Questions about 'remastering' films

[alex101]

Hi, I have a few questions about 'remastering'.

1) Assuming you have the best possible scanner technology, what is the best possible quality you can get out of a film in digital-resolution terms? How do films vary?
2) How much does it cost to remaster a typical film to HD?
3) Why are some films remastered (and look great) while others don't?

Star Wars IV was made in 1977, yet the HD remaster looks surprisingly good! How long will they be able to keep that up? (ie. keep releasing better quality versions?). Why don't they remaster all great films like Gone with the wind in HD? (I know they have a bluray version, but it looks terrible).

So in theory, everything that was recorded on film should have pretty good quality? Why don't they do a decent transfer of John Lennons 'Imagine'? etc.?

Casablanca was scanned at 4K then scaled down to 1080 for bluray, yet if you look at the individual frames, it doesn't look that sharp (considering it came from a 4K). I would almost say that the film for Casablanca looks like less than HD quality.

[smrpix]

Quick answers to the stuff I know...

Apparantly GWTW was scanned from technicolor separations at 8k. You're chasing a moving target here because the technology keeps improving and "new" originals keep turning up. I haven't seen the restored GWTW or Casablanca but both are generally highly praised. I was personally very impressed with Wizard of Oz and the color in the restored original Oceans 11.

The quality and availablilty of the transfers differs with available elements on a technical level, and the calculated return on investment financially. It's expensive to transfer, digitally clean, and store films.

A film like "Imagine" is already a compilation of various available elements transferred to 35mm as well as could be done in the 80's. Much of the material comes from 16mm material or dupes of 16mm material and there's even VHS blown up to 35mm again with 80's technology. The cost of recovering and retransfering "Imagine" from all the original elements would be huge and would entail an ongoing cost as better original segments would turn up from time to time.

The quality is there. If you look at newly transferred 16mm outtakes from "Let it Be" they look great. "Magical Mystery Tour" shot on 16mm is still disappointing -- but man does it look better than the bootleg prints we watched in college.

[jagabo]

35 mm negatives have roughly 4000 lines of resolution. How much time and technology is invested depends on how many copies they think they can sell. Then there's the marketing trick of releasing a basic version first, then the directors cut with two minutes of extra footage, then the enhanced version with updated special effects, then the remastered version, the the enhanced remastered version... all so they can sell you the same movie over and over again.

[jman98]

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but you seem to have a minority view on Casablanca. Here's but one example and no offense but I trust DVD Beaver's opinion more than yours.
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/dvdcompare/casablanca.htm
They also disagree with your assessment of Gone With The Wind.
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/dvdcompare6/gonewiththewind.htm

Some people are unusually sensitive to all kind of artifacts. Or they think they are sensitive to them. I worked with a guy once who swore that he was able to tell if an MP3 file was recorded below 256 Kbps and considered all such files to be "unlistenable". He was very emphatic about that. This is not meant to be a shot, but jagabo here apparently has eagle eyes because he can see stuff in video that I just can't detect unless maybe I cared enough to open a video with an editor and closely examine it. And this IS a shot - we've got deadrats who insists that all current encoding technology just blows chunks and maybe the new H.265 might possibly meet his exacting standards. So just because you think Casablanca has issues, I will reserve judgement on whether I think so too or not. You just may be too picky or too sensitive and almost nothing may make you happy. Sucks to be you in that case.

4k scans are the highest I am familiar with, but smrpix knows of 8k scans so I'll bow to that. My understanding is that 4k is considered roughly akin to film quality so I would think that there may not be much incentive to go above 8k.

Remastering is expensive and time consuming. Universal has been spending tons of money to get high resolution scans of many of their classic films and fixing all kinds of problems with them, but some things slip through. The BluRay of All Quiet On The Western Front has been praised but there are some parts with problems that the reviewers admit to being puzzled that they weren't fixed. I know that some of the problems they did fix in the film were massive. In October the much awaited 3D BluRay of Vincent Price's "House Of Wax" is coming out and I have the impression that the problems that had to be fixed were far greater and more expensive and time consuming than expected. I know that the old Shaw Brothers film Diau Charn was remastered and repaired by the company that now owns the rights to their catalog and they said that it was by far the most expensive and most difficult film in the library to restore. The DVD looks great, but I know that the source was in absolutely abominable shape with color fade and horrific scratches and defects. They will never make back what it cost to fix all those issues, but they ate the cost because the film is historically significant in Hong Kong and worthy of preservation.

