WWII in HD
Eddie
that after seeing thousand of hours of documentaries on WWII for the
last 55 years or so I am watching film of combat events that I've
never seen before. Where did they get all this new film? I would say
about 90% is never-before seen film, at least none that I've ever seen
and I've been a WWII history buff since a teenager. I can see why
many scenes have never been shown because it does show stark,
disturbing and shocking scenes of dead soldiers, both American and
enemies.
Outstanding documentary series for those interested in seeing new
archival film. And in color too.
Eddie
Marlock
can you please give more reference? like an imdb link or something.
Musicman59
yes, the images of the Saipan civilian suicides was nothing I had seen
before, except for the film of one woman jumping. I don't have HD and
am not sure if that makes any difference with faded, out of focus,
blurry WWII films.
Anyone, if this comes out on DVD, does the HD make any difference to
theee old films?
Craig
Eddie
wrote:
Craig, I have HD and I don't see much difference. Obviously in order
for a HD TV to show a HD program, the program must be shot with a HD
camera. I think.
Marlock, if your receiver gets the History Channel just go to it and
scroll till you see what time it will be shown.
I saw it during the day and then was repeated during the evening
hours.
I should have added in my original post that some scenes are extremely
graphic and not for the squeamish. Like me. I simply turn my head
away until the scene is gone. It's gut wrenching to see scenes of
dead American Marines, Sailors, and soldiers. You are warned of the
graphic nature prior to the start of the program. One particular
scene shot in one of the Pacific islands was so graphic that they had
to get President Roosevelt's permission first. It was granted after
consulting with field commanders. The generals thought they should be
shown so that Americans could see what the real cost of the war was.
That segment won the Academy Award for best documentary in 1945.
If it ever becomes available on DVD and I'm sure it will be, I'll be
sure to get one. This is a must see program on WWII. I believer it's
8 hours long.
Eddie
wjho...@aol.com
> Craig, I have HD and I don't see much difference. Obviously in order
> for a HD TV to show a HD program, the program must be shot with a > HD camera. I think.
Actually the HD reference is to the type of resolution of the TV
broadcast signal and does nothing to enhance the original film
itself other than to make it look a little better when broadcast
in digital HD and looked at on an HD set than when seen on
an analog TV.
Although broadcasting these old films in HD
resolution does improve the clarity of them a little bit, it is
not anywhere near the HD clarity of a modern film made with
a modern movie or TV camera and seen on your HD TV set. So
don't expect too much.
WJH
Tero P. Mustalahti
> Although broadcasting these old films in HD
> resolution does improve the clarity of them a little bit, it is
> not anywhere near the HD clarity of a modern film made with
> a modern movie or TV camera and seen on your HD TV set. So
> don't expect too much.
Most WW2 combat footage was shot either with a 16 mm or in some cases
with 8 mm film camera (producing silent films, since the 8 mm film used
in those days did not have an audio track). After action footage was
often filmed with a 35 mm film camera (the same used for theatrical
movies), although 16 mm was used for that, too.
8 mm Kodak black and white film of the period had about the same
resolution as analog or so called Standard Definition TV (SDTV). German
B&W film (Agfa) was nearly as good, although not quite, and any other
film types were clearly inferior, including color films (Kodachrome and
Agfachrome). However, that assumes original film or at the most 1st or
2nd generation copy. Higher generation copy would have a noticeably
reduced quality. So in practice 8 mm footage would not benefit from HD
presentation at all.
16 mm B&W footage would have had about twice the resolution of 8 mm.
However, copying would again reduce the quality, so it benefits from HD
only if you can scan from the original footage or 1st generation copy.
35 mm B&W of the period on the other hand would in general benefit a
little from HDTV broadcast. The degree of improvement would again depend
on the generation of the film available for scanning. 35 mm is the only
format where color film of the period would potentially benefit from a
HDTV broadcast.
Tero P. Mustalahti
WaltBJ
You are correct. It is film that someone has dug up out of archives
somewhere. I heard a rumor that some had surfaced in Australia of all
places. So far no one on any of the programs has mentioned where they
were found. I have seen Tarawa, Kwajalein, Peleliu and B17s and
aircrews in England and US infantry in Germany. One B17 scene showed
the whole nose missing forward of the cockpit bulkhead. Never saw that
one before. Also some of the scenes would not have been shown earlier
because they were too gory back then. I guess the public have all been
desensitized by our newsies trying to outdo each other. Maybe they
have been released for that reason.
Walt BJ.
Dave
dramatic and instructive shots from other documentaries, particularly
the latter. This "HD" effort seems to include a lot of stuff that
remained in the archives or ended up on the cutting room floor. I
think the two most used shots are of the Arizona exploding and of
Stukas going into a dive. There are also the shots that show wounded
and dying men that the producers decided were too strong for home
television.
aakermit
I think maybe this same approach was used for the series "WWII in
Color" that came out a couple of years ago. The good news in all this
is that there remains an audience for this material and "newbies" are
being exposed to this history for the first time.
-Greg