Comments on: Zulu 1964 720p BluRay x264-REVEiLLE

By: cameron

cameron — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 01:14:37 +0000

Zulu.1964.720p.BluRay.x264-ESiR

PASS: http://tehparadox.com

By: bojangles

bojangles — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 21:11:48 +0000

@27

Another intelligent post. Not really ‘Bluray’… That doesn’t even make any sense in the context of what ‘Bluray’ means. Bluray is nothing other than a higher resolution standard, taken from any number of sources whether that be film/analog based or ‘filmed’ digitally. AGAIN, IDIOTS, FILM CAN RESOLVE A LOT MORE DETAIL THAN EVEN 1080P RESOLUTIONS. So, assuming a decent source is available, this release can provide detail similar to ‘modern’ films. I still am amazed at the amount of clueless idiots that continue to pop up in these threads whenever an older film is released on a Hi-Def format.

By: null

null — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 17:45:12 +0000

Sad having to read all the comments from those who think film is limited to your typical pixels per frame like the digital crap they only barely manage to produce with the camera they bought entirely based on pricing at their local Wal-Mart.

Awesome release, though it would be wishful thinking to expect your average individual (read: idiot) to realize that fact.

By: Mmmmmm

Mmmmmm — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 09:29:30 +0000

Bluray! not really but keep on dreaming.

By: bojangles

bojangles — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 06:46:02 +0000

@24

Another brilliant post by a genius. It’s ‘really old’, ‘not really bluray’, not as good as a ‘new movie’… Nothing in your post makes a bit of sense, if you knew anything about any of this technology then you’d be aware of that.

By: cndcareless

cndcareless — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 22:51:55 +0000

re 23
I quite agree. A good film original will yield a superb dvd or bluray copy. I recall ‘Zulu’ ( I have a dvd copy incidentally) and it was filmed in 70mm, which gave a huge picture area and very high resolution – any digital copy will be superb IF TAKEN FROM A GOOD QUALITY COPY. As 23 says many of these old movies are copied off old degraded prints – simply because they are the only ‘originals’ available. Ideally they should be from modern copies taken from the original master negative, but that is a rarity; failing that a good print is essential for good quality. Unfortunately this is not always possible, the scratches weren’t put there for authenticity, they are just there.

Superb film, allegedly true to fact; good study of the courage of people facing a hopeless situation. Also stars Stanley Baker and Jack Hawkins (and James Booth – layabout son-in-law in ‘Till Death..’ and father of Cherie Blair, wife of the ex-British PM – trivia)

By: Arrrgggghhh!

Arrrgggghhh! — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 21:55:44 +0000

Bluray i don’t think so i mean the film stock is nowhere near as good quality as now and its really old, not really bluray just another remastered film, stick to normal dvds i mean do you really think this is as good as a new movie

By: bojangles

bojangles — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 21:31:17 +0000

There are so many idiots out there, it’s incredible.

Dear Idiots,

Older films were captured on FILM. Most film formats used even 60-70 years ago can resolve as much image detail as, and in many cases even more than, the 1920×1280 resolution of today’s modern HD movies. For anyone familiar with 35mm photography scanned digitally, it’s a similar concept – decent 35mm film can resolve FAR more detail than 1920×1280 pixels for example. It will depend on what still exists for these older films, for some films there are still great sources that can resolve extremely high detail, while some older films unfortunately do not have any known quality copies and may be limited to a poor quality transfer with a soft image and a lot of damage. But if a good source of a film is available, films as old as Zulu and older will resolve 1280P and beyond. Anyone that thinks otherwise is just clueless and knows nothing about the subject.

By: Bob

Bob — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 20:59:50 +0000

This is not in HD its just remastered into HD its pretty poor quality compared to a mordern movie and just remember it was made about 40 years ago so its not really bluray its just on a bluray disc, bit of a con really, don’t believe all the tech rubbish you here about old movies its not all true.

By: steve

steve — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 18:20:03 +0000

@13

You really don’t get it, do you?

Films “in the old days” were filmed on film. Films today are filmed on film.

You say that they were “non-hd filmed”. This FALSE. Zulu was filmed on 35mm/70mm (the same as what most current films are filmed on), both of which are capable of a resolution far higher than 1080p.

They are not upscaling anything. If you think that it’s pointless bringing old films out on blu-ray, then it must also be pointless bringing out current new releases on blu-ray, because they were filmed on the same stuff!!

There will be certain films that this doesn’t apply to, because the original print is damaged or a lower grade/size of film was used, but the big releases can mostly be re-scanned in high-defition.

By: Bozo

Bozo — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 17:37:52 +0000

Your only supposed to blow the bloody shields off!

By: .eins

.eins — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 15:56:33 +0000

awesome movie. can someone please up this to netload? would be greatly appreciated!

By: Limbo

Limbo — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 15:51:55 +0000

fgs, I can’t believe this is the fifth or so time I have to read this bs of how is it possible to release older movies at 1080p. Isn’t it easier just to google or wiki such questions before posting it. ‘Old’ movies are shot for theater screens. So what was the resolution they used to project 1970 or for that matter 1940 film on huge sized movie screen? Did they have VHS then? No. So how did they do it even without basic VHS tape – but with multiple higher resolution appropriate to projection screen? They used film cameras. Some cameras were better then others, and some films were proportionally larger then others. L&H production may not have used that good equipment but let say Robin Hood movie from 1938 which u can find in 1080p did. Many professional photographers are still using ‘non digital’ cameras, as they are so good comparable i resolution to let say 20 mega pixel digital photo cameras – similar with movie cameras. Ok?

By: Kim

Kim — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 13:49:41 +0000

Oh, and this is a brillant film, being waiting for the Blu-Ray, hope someone posts links soon.

By: Kim

Kim — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 13:45:22 +0000

@assburgers

Only someone who doesn’t own a Blu-Ray player would say that, proper HD is much better than upscaled DVD.