Don't ever look at Metropolis, alex101. You'll claw your eyes out when you see the condition of the newly added 16mm footage that only survived in an abysmal quality Argentinian duplicate. These really old films can't really justify going to extremes to fix problems frame by frame because they will never make back the cost to do that. If the film is owned by a studio that cares about its history and has a lot of money like Disney or Universal, they'll pay the costs to fix the problems because they see long term value in doing so.

[smrpix]

jman brings up Disney, who care about their library and are ingenious at creating new revenue streams for their older material.

But IMHO they have over-fixed some of their classic animation. The backgrounds in Pinocchio, for example, are pristine, most likely created by blending adjacent frames to remove all the dust, scratches, grain and technicolor sparkle (single-layer dust artifacts) that to me have always been part of the texture of these old films. (They have also removed the scene of a starving Figaro the cat going after Cleo the goldfish, and mixed out someone cruely yelling, "look, Pinocchio fell down!")

I guess when I'm as brilliant and rich as Disney I'll get to make those decisions.

[alex101]

You just may be too picky or too sensitive and almost nothing may make you happy. Sucks to be you in that case.

You mean you can't tell the difference between this?

[smrpix]

Sure, one is shot with 1940's era double-x negative stock, one is shot with three stacked layers of 1930's era technicolor monochrome stock (possibly going through an IB stage) and had the color bled out of it, and the third one was shot with a modern camera and computer-ground lenses but I have no idea if it's film or digital. And they've all been cropped and recompressed as jpegs.

What's your point?

[enim]

when it comes to professional scanning, French, Germans and Phillips rule.

1) Assuming you have the best possible scanner technology, what is the best possible quality you can get out of a film in digital-resolution terms? How do films vary?

I would ask some pros in processing house, if I am really serious about business.

2) How much does it cost to remaster a typical film to HD?

Depends upon running length of your reel.

3) Why are some films remastered (and look great) while others don't?

Even if scanned at very high resolution availble at that time, processed poorly. Processing rates vary depending upon geo location.

[alex101]

And they've all been cropped and recompressed as jpegs.

I only cropped them horizontally, they are still 1080. They are also the highest quality jpeg.

What's your point?

My point is the third image is an example of true 1080 quality. Casablancas quality, even when scanned at 4K is at best less than 540!

Really the point of this thread is I wanted to find out what the true quality of film is (in pixel resolution equivalent terms). I guess I answered my own question for old film, but what about film made in the 1960s, 70s, 80s, 90s, 2000s, and todays? And then the cost..

[MindController]

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but you seem to have a minority view on Casablanca. Here's but one example and no offense but I trust DVD Beaver's opinion more than yours.
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/dvdcompare/casablanca.htm

Perhaps I'm expecting too much of a difference for such an old film, but the screen grabs of the blu-ray version compared to the DVD version aren't that sharp. They're pretty much on par with the DVD release.

[filmboss80]

My point is the third image is an example of true 1080 quality. Casablancas quality, even when scanned at 4K is at best less than 540!

My goodness. You haven't heard of a soft focus lens? You don't even know what you're comparing.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/pixels_vs_film.shtml

http://www.filmschoolonline.com/sample_lessons/sample_lesson_HD_vs_35mm.htm

[alex101]

You haven't heard of a soft focus lens? You don't even know what you're comparing.

Soft focus or not, low quality = low quality. 540 = 540.

I don't know why they decided to use soft focus. Maybe they didn't have a good lens back then, or maybe there was so much noise they had no choice.

EDIT: Sorry I made a mistake. They didn't scan Casablanca at 4K. They scanned it at 4K x 4K (that's even more!).

[smrpix]

What's your original source for the 3rd image? The lights reflected in her eyes suggest it's from a still shoot -- probably large format.

And you can't see the difference here?



How about here?

