When is Hi-Res not really Hi-Res?

Bruce B

WBF Founding Member, Pro Audio Production Member
Apr 25, 2010
7,006
512
1,740
Snohomish, WA
www.pugetsoundstudios.com
Funny how the major producers still say film is the holy grail. Even shooting digital at 60fps they still can't match it!
 
Last edited:

Groucho

New Member
Aug 18, 2012
680
3
0
UK
Funny how the major producers still say film is the holy grail. Even shooting digital at 60fps they still can't match it!

I'd bet even Hollywood types have the same nostalgia/romance issues with analogue, as audiophiles do!

The visual effect that film generates at a creative level is one thing, but the format you'd want to distribute or copy it in is another. Film's contrast curve and dynamic range are used as a visual effect (and can be/are emulated by people shooting on digital only) but it doesn't follow that you'd want to copy the footage using yet another generation of film.


The frame rate issue is fascinating. In TV, video at 25fps progressive scan (for the UK) results in a 'film effect' that is one step removed from reality, and seems to be (over-)used by producers universally as a short cut to a production that looks expensive and sophisticated. 50fps interlaced is used for sports and news and any time a live, or action feel is required. I believe that the producers of The Hobbit film tried higher frame rates in an assumption that faster must be better, but some people found that it looked like a TV sitcom because it showed 'too much' in respect of lighting and fake scenery. Others liked it, however.

http://gizmodo.com/5969817/the-hobbit-an-unexpected-masterclass-in-why-48-fps-fails
 

Bruce B

WBF Founding Member, Pro Audio Production Member
Apr 25, 2010
7,006
512
1,740
Snohomish, WA
www.pugetsoundstudios.com
There are plug-ins for film effect just as there are plug-ins for analog distortion. Dare I say Hollywood wants film because it's more "realistic and organic" :rolleyes:
 

Groucho

New Member
Aug 18, 2012
680
3
0
UK

Bruce B

WBF Founding Member, Pro Audio Production Member
Apr 25, 2010
7,006
512
1,740
Snohomish, WA
www.pugetsoundstudios.com
I saw the film Apocalypto, and thought it looked fantastic, despite being captured without the use of silver nitrate.

I saw the Hobbit at 48fps and didn't really care for it


So a different analogy..... if they digitize film, isn't that upsampling? Doesn't all analog tape, be it audio or film, have a limited bandwidth? Isn't that what upscalers do?
 

Groucho

New Member
Aug 18, 2012
680
3
0
UK
I saw the Hobbit at 48fps and didn't really care for it

That's what a lot of people think. That a slower frame rate, though less 'realistic' and conveying less absolute information, allows the viewer to suspend their disbelief more easily. Higher frame rates are more appropriate for sport, news, comedy. In decades gone by, for studio-based TV drama there were only higher frame rates available, and for all the perception of it not looking as slick and expensive as today's productions, I found the old stuff more intense and intimate. I think this is also the case with live theatre: it is so intense, intimate and powerful that it is an acquired taste, and not necessarily something you want to experience all the time.

Could there be an audio equivalent of this effect? That it is sometimes nicer to experience a sanitised, pre-processed version of the real thing? Maybe with certain technology such as vinyl, you get this all the time (all that stuff about diameter loss, limited dynamic range, background noise, de-essing, mixing bass to mono etc.) while other media can be raw and immediate, conveying all the information - but perceived by some as too raw - or it can be sanitised with various effects like compression and EQ if the producer chooses it to be.

So a different analogy..... if they digitize film, isn't that upsampling? Doesn't all analog tape, be it audio or film, have a limited bandwidth? Isn't that what upscalers do?

Yes, low resolution digital images can be improved subjectively by sharpening them intelligently. Recently I have been noticing some BBC programmes containing old archive video from the 70s, and they seem to have done something that makes it look almost high definition.

The other form of upsampling is upsampling in time. They can interpolate between frames, identifying the regions that are moving, and filling in a synthetic in-between frame. Some TVs do this don't they? But I prefer to turn that off, and stick to what the producer intended, for better or worse.
 

audioarcher

Well-Known Member
May 6, 2012
1,396
51
970
Seattle area
I also saw the Hobbit at 48fps in 3D. I found the motion blur to be less noticeable at 48fps. Motion blur is very annoying to me. Especially with 3D material.

As for film vs digital video I am not as picky about video as I am about audio. I appreciate the difference between Bluray and DVD but I don't go to the extreme of worrying if the colors are perfect etc.
 

michael123

Well-Known Member
Nov 17, 2011
75
0
246
How do you define high resolution? Would live acoustic musical performances meet your definition of high resolution? I understand that the extra bits might be lost on your room because it may not be very accurate. But other folks do have dynamic rooms.

Again, it is not just about bits. But bits also, and not the lower 8 bits..
On the Squeezebox forum, people performed compare of the EMI "USB" 24-bit edition of Beatles again simultaneous release on CD. Subtract one from another and amplified the difference. They could actually distinguish some words..
and the difference was at around -60db level.. (not -96db)

Anyway, what I meant originally that during mastering to CD process, the original recording undergo such a massage that it looses more than just bits..


