting on 1080p or 2K video in the '90s and '00s. In the future this will create the comically ironic situation where — while they will be able to release e.g., Cannon Group B movies like Revenge of the Ninja (~$500,000 budget) in full-quality 4K resolution — certain mega-budget movies like Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (~$115,000,000) are forever stuck at 1080p, because that's what they were "filmed" in to begin with.
I don't dance, tell jokes or wear my pants too tight, but I do know about a thousand songs.
reply
share