[jagabo]

Soft focus or not, low quality = low quality. 540 = 540.

Those closeups in Casablanca were intentionally shot with a soft focus. So the softness is not the fault of the film stock or the scanning resolution.

The third closeup is oversharpened. It has halos at sharp edges. And no doubt buzzing edges at normal playback speed.

[filmboss80]

I don't know why they decided to use soft focus. Maybe they didn't have a good lens back then, or maybe there was so much noise they had no choice.

Movies were projected on 80-foot screens, and no studio wanted every blemish and wrinkle on their leading actress' face to be blown up to huge proportions. If you knew the first thing about cinematography, you would know that diffusion is often an aesthetic CHOICE. There is an atmospheric "look" that every Director of Photography tries to achieve; and oftentimes, overly sharp, noisily-detailed scenes are purposely avoided to achieve a more visually-pleasing effect. It's all about making beautiful pictures, NOT resolution.

Your example of Ingrid Bergman's close-up is the worst test you could possibly make for assessing resolution, because she was INTENTIONALLY shot soft--even softer than the other actors in Casablanca. (Learn a little something about film history.)

Like I said, you don't even know what your comparing.

[orsetto]

You haven't heard of a soft focus lens? You don't even know what you're comparing.

Soft focus or not, low quality = low quality. 540 = 540.

I don't know why they decided to use soft focus. Maybe they didn't have a good lens back then, or maybe there was so much noise they had no choice.

Everyone so far has given you the same basic answer: film and HD digital have theoretically similar resolution, but the actual appearance is rarely comparable in the direct Consumer Reports fashion you seem fixated on. Films made in the golden era of Hollywood are especially difficult to evaluate, because the shooting and visual style was often completely different from today. Theater screens were often much larger than our current multiplexes, and female stars were considered screen goddesses: the stylized "glamour" of the day involved intentional soft focus tricks, esp in closeups. TV didn't even exist yet, no one was thinking "how will this look converted to digital on an unforgiving 50" home screen viewed in some fools bedroom from four feet away." So saying they "didn't have good lenses" or there was "so much noise they had no choice" smacks of naivete, or trolling. The old studios had an unlimited amount of money available in an overall sense, which meant even throwaway films like "Casablanca" had access to top-quality lenses, equipment, and film.

Each visual style had/has its place in time. Not everyone finds the look of your specific 1080 sample appealing: yeah, its sharp, but its generic as all hell and conveys no emotion or soul. Depending on the individual older film, the HD scanning process will yield results that scream "high rez HD remaster" or results that seem "meh", especially to younger eyes with no real grounding in or affection for the older aesthetic. As others have noted, the process is subjective, so the team involved in any particular transfer project might prioritize anything from style preservation to grain-level acuity. The best teams combine both, but it can be difficult and expensive to achieve. Unless the studio wants to pay, and the exec in charge actually gives a shit, results can be variable. I've seen remasters of legendary big-budget movies that look like crap on BluRay, and I've seen transfers of obscure shot-on-film TV series on DVD that could slice your retina with their resolution.

Film was the go-to medium from the turn of the century until very recently, and the aesthetics changed from decade to decade. To expect every digital transfer of every one of these films to match the appearance of something shot today on a RED or Arri Alexa guarantees you'll be disappointed.

[2Bdecided]

Your example of Ingrid Bergman's close-up is the worst test you could possibly make for assessing resolution, because she was INTENTIONALLY shot soft--even softer than the other actors in Casablanca. (Learn a little something about film history.)

I've never even watched it (really!) but just looking at the BluRay review it was obvious that that shot was intentionally soft focus.

However, even the sharpest of the other shots (which is probably the cheque) don't have much high frequency content beyond the limit of PAL resolution (576), and only a little more above the limit of NTSC resolution (480).

Still looks gorgeous though.

Not everything has to be pin-sharp HD (though its nice, where appropriate). Directors still choose to make some films look not-very-HD even today.

I'm fairly sure I've seen films almost that old looking very sharp, but can't think of an example. Might be imagining/wishing it!

Cheers,
David.

[alex101]

Right, so in other words, back in the old days they had the ability to make really high quality films, but decided, 'nah, lets blur it with a soft focus'.

