High Definintion Digital Film Transfer Question..

[lsupro]

Has anyone seen the television ad for the T2 dvd release using a "High Definintion Digatl Film Transfer?"

IS this something real or is it another inflated generic term for something that has been remastered?

Do any of you know if other film have been greatly improved by the "process?"

Thanks!

[Claviusb]

This is the first and possibly only time you'll see this kind of transfer. It is high resolution, but you've got to have a Windows XP system with a ton of horsepower and Windows Media Player 9.

The first disc has a "regular" transfer that is the cleanest yet (the extended edition is the easily accessable version, the theatrical version is an Easter Egg), with audio commentary by James Cameron, but the Limited Edition metal cases are ripping the inner plastic case that the DVDs are housed in to shreds. Artisan is providing free replacements for the plastic cases if you email customer service.

[lsupro]

So this won't be a DVD-HD title?

[Claviusb]

Probably, but only when they re-release it. This disc can not be a true HD-DVD, because the future HD-DVD standard is not set. That's a little Terminator humor.

[Cliff]

If I'm not mistaken, there are several DVDs out there with an HD "Transfer". One is "A Bug's Life CE".

[Jamie Tate]

The review at DVD Talk thought this HD disc was too gimmicky.

Hey Gort Robert, does the regular DVD look that much better than the last super duper edition? I didn't like this movie but am curious how far they can push regular DVD resolution.

[Pinknik]

I tried to play one of the HD samples on the MediaPlayer 9 home page, and I don't have enough computing horsepower to play it smoothly. It looked okay, I suppose, but it was computer animated, and how that's supposed to help you "sample HD", I'm not sure. I thought STANDING IN THE SHADOWS OF MOTOWN was supposed to have one of these HD transfers too. I think they are located on the 2nd disc of these special editions. I guess confusion will proliferate when regular editions that had a high definition transfer made before being down converted to NTSC sit along side actual HD carrying discs like these and then, finally, HD-DVD's. It's madness.

[lsupro]

Is there a site that shows some of this HD transfer technology?

[Claviusb]

Pinknik is correct. To access some clips, go here. (http://windowsmedia.com/9series/DemoCenter/VideoQuality.asp?page=6&lookup=VideoQuality)

[Drew]

If I can pull an image out of a 35mm negative thats aprox 3600x2400 pixels, it would seem to me that the same should be done with movie film. And even if not, the 740x480 that most DVD's are will be considered a joke in a few years.

[Todd Fredericks]

Jamie, I didn't know you visit DVD Talk. It's a great site...

Todd

[Jamie Tate]

Originally posted by Todd Fredericks
Jamie, I didn't know you visit DVD Talk. It's a great site...

Todd

I do a weekly check in. I've caught up on all the DVDs I wanted and now I just catch them when they come out.

[Jamie Tate]

Originally posted by Claviusb
To access some clips, go here. (http://windowsmedia.com/9series/DemoCenter/VideoQuality.asp?page=6&lookup=VideoQuality)

D'oh!!!

We're sorry, but Windows Media Video 9 Series video and Windows Media Audio Professional 9 Series content is currently not playable on the Mac.

[Ken_McAlinden]

This is the first and possibly only time you'll see this kind of transfer. It is high resolution, but you've got to have a Windows XP system with a ton of horsepower and Windows Media Player 9.

There was a WMP9 hi-def transfer on the "Standing in the Shadows of Motown" DVD from Artisan as well. I don't have the hardware to take advantage of it, but my understanding is that it is not quite the resolution of the T2 Extreme presentation, but still greater than standard DVD.

The standard presentation of the film on the regular DVD is noticeably better than the previous releases as well. There's also a neat article about how they created the digital master on the insert in the DVD package. They telecined at 1080p @ 24 frames per second, and squeezed the vertical lines so that all 1080 lines were used for the 2.35:1 frame. Normally, they letterbox 2.35:1 in a 16:9 frame, and lose 24% of the available resolution.

Anyway, this gave them flexibility in two areas:

1) They could telecine the theatrical version from the best available element, telecine the additional scenes from the best available elements, and then edit together the SE in the digital realm, not worrying about 3:2 pull-down artifacts that they would have to deal with if it were 30fps or interlacing artifacts if it were not progressive. The video quality of the SE will be equivalent to the theatrical version. (Otherwise, they would either have to diassemble and re-assemble the negative for the theatrical version - not a smart move - or transfer from an "SE negative" a couple of film generations down from the theatrical version.)

2) They could downconvert the results to just about any format out there including PAL and NTSC DVD, and the WMP9 hi-def version. They are even covered for digital projection up to around 1,427 lines (since it will be letterboxed 16:9 and they have 1080 lines of resolution).

Regards,

[Ken_McAlinden]

DVD Beaver has comaparative screen shots of the hi-def and standard def version of the T2 Extreme Edition, and the previous Ultimate Edition. They are posted at: http://207.136.67.23/film/dvdcompare/term2.htm

Regards,

[lsupro]

Originally posted by Ken_McAlinden
DVD Beaver has comaparative screen shots of the hi-def and standard def version of the T2 Extreme Edition, and the previous Ultimate Edition. They are posted at: http://207.136.67.23/film/dvdcompare/term2.htm

Regards,

Great Link!

Thanks!

[Jeff H.]

