Advancements in remastering processes/technology

[Nick1985]

For me, one of the big improvements with 4K Blu-ray for catalogue titles isn't so much for he boost in resolution or HDR, it's the fact that the remastering process seems to have improved dramatically over the last few years.

Looking back to older Blu-ray catalogue titles it seems that the remasters were poorly done, where as recent "re-remasters" on Blu-ray and 4K Blu-ray knock spots off the originals.

So what's changed? Is it the quality of scanners, editing tools, possibly even AI?

[Nick1985]

This really came about when I introduced Jurassic Park to a nephew who had enjoyed Jurassic World, however having watched both he said he preferred Jurassic World because Jurassic Park looked "old", both viewings were on Netflix.

I now own both on 4K Blu-ray and in comparison Jurassic Park actually looks better with more detail and more natural colours. However when revisiting both titles on Netflix, Jurassic World looks good while Jurassic Park looks bad (scratches and dirt visible, dull colours, heavy DNR).

So it appears that the old look to a lot of catalogue titles in HD seems to be down to poor remastering rather than poor source material.

4K Blu-ray seems to be a great leveller for older films, what are your thoughts?

[Geoff D]

To the original question: Not really, no. There's no witchcraft here, you're just seeing old HD telecines from interpositives (a positive copy of the original negative) that have been smacked with DNR and sharpening phased out by brand new scans from original negative and much more tasteful processing thereof. If you compare a new 4K UHD to a BD that also features the same remaster then the difference is usually much smaller than when comparing the new UHD to an old BD with an old transfer. That said, not every "old BD" got saddled with a shitty old telecine.

Though ironically enough Jurassic Park's UHD isn't one of the better 4K masterings I've seen, it's got several problems of its own.

[Rizor]

Our ability to discern quality has gotten better as well, whether it's because we have higher quality transfers now or there's just more information and discussion about it all. If you look back at reviews and discussions there's plenty of perfect scores and gushing praise for some terrible or mediocre Blu-rays that used old masters created for the DVDs. I'm sure a lot of us were content with those before we saw the 4K remasters, etc. Then again, I still see studios/labels dropping old masters onto Blu-ray and reviewers still lap them up.

[David M]

Originally Posted by Nick1985

For me, one of the big improvements with 4K Blu-ray for catalogue titles isn't so much for he boost in resolution or HDR, it's the fact that the remastering process seems to have improved dramatically over the last few years.

Looking back to older Blu-ray catalogue titles it seems that the remasters were poorly done, where as recent "re-remasters" on Blu-ray and 4K Blu-ray knock spots off the originals.

So what's changed? Is it the quality of scanners, editing tools, possibly even AI?

Mainly the quality of the scanning, plus the fact that studios might be all but forced to do a new transfer so they can present the film in 4K resolution. AI doesn't come into it.

A "high definition" transfer served up on standard BD might, at the most extreme example, have meant a 1035i one done in the mid 1990s. Consumers think of HDTV as something belonging to the mid-to-late 2000s, especially consumers in Europe who got this tech much later, but in studio use it goes back quite a bit earlier. Universal started doing HD telecine in 1993 (yes, 1993) using an HD variant of the Rank Cintel mk.III, which is (was) a flying spot CRT telecine, meaning that the image was captured by shooting a beam of white light through the film and recording the values. The image quality of modern scanners with solid state imaging chips is much better; they're able to capture a higher resolution image from the film without any visible shading or glowing errors, and with basically non-existent noise (the film has its own grain of course, which isn't noise in the same sense).

Not to mention the better source - scanning from the negative became much more common as home video systems, plus the film transfer systems, evolved to the point where the extra resolution was actually discernible in the output.

TL;DR: A film released on HD Blu-ray could still be using 1990s transfer technology as its source. But a film remastered in true 4K will be using more modern transfer, out of necessity.

[Geoff D]

And that's it, really. The switch from telecine to datacine is where the change happened, but it's not solely a "4K Blu-ray" thing and has been in place for many years already at most top-flight restorers and post houses. Christ, Snow White was scanned at 4K back in 1993. BUT as most studios still had those old HD telecine transfers on their books then that's what they pumped out for HD DVD and Blu-ray at the beginning, and well past the beginning come to think of it.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by David M

Mainly the quality of the scanning, plus the fact that studios might be all but forced to do a new transfer so they can present the film in 4K resolution. AI doesn't come into it.

A "high definition" transfer served up on standard BD might, at the most extreme example, have meant a 1035i one done in the mid 1990s. Consumers think of HDTV as something belonging to the mid-to-late 2000s, especially consumers in Europe who got this tech much later, but in studio use it goes back quite a bit earlier. Universal started doing HD telecine in 1993 (yes, 1993) using an HD variant of the Rank Cintel mk.III, which is (was) a flying spot CRT telecine, meaning that the image was captured by shooting a beam of white light through the film and recording the values. The image quality of modern scanners with solid state imaging chips is much better; they're able to capture a higher resolution image from the film without any visible shading or glowing errors, and with basically non-existent noise (the film has its own grain of course, which isn't noise in the same sense).

Not to mention the better source - scanning from the negative became much more common as home video systems, plus the film transfer systems, evolved to the point where the extra resolution was actually discernible in the output.