Sorry, but I don't buy it. There are outdoor scenes in GWTW which would have looked SPECTACULAR if they were captured in high detail - but no, I guess they decided to 'soft focus' that too, because the people from far away might show a microscopic wrinkle, or maybe a tiny ant walking on a leaf. I suppose film manufacturers weren't interested in improving the quality of film either since no one would want to see wrinkles.

I think many of you are simply too obsessed with old films to realize we are talking about 1939 (74+ years ago). I highly doubt they had motion film in 1939 that was smooth enough to capture HD, let alone 4K. If the film isn't perfectly smooth then the photons will not hit the correct spot, causing noise and blur.

The point of this thread was I wanted to know what the equivalent megapixel is for film for the different decades (whereby quality would be affected noticeably). I can't find any decent research on this seemingly simple question. The best estimate I managed to find is that 35mm film has a resolution between 325 to over 2300.

[filmboss80]

Sorry, but I don't buy it. There are outdoor scenes in GWTW which would have looked SPECTACULAR if they were captured in high detail - but no, I guess they decided to 'soft focus' that too, because the people from far away might show a microscopic wrinkle, or maybe a tiny ant walking on a leaf.

No one is asking you to buy anything. If you do not trust the input of people in the know, then don’t ask questions here. If you wish to remain completely ignorant about the history of cinema, it is of no consequence to the rest of us. If you’re too lazy to read commentaries from leading Directors of Photography, why should we care? If you cannot fathom that there is no true equivalency between fixed digital image pixels and unsystematic arrays of microscopic silver halide particles on celluloid acetate film, then there’s really no point trying to enlighten you. In other words, if you insist on meandering down a course of willful, obstinate stupidity, then none of us will stop you.

By the way, most of those outdoor scenes in GWTW that you think would have looked SPECTATULAR in high detail -- they were matte paintings!! You would have been able to detect that (and the illusion would have been ruined) had they not been shot with soft diffusion. But I don't expect you to understand that.

[alex101]

No one is asking you to buy anything. If you do not trust the input of people in the know, then don’t ask questions here.

I won't. Obviously the people in the 'know' don't know what they're talking about if they only mention lens and completely forget about film resolution and almost deny it's existence/importance..

If you cannot fathom that there is no true equivalency between fixed digital image pixels and unsystematic arrays of microscopic silver halide particles on celluloid acetate film, then there’s really no point trying to enlighten you. In other words, if you insist on meandering down a course of willful, obstinate stupidity, then none of us will stop you.

I never said it was possible to measure the 'true' equivalence of film in terms of a completely different system: pixels, but if you have at least half a brain and one eye it's possible to at least estimate to some useful degree of accuracy. You're solution, however, is to simply give up and say 'Yes film is very good! You can't compare!' (not useful).

most of those outdoor scenes in GWTW that you think would have looked SPECTATULAR in high detail -- they were matte paintings!! You would have been able to detect that (and the illusion would have been ruined) had they not been shot with soft diffusion. But I don't expect you to understand that.

This was the scene I was referring to. Wow, I didn't know matte paintings could animate and move so realistically in three dimensions. Unless the matte painting is all the way out in the background, I doubt even that is a good enough reason to lower the quality of the film. I've seen much newer films use matte paintings and record at better qualities.

[smrpix]

Hopefully the next time Casablanca is restored they'll AT LEAST give Ingrid Bergman Neve Campbell's haircut!

[filmboss80]

Those particular GWTW shots are from the MGM backlot. (The film was shot in Hollywood, not the deep south.) One cannot read your mind to know the exact scenes to which you are referring. One cannot read your mind at all. It is difficult to discern whether you are just baiting us, or if you are irredeemably doltish. Whatever the case, several of us have taken the time to help you become more informed, and you have thrown it back in our faces. I don't know why you are here, but from this point on, I know never to waste time trying to explain things to you. As they say, "you can't fix stupid."

I suppose you would also criticize artists who use soft pastels instead of fine-point quill pens.

[2Bdecided]

He does have a point though. If anyone has seen a screen cap of an "old" movie where you can see a significant difference if you take the BluRay, downscale to SD, and then back to HD - please post a link.

