YouTube is started to remastering old music videos https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2019/6/19/18691481/youtube-...d-remaster-umg
But as I see quality is crap. Looks like they just just increased quality of old files and put some denoise filters. Aren't they? The really best restoration of music video I ever see that's from Beatles this project https://youtu.be/q-dJAC2tybE
I'm wondering why record labels is not restoring old school videos, how many music hits in crap quality, what is need is just rescan film reels with modern film reel scanners which was not avialable 10 years ago
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 6 of 6
If there was a viable business case it would have been done already.
Such as if you and your friends are projected to buy "x" copies from Itunes. Or if "z" runs can bring in "$" dollars of ad revenue
And that's assuming the original assets were in good shape, or not missing, or not roasting in some fire
Or if someone wants to donate time/money/expertise to do it for free
Many music videos may have been shot on film, but they were virtually NEVER mastered on film. 1" tape or digital betacam were great in their day, but not hi-def. Unless you're the Beatles, there's not a big enough market for going back to the original elements (which may not even exist.)
(edit: Beatles material of course WAS mastered on film as well.)
Because it doesn't matter all that much when you're watching it on a cr&ppy little mobile phone screen. Besides, most of the young 'uns I know wouldn't recognise quality - either audio or visual - even if it came up and kicked them repeatedly in the nads. As long as there are large numbers involved - it doesn't seem to matter whether it's size or cost - and it's loud and flashy they'll probably be happy.
YouTube high quality is an oxymoron because of the need to reencode everything to their streaming standards. The comments on the article agree with the OP. The "remastered" videos are HD in name only.
This is simply a test to see if they can make money from the "remasters". If they do, other studios may follow suit, but hopefully they'll offer them in true HD quality, either on their own streaming platform or Blu-Ray. Not on YouTube.
(Old thread I know) but for the OP the difference between the Beatles remaster and YT is with the Beatles they had the original source film.
Its either shot on 8mm or super 35 but the thing about film is there is no resolution. You can scan it with 100MP cameras and you'd get an effective 100MP resolution video.
However that being said film has a perceived resolution maximum. i.e a point at which the resolution you use does not matter anymore because you already have captured all possible silver grains in maximum quality. For 35mm film this ends up being 30MP. Or around 6720x4480. (Almost 7K)
For 120mm film this is between 90MP and 120MP.
Super 8 is around 2k etc.
So for the Beatles remaster, they didn't do anything special. They used a decent film scanner and and hired a "restoration" artist.
However, had they Drum scanned the footage or went frame by frame, We'd have the Beatles in 1440p up to 4K. So even their remaster is below par of what's possible.
With YT however, I suspect they "remaster" the same way Crunchy roll "remasters" anime. Low quality real time AI Neural networks like waifu2x.
Meaning low quality upscaling
Last edited by Reclusive Eagle; 16th Oct 2021 at 07:30.