TL;DR: A film released on HD Blu-ray could still be using 1990s transfer technology as its source. But a film remastered in true 4K will be using more modern transfer, out of necessity.

nice history lesson David, and moving forward, if you wanted to pull out the most dynamic range from an IP source (rather than an OCN which might not be available in the archives) as dynamic range arguably has greater impact on final picture quality than meeting nyquist's oversampling recommendation in this situation, what would be your scanner of choice these days?

[David M]

As far as I know, the LaserGraphics machines are the ones to beat in that area. I'm not directly involved with much scanning, though, just dealing with the results of it.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by David M

As far as I know, the LaserGraphics machines are the ones to beat in that area. I'm not directly involved with much scanning, though, just dealing with the results of it.

good choice, couldn't go wrong with a Scanity either

[eddievanhalen]

Originally Posted by David M

Mainly the quality of the scanning, plus the fact that studios might be all but forced to do a new transfer so they can present the film in 4K resolution. AI doesn't come into it.

A "high definition" transfer served up on standard BD might, at the most extreme example, have meant a 1035i one done in the mid 1990s. Consumers think of HDTV as something belonging to the mid-to-late 2000s, especially consumers in Europe who got this tech much later, but in studio use it goes back quite a bit earlier. Universal started doing HD telecine in 1993 (yes, 1993) using an HD variant of the Rank Cintel mk.III, which is (was) a flying spot CRT telecine, meaning that the image was captured by shooting a beam of white light through the film and recording the values. The image quality of modern scanners with solid state imaging chips is much better; they're able to capture a higher resolution image from the film without any visible shading or glowing errors, and with basically non-existent noise (the film has its own grain of course, which isn't noise in the same sense).

Not to mention the better source - scanning from the negative became much more common as home video systems, plus the film transfer systems, evolved to the point where the extra resolution was actually discernible in the output.

TL;DR: A film released on HD Blu-ray could still be using 1990s transfer technology as its source. But a film remastered in true 4K will be using more modern transfer, out of necessity.

Or even UHD BD,look at the UHD for the first Jason Bourne movie, even the UHD BD used the early 2000's scan that got upscaled and got an HDR pass.
The result is horrendous.

[Penton-Man]

As an aside, mastering for home deliverables has a history of being more straightforward than the upstream decisions needed for mastering theatrical deliverables where more nuances are involved, e.g. - https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...s#post11671849

[cjamescook]

Originally Posted by David M

...
Not to mention the better source - scanning from the negative became much more common as home video systems, plus the film transfer systems, evolved to the point where the extra resolution was actually discernible in the output.

I'm curious: Another thread in another forum made a case for scanning an IP as being preferable to scanning the OCN. Their point was the IP had correct color timing, etc. whereas the OCN did not. Not sure if scanning the IP was claimed to be cheaper.

Any opinions?

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by cjamescook

I'm curious: Another thread in another forum made a case for scanning an IP as being preferable to scanning the OCN. Their point was the IP had correct color timing, etc. whereas the OCN did not. Not sure if scanning the IP was claimed to be cheaper.

Any opinions?

I don't think money comes into it as a scan is a scan, they charge by the foot not by the format (when talking about the same gauge of film). A timed IP is still a low contrast pre-print element with an orange mask, you really can't just slap it onto a disc and call it a day. The mask can be easily dialled out during transfer but it still needs grading for video space after that and all sorts of decisions can be made. I'm working on something at the moment which uses the same IP transfer as another existing version and yet the colour is very different between the two.

An IP is going to have things like 'day for night' filters baked in which has tripped up a few OG neg transfers over the years, as well as the neg transfer potentially missing fades or dissolves from an A/B neg cut which would essentially be printed into the IP, but if people have an IP or an answer print for reference then they can get that neg tuned up real purty like.

But the irony is that if you let loose a director on grading then all bets are off, it doesn't matter if you transfer it from neg or tissue paper: it's gonna look different every damned time they revisit it.

[David M]

Originally Posted by cjamescook

I'm curious: Another thread in another forum made a case for scanning an IP as being preferable to scanning the OCN. Their point was the IP had correct color timing, etc. whereas the OCN did not. Not sure if scanning the IP was claimed to be cheaper.

Any opinions?

Preferable in terms of saving money on grading, perhaps. In terms of resolution, certainly not. Better to scan the neg and grade it to match the IP.

[oddbox83]

There are sadly a lot of examples where they've gone back to OCN and not been careful enough to match a grade. Day for night filters seem to get forgotten a lot.

I'm damned sure Captain Clegg/Night Creatures hasn't been graded properly ever since it's first DVD. It's got loads of day for night shooting, but I can't believe they released it in cinemas so obviously daylight like that.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Nick1985

Advancements in remastering processes/technology

in terms of rez harvesting for large format, we’re getting there –
https://dft-film.com/dft-launches-ox...-film-scanner/

[Penton-Man]

at the other end of the spectrum, 16plus the Scanity HDR small film gate….
https://www.dft-film.com/downloads/d...Whitepaper.pdf

[Penton-Man]

a past colorist meetup in Burbank with Matt and Josh from last October (2019), the portion with Matt published today -

Colorist Meetup with Color Scientist Matthew Tomlinson - 'Color of Once Upon a Time in Hollywood' - YouTube

at ~ 31:22 details about the film scanning