Originally posted by Ken_McAlinden


There was a WMP9 hi-def transfer on the "Standing in the Shadows of Motown" DVD from Artisan as well. I don't have the hardware to take advantage of it, but my understanding is that it is not quite the resolution of the T2 Extreme presentation, but still greater than standard DVD.

The standard presentation of the film on the regular DVD is noticeably better than the previous releases as well. There's also a neat article about how they created the digital master on the insert in the DVD package. They telecined at 1080p @ 24 frames per second, and squeezed the vertical lines so that all 1080 lines were used for the 2.35:1 frame. Normally, they letterbox 2.35:1 in a 16:9 frame, and lose 24% of the available resolution.

Anyway, this gave them flexibility in two areas:

1) They could telecine the theatrical version from the best available element, telecine the additional scenes from the best available elements, and then edit together the SE in the digital realm, not worrying about 3:2 pull-down artifacts that they would have to deal with if it were 30fps or interlacing artifacts if it were not progressive. The video quality of the SE will be equivalent to the theatrical version. (Otherwise, they would either have to diassemble and re-assemble the negative for the theatrical version - not a smart move - or transfer from an "SE negative" a couple of film generations down from the theatrical version.)

2) They could downconvert the results to just about any format out there including PAL and NTSC DVD, and the WMP9 hi-def version. They are even covered for digital projection up to around 1,427 lines (since it will be letterboxed 16:9 and they have 1080 lines of resolution).

Regards,


The DVD-ROM version of "Standing In The Shadows Of Motown" does look great and has a nice razor sharp picture. The only disappointment is that I had to crank up my volume all the way just to for it to be normal listening level. The regular DVD shows a bit of film grain but still looks great and the sound is much better. Just my two cents.

As for the new version of T2, I wonder if they're planning to issue a DVD with a DTS soundtrack? That was one of my main reasons for keeping the old DVD and not buying this new one. And is the new version really any better(picture and soundwise) than the one released in 2000? Any feedback from someone who knows would be greatly appreciated.

[Ken_McAlinden]

Originally posted by Jeff H.
And is the new version really any better(picture and soundwise) than the one released in 2000? Any feedback from someone who knows would be greatly appreciated.

I already said that the "regular ol' DVD" picture was noticeably improved (and the link above gives you a feel for how much). The DD-EX audio is, as far as I can tell, the same as the previous release. Since I only found the DTS to be a smidgen better than the DD on my gear, I probably will watch the Extreme Edition from now on when I want to see the film. They made the theatrical version of the film an Easter Egg on the Extreme Edition, which is appreciated and annoying at the same time.

The hi-def version is only the theatrical version, not the SE.

Regards,

[Cliff]

That is a cool site. Besides the obvious blurriness, it's also amazing how muted the colors get!

[Claviusb]

There is a *big* problem with the DVD Beaver comparison. The images are useless IMO. All of the images have been resized to be the same length and width. I know this because the HD version is a higher resolution, if the images were all cropped proportionally, the HD image would be either larger, or it would be the same size but contain less image "area." Being down-sampled, they've all lost their original sharpness (I'm not guessing, I can clearly see it). One could use Unsharp Mask to resharpen them, but then these images would be even less like the originals.

[Ken_McAlinden]

Originally posted by Claviusb
There is a *big* problem with the DVD Beaver comparison. The images are useless IMO. All of the images have been resized to be the same length and width. I know this because the HD version is a higher resolution, if the images were all cropped proportionally, the HD image would be either larger, or it would be the same size but contain less image "area." Being down-sampled, they've all lost their original sharpness (I'm not guessing, I can clearly see it). One could use Unsharp Mask to resharpen them, but then these images would be even less like the originals.
My understanding was that all of the partial frame "excerpts" were from a capture at higher than the HD resolution, meaning that everything is more or less up-sampled rather than down-sampled. That's how I read it, anyway.

Regards,

[Claviusb]

Then the images *may* have been altered twice-- once being upsampled, but I am certain that they've definitly been down-sampled at least once in an image editing program to fit the web page. The images are all worthless if one is trying to truly compare image quality, because the sharpness of the original images (including any use of edge enhancement) is wiped out thanks to the imperfection of interpolation. Varying clarity is supposed to be the point of the page.

[Ken_McAlinden]

Here's the pertinent quote:

All my screenshots were captured at a monitor resolution of 1600x1200. In order to provide proper comparisons, the screenshots of T2 Ultimate and T2 Extreme non-HD transfers were also captured at 1600x1200. No re-scaling of the images was done after capture. To help Gary conserve webspace, I chose not to show the full-size images, but only a smaller area within each image. The dotted rectangle on the first image of each comparison shows the area that is being compared.


Taking him at his word, all of the 2.35:1 images are scaled down, but the "blow-ups" are from upscaled 1600x1200 captures.

Regards,

[Claviusb]

Think about it, Ken. How can three images, two of them of a different resolution than the third, ALL be the *same* size on the web page? That's physically impossible, as they are all cropped in the same image area.

[Ken_McAlinden]

Originally posted by Claviusb
Think about it, Ken. How can three images, two of them of a different resolution than the third, ALL be the *same* size on the web page? That's physically impossible, as they are all cropped in the same image area. All of them were captured "upsampled" to 1600 x 1200 and then had the same size portion cropped.

Regards,