Hardly a fair reference, but try it with this...
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDReviews49/cars_blu-ray/large/05_cars_blu-ray.jpg
from
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDReviews33/cars_blu-ray.htm
...see? Night and day difference.

EDIT: slightly fairer example...
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDReviews42/baraka_blu-ray.htm
especially the palm trees and statue.


He's asking if you ever see anything like that with older films. If not, when did it become possible?

(IME you never see anything that sharp unless it's digital or 70mm - like those examples!).

Cheers,
David.

[jagabo]

Try The Wizard of Oz (1939) or Citizen Kane (1941). Granted, they're not as sharp as the over sharpened Neve Campbell shot above, but there's an obvious difference between theBlu-ray 1920x1080 and the same image downscaled to 960x540 then upscaled to 1920x1080.

[KBeee]

O.T. but -
soft focus in the early days created by shooting through gauze. Lucille Ball once heard a Director say about her next shot "We'll shoot this through gauze" to which she replied (lighting a cigarette)
"You'd better make that burlap..."
Or words to that effect

[smrpix]

Soft focus continues. This ad appeared in American Cinemetographer (ASC's official publication) in the early 2000's. One of my favorites.

http://www.tiffen.com/She%20Looks%20Like%20Hell%20Ad.htm

[Noahtuck]

What a FUCKTARD!!!!!!!!

Sorry, but someone had to say what we were all thinking!!!!!!

[smrpix]

What a FUCKTARD!!!!!!!!

Sorry, but someone had to say what we were all thinking!!!!!!

Noahtuck! you found the actual "resolution."

[intracube]

Haven't read all this thread - tl;dr

no offense but I trust DVD Beaver's opinion more than yours.

I wouldn't rate DVDBeaver's opinions that highly. They often miss significant issues with transfers (black level, grading, colour correction oddities, lens artefacts, general PQ etc) and simultaniously use flowery and vague language. Example;
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/dvdreviews11/billy_liar.htm
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film4/blu-ray_reviews_59/billy_liar_blu-ray_/large/large_bill...u-ray_subs.jpg
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film4/blu-ray_reviews_59/billy_liar_blu-ray_/large/large_bill...blu-ray_03.jpg

- "and all in HD. Bravo!"

.....hardly. The PQ in some of those screenshots is barely any better than a good DVD upscale.

FWIW;
Gone With the Wind looks sharp, the film grain is fine/even and has no obvious signs of lossy compression or DNR. These shots have significant fine detail:
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDReviews47/gone_with_the_wind_blu-ray/large/large_gon...d_blu-ray6.jpg
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDReviews47/gone_with_the_wind_blu-ray/large/large_gon..._blu-ray7x.jpg

But I'm not impressed with Casablanca. It's pretty soft and the film grain looks subdued and blotchy:
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film3/blu-ray_reviews56/casablanca_blu-ray_/large_orig_blu-ra..._blu-ray_5.jpg
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film3/blu-ray_reviews56/casablanca_blu-ray_/large_orig_blu-ra..._blu-ray_1.jpg

this is all assuming that the Bluray screencaps were grabbed correctly and are representative of the disc content.

Soft focus will make the image appear less crisp, but the effect is more a general mistiness/contrast reduction rather than a typical blur/optical defocus. So it's possible to still see fine detail though the haze.

alex101; there's no definitive answer for question 1. but ~4000 lines resolution seems to be a regularly stated figure for modern film stock. Don't know about question 2.
as for 3.... there are many factors; different film scanner technology/scanning resolution, whether or not the original negative still exists and was available to scan or if a copy of the film had to be used. The original lenses used. The film stock. Care (or lack of) taken during remastering process.

and there's every temptation for studios to ride the HD/Bluray bandwagon and make a quick buck on a substandard transfer.

[poisondeathray]

This is a pretty cool site for a few comparison screenshots, various versions of BD's , DVD's
http://caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergleiche/test.php

here's the one for casablanca
http://caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergleiche/comparison.php?art=part&x=607&y=39&action=1&imag...ess=#vergleich