One of the best high-rez recordings I consider today, btw is this one -
https://www.hdtracks.com/index.php?file=catalogdetail&valbum_code=HX5099946405357
 

Julf

New Member
Nov 27, 2011
613
0
0
Amsterdam, The Netherlands
the difference was at around -60db level.. (not -96db)

And that would indicate that either the differential comparison process was faulty (out of sync), or the files came from different masters.
 

professorpolymath

New Member
Jun 7, 2013
1
0
0
I'd bet even Hollywood types have the same nostalgia/romance issues with analogue, as audiophiles do!

Forgive me from digressing from the thread topic, but the conversation about audio and film "nostalgia" brought to mind something I read recently.

Essentially, a medium can be more involving if it requires your participation: In the case of 24fps film, the motion artifacts make it easier to suspend disbelief. Music on a tiny transistor radio loses so much information, but provides an opportunity for you to fill in the blanks.

Brian Eno, from a 1974 interview:
"One theory is that black-and-white photography is always more sexy than colour photography. The reason for this is provided by Marshall McLuhan, who points out that if a thing is 'high definition,' which colour photography is, it provides more information and doesn't require participation as much as if it is 'low definition'." I.e. a horror play on the radio is always very, very frightening because the imagery is always your own. If you're choosing your own imagery, you'll always choose the most frightening, or in the case of pornography, the most sexual.

"The idea of things being low definition has always interested me a lot - of being unspecific - another thing which is a key-point of my lyrics. They must be 'low definition' so that they don't say anything at all direct. I think the masters of that were Lou Reed and Bob Dylan (on "Blonde on Blonde"). The lyrics are so inviting."

Everything you'd rather not have known about Brian Eno
by Chrissie Hynde, New Musical Express

http://www.pretenders.org/eno.htm
 

Groucho

New Member
Aug 18, 2012
680
3
0
UK
Essentially, a medium can be more involving if it requires your participation: In the case of 24fps film, the motion artifacts make it easier to suspend disbelief. Music on a tiny transistor radio loses so much information, but provides an opportunity for you to fill in the blanks.

So the better audio equipment is, the less easy it is to suspend your disbelief, and the less involving it may sound, because you are no longer filling in your own blanks. Controversial...
 

alcarp

New Member
Jun 27, 2013
1
0
0
Is there a site where people rate the various HD Track downloads for sound quality?

If not, can we start one for our mutual benefit?
 

michael123

Well-Known Member
Nov 17, 2011
75
0
246
Is there a site where people rate the various HD Track downloads for sound quality?

If not, can we start one for our mutual benefit?


Hi Fi News review and rate some of them (together with analysis).. although it is not a forum..
 

Julf

New Member
Nov 27, 2011
613
0
0
Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Hi Fi News review and rate some of them (together with analysis).. although it is not a forum..

I guess that is why their full name is "Hi-fi News & Record Review" :)
 

Don Hills

Well-Known Member
Jun 20, 2013
366
1
323
Wellington, New Zealand
Again, it is not just about bits. But bits also, and not the lower 8 bits..
On the Squeezebox forum, people performed compare of the EMI "USB" 24-bit edition of Beatles again simultaneous release on CD. Subtract one from another and amplified the difference. They could actually distinguish some words..
and the difference was at around -60db level.. (not -96db) ...

My apologies for awakening an old post, I've been out of town...
Do you have a link? I'm interested in reading how they did the test. For example, did they tweak the level to get the best null? There is a slight level difference between the 24 bit and 16 bit versions.
 

Bruce B

WBF Founding Member, Pro Audio Production Member
Apr 25, 2010
7,006
512
1,740
Snohomish, WA
www.pugetsoundstudios.com
Is there a site where people rate the various HD Track downloads for sound quality?

If not, can we start one for our mutual benefit?

There are also the forums over at Computer Audiophile that people report on what they think sounds good.
 

michael123

Well-Known Member
Nov 17, 2011
75
0
246

elescher

Member Sponsor
Sep 12, 2010
201
1
0
New York
This is an excerpt from an Email I just got from EClassical, where I download most my files. I think their approach to 'transparency' is spot on with regard to the type of original recording that the files are sourced from.....

"We are talking the 3 Symphonies, the Scheherezade and a lot of suites and miscellaneous music, all at a totally competitive price, 50% of the already low original price for the individual records.

Please do observe that we have upsampled the first record to high-res (obviously without charging for it), since the Bundle must have the same bit-rate and the first one only was 16-bit, whereas the other 3 CD:s were recorded in high-res. Lots of music, really well played and recorded at a very competitive price indeed!"
 

rbbert

Well-Known Member
Dec 12, 2010
3,820
239
1,000
Reno, NV
The real question is whether or not they do that every single time. For example, there are albums at HDTracks (by Fleetwood Mac, Joni Mitchell and others) where files have different sample rates and are clearly identified as such. However, in other cases this has not been done. Then there is this "new" practice by many labels of taking an album recorded at 16/44.1, upsampling and then remastering, and selling it as "hi-res" because the remastering was done at 24/96, 24/192 or whatever.
 

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu

Steve Williams
Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator
Ron Resnick
Site Co-Owner | Administrator
Julian (The Fixer)
Website Build | Marketing Managersing