I'm confused on how it's possible to get a 1080p transfer, when some Blu-rays/HD-DVDs are using older transfers that were done for SD-DVD?

When did studios start mastering films in Hi-def? And if they didn't master in HD, how do they get the extra video information when transferred to HDM?

An example would be the movie "The Thing", I have read reviews that say it shares the same master as the old SD-DVD versions, so how is it possible to transfer a non HD master to HDM?

I think it is because the Master is a much higher resolution than the SD DVD and the High Def Disc.

Film > BD

1080p is 2 Megapixels. Compare a 2 Megapixel digital 4x6 photo to a 35mm film one sometime.

While 1080p and BD are "high" definition for a TV.... they are extremely low resolution.

Imagine a 12 Megapixel camera in 16x9 mode. That's 4616 x 2600 compared to Blu-rays 1920 x 1080.

The master may be a 2K master... approx 2048x1080. A lot of times, a DVD will say it was mastered in high def, or remastered. From this master, they convert it to DVD standard. When blu-ray, HD DVD came out, a lot of films were made from old masters used to create the DVDs. Some have been remastered in 4K resolution (approx 4096 x 2160)..Blade Runner.

All I remember is D5 - one of the first (I think) HD tape formats that was used to create DVD's from and could be used to make an HDM (?).

Whether they actually do use older HD transfers? Can't answer that one. Hoping someone can.

I know film is higher res than 1080p, that is not my question.

My question is how can they use the same master used for SD-DVD, that was not mastered in Hi-Def, and get more video information?

Meaning, the masters that are not labeled "Mastered in HD". Like I said before, reviews have said that the movie "The thing" in HD-DVD shares the same master as the old SD-DVDs.

I know film is higher res than 1080p, that is not my question.

My question is how do they make HD transfers using old Masters that were done for SD-DVD?

Meaning, the masters that are not labeled "Mastered in HD". Like I said before, reviews have said that the movie "The thing" in HD-DVD shares the same master as the old SD-DVDs.

Most studios started creating HD Masters about eight to ten years ago.

If they do not have an HD master they have to create a new one. Also note, that studios are discovering that many of their older HD master are turning out not to be good enough. (See Fifth Element, and the sub-sequent re-master/Blu-ray re-release.)

The Thing has been released on SD DVD twice. The original release was a direct port of the Laserdisc SE, which did not include a new anamorphic print. The most recent re-release of The Thing on SD DVD was struck from an HD Master, which may or may not have been good enough for the current HD standards everyone is expecting now.

Universal was hammered for the condition of many of their HD masters, especially during the 2007 early summer slate, which had been delayed from the 1st quarter of 2007. They had to meet some goals for Toshiba, and that is why many people are a little nervous about the time frame it will take for Universal to start releasing catalog titles on Blu-ray.

fitprod

I know film is higher res than 1080p, that is not my question.

My question is how can they use the same master used for SD-DVD, that was not mastered in Hi-Def, and get more video information?

Meaning, the masters that are not labeled "Mastered in HD". Like I said before, reviews have said that the movie "The thing" in HD-DVD shares the same master as the old SD-DVDs.

They go back and either rescan it or take the original 2K/4K scan used to make the SD DVD and re-encode it at 1080p.

Most studios started creating HD Masters about eight to ten years ago.

If they do not have an HD master they have to create a new one. Also note, that studios are discovering that many of their older HD master are turning out not to be good enough. (See Fifth Element, and the sub-sequent re-master/Blu-ray re-release.)

The Thing has been released on SD DVD twice. The original release was a direct port of the Laserdisc SE, which did not include a new anamorphic print. The most recent re-release of The Thing on SD DVD was struck from an HD Master, which may or may not have been good enough for the current HD standards everyone is expecting now.

Universal was hammered for the condition of many of their HD masters, especially during the 2007 early summer slate, which had been delayed from the 1st quarter of 2007. They had to meet some goals for Toshiba, and that is why many people are a little nervous about the time frame it will take for Universal to start releasing catalog titles on Blu-ray.

fitprod

OK, so what is the difference between an ordinary HD-Master, compared to one scanned at 4k like what was done with the movie "Blade Runner The Final Cut"?

Not every HD-Master has gone through that process right?

Most studios started creating HD Masters about eight to ten years ago.

...
Universal was hammered for the condition of many of their HD masters, especially during the 2007 early summer slate, which had been delayed from the 1st quarter of 2007. They had to meet some goals for Toshiba, and that is why many people are a little nervous about the time frame it will take for Universal to start releasing catalog titles on Blu-ray.

fitprod

Sony was quite proud of its program to master its assets in hd that had been underway for some years. They thought they were prepared for Blu-ray. They were wrong.

According to Bill Hunt, Universal is aware that its catalog titles last year were not good enough for hd, and they will be redoing them for Blu-ray.

The demands of HDM customers are very high. We expect a lot.

It is also necessary to interest people who have bought a title several times to once again spring for a new title. I have two copies of Blade-Runner (the Criterion LD and the early Warners DVD) but was persuaded to buy last year's SE because of all of the efforts that had gone into it.

I believe that everything older than a couple of years will be redone--perhaps several times in some cases--for Blu-ray.

If what you say is true (Universal Remastering for Blu-ray), I'm all for it.

I don't own an HD-DVD, and now that the war is over I'm hoping Universal will release "The Thing" on Blu-ray sometime soon.

any links

OK, so what is the difference between an ordinary HD-Master, compared to one scanned at 4k like what was done with the movie "Blade Runner The Final Cut"?

The resolution the film is "scanned" in.
A 2k master essentiall matches 1080p resolution.
A 4k master exceeds 1080p resolution, and is scalled down to 1080p before being put on HDDVD or BD. Much liek how a 2k master is scalled down when turned into a SD DVD.

The resolution the film is "scanned" in.
A 2k master essentiall matches 1080p resolution.
.
Only for 16:9 content. 4:3 and 2.35:1 suffer resolution loss on 1080p.

Slightly off topic. How do the cable providers send down movies in HD that havent been released on either format? Are the studio's sending them what they have or are the cable providers doing it themselves?

I have a copy of Gladiator I got off HBO HD and honestly it looks great. I'd be hard pressed to see a difference between it and HD-DVD movies I have in many scenes.

Slightly off topic. How do the cable providers send down movies in HD that havent been released on either format? Are the studio's sending them what they have or are the cable providers doing it themselves?

I have a copy of Gladiator I got off HBO HD and honestly it looks great. I'd be hard pressed to see a difference between it and HD-DVD movies I have in many scenes.

It depends. Some cable networks receive copies of the HD masters from the studios on HDCam or a similar format. Others will re-transfer the films themselves, often so they can crop 2.35:1 movies into a 1.78:1 frame (*hiss*), as the studios don't care to alter original aspect ratios for their HD masters.

It depends. Some cable networks receive copies of the HD masters from the studios on HDCam or a similar format. Others will re-transfer the films themselves, often so they can crop 2.35:1 movies into a 1.78:1 frame (*hiss*), as the studios don't care to alter original aspect ratios for their HD masters.

When HBO announced that they were going to offer films in HD they said that they were going to committ over $120 million to do this - ie; they were going to pay the cost for the transfers. This was I believe in the 1999 - 2000 time frame.