Canadian TV, Computing and Home Theatre Forums banner

Does the picture quality IMPROVE when old video is transfered to Blu-Ray?

2.5K views 12 replies 8 participants last post by  okcomputer  
#1 ·
I have seen some Blu-ray burners out in the marketplace & I'm curious for those that have these and have transfered,say old home videos(that were clearly not shot on high defination)if there was much of a difference the overall PQ?

I guess what i am getting at is,would the images of these videos be improved if i copied them to Blu-ray?I am aware that they probably would not look that much,much better,but,would it be worth it to do this?Or am i better off just leaving them on regualr dvds(inwhich i copied these to yrs. back).
 
#2 ·
Garbage in, garbage out so don't expect any improvement.

Having said that, if you don't already, get them into a digital format asap
 
#3 ·
Is "Film" the ONLY beneficiary for HD?

Meaning that it is the only medium that can benefit from HD.By transfering film thru the tele'cine chain process using a high definition camera.

Where-as video you are merely going from video to video.

Programs like "All in the Family" or "The Cosby Show"(filmed to videotape)would show no improvement in the quailty of the picture at all.

So,i can transfer my old super 8 films to HD and they would show a marked improvement.But transfering my older home videos to HD would show no improvement at all.

Is this a fair statement?
 
#6 ·
A copy can never be better than the original version.
That's not always the case. With proper processing a new version can be created which is superior to the original - noise can be removed, interpolation and extrapolation done, etc.

This, of course requires good processing power, but as we all know, an upconverted DVD can look better than a DVD sending 480i, the original format.
 
#7 ·
^^^^
That processing, called restoration, is not just copying. You do what you have to, to recover the original info. Sometimes that info has to be re-created. This means you replace parts with what you think was the original. Also, when you remove noise, you often remove part of the original signal as well. While all this can improve the appearance of the new version, it can never, ever be as accurate as the original. It's physically impossible.

BTW, an excellent example of good restoration is the DVD version of the 1959 movie "Journey To The Center Of The Earth". Back when that film was made, they colour separated it into 3 B&W films for archiving. When it was restored for the DVD, they used that archive and cleaned up the films, before recombinging them for the colour video. The reason for the colour separated archive is that the film dyes fade with time.

The restoration process is documented in the bonus features on that DVD.
 
#8 ·
Yes, these frame-by-frame restorations are well documented - James Bond is another example. But I'm not talking about restoration, I'm talking about "on-the-fly" processing, which can sometimes improve PQ, but cannot make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

The fact that upconversion works (on a TV signal, DVD, etc) is proof of the fact that it can be done on-the-fly.
 
#9 ·
While all this can improve the appearance of the new version, it can never, ever be as accurate as the original.
Clearly, improved appearance (or sound) is not the same as accuracy, but when an "accurate" original looks (or sounds) like crap, there's nothing wrong with a properly-engineered "improved appearance" (or sound) re-release.
 
#13 ·
16mm provides plenty of resolution for HD.

8mm does not, but it can definitely benefit from noise reduction and other digital processes.

Back to the OP's question though, I'll reiterate that simply transferring old home movies to digital will not result in any quality improvement. However, once you have it in a digital format, not only can you make multiple copies on different types of media, you can apply some enhancements and make it a bit better if you want to.