This week on History Channel, they have been running 'WW2 in HD'.

High Definition?

Now wait a minute. This is film that was taken with 8mm cameras (for the most part) 65+ years ago. No matter how good a job anyone does restoring this footage, no matter how much colourizing is done to it (because we all know if it's not in colour, it didn't really happen), the film itself will never meet HD quality. The technology used to record the film at the time was incapable it.

So what's the point?

Don't get me wrong. This is a very good documentary; it's the first one I've seen that even mentions the Aleutian campaign. Still, since the films are still going to be grainy, what's the point of calling the documentary 'WW2 in HD'.

I salute History Channel for uncovering new footage and for their efforts to produce such an excellent show. I salute them for finally getting off the endless reruns of 'Modern Marvels', 'Ice Road Truckers', and the like, but I am mystified how they can think this show is really going to be HD.

Because showing old film in 480i still involves a loss of picture quality even with degraded film. Also, HD means HD form factor, so you don't get ugly black bars when you're watching the show on your shiny widescreen TV.

This is film that was taken with 8mm cameras (for the most part) 65+ years ago. No matter how good a job anyone does restoring this footage

Not that I'm saying you are wrong, I don't actually know, but just because it's old and analogue doesn't mean it may not be inherently high def...

Typical 8mm film will not hold more detail than HD - the emulsion isn't fine enough to support that kind of detail. But it still supports more detail than you can get on a non-HD TV signal. So there's reason to broadcast it in HD.

Might even be more than 720p can show, which is what broadcasts are. Digging into it, it seemed like typical 8mm emulsions are close to what 720p can show.

Also, HDTV offers a wider color space (and more accurate color reproduction in general), plus a vastly improved contrast ratio.

(Frankly, I value the more accurate and broader range of colors than I do the higher resolution!)

I have it on good authority that Vic especially prefers the more accurate and broader range of colors on CSI Miami.

This show is causing quite a stir in the film archiving/preservation community because what THC is doing to the films is neither preserving nor restoring the original, archival prints. They are getting telecines of the 8mm footage (16mm if they're really lucky) and then digitally enhancing that telecine. But they're doing nothing that I've heard of to actually preserve the original documents, nor are they transferring the media back to film when it's been enhanced.

While HD is the new hotness now, in thirty years, it will certainly have been superseded by something else and chances are very good that HD signals won't even be able to be read. How easy is it to view early video formats from the early days of the format now? Just converting between various HD codecs that are still in use (like HDCAM SR, XDCAM, DVCPRO HD) is costly and complicated. I can't imagine that in several decades whatever format these films are being "preserved" in will be any more accessible.

I have it on good authority that Vic especially prefers the more accurate and broader range of colors on CSI Miami.