- Jul 11, 2008
What, no Indiana Jones requests?
A lot of artifacts and a blotchy image especially during the night scenes with a lot of noise? Some scenes are ok especially in daylight but overall it's not good. I know it was shot with a soft look but as others have said it's a upscaled dvd.What was wrong with that one that had it looking as bad as it did?
A lot of artifacts and a blotchy image especially during the night scenes with a lot of noise? Some scenes are ok especially in daylight but overall it's not good. I know it was shot with a soft look but as others have said it's a upscaled dvd.
I think so but not a expert on how it looked originally in the theaters. Noticed some film damage and the night & dark scenes are the worst so having a lot of films from the 1970's in my library i think Paramount could have made it look better.That's what I wanted to know-- was the film stock not taken care of too well?
Ok so it’s an HD master using 20 year old technology along with bad film elements that was probably never intended to see the light of day as a native HD product for sale except perhaps maybe for broadcast on HBO-Z. And now sold 20 years later.I think there’s some confusion about what a “DVD master” can mean.
No major studio is taking standard definition masters of films, upscaling them to HD, and then putting that on a disc.
Rather, for the past twenty years or so, it’s been standard industry practice to create home video masters at HD resolution or higher. That master is then down-rezzed to standard definition when it’s to be used on a DVD.
For a lot of these new Blu-rays based on older masters, it simply means that they’re returning to the HD scan done years prior and putting that out. It’s not fake HD. It’s not an upscale. It’s simply an older HD master that had been originally created with the purpose of making a DVD and/or having a master ready for licensing for television and cable markets which were already broadcasting in HD long before there was an HD disc format.
Now in some cases, when they’d make an HD master with an end goal towards releasing a DVD, they’d scan the film in HD but then perform any minor cleanup or color correction on the standard definition down-rez of the master. This was because it was cheaper to work in SD vs HD; less resolution means the fixes took less time/effort/money. So in those cases, when they return to the HD master now to make a new Blu-ray, those masters didn’t have any of the cleanup that was done for the DVD, so those masters can give the appearance of being in poorer condition than what was on the DVD.
There’s nothing inherently wrong with an older master by virtue of age alone. It’s all about how that master was originally created and what if any steps were taken to prepare it for being put on a Blu-ray. It’s quite possible to have a great Blu-ray from a ten year old master and a crappy Blu-ray from a new master. It’s not really the age, it’s about what they did or didn’t do before authoring it to a disc.