Macross Plus in HD?

[ChronoReverse]

But I still have trouble comparing the two types of media. One is digital, the other is physical. 35mm film has that limitation, though, of 12 million dots, whereas digital technology will progress and support more in the future. Given, it's not now.

Also, I don't think, for that matter, that dots and pixels are the same measurement, anyhow. I'm confused.

I don't think you understand. Regardless of media format, there's an ultimate limit on the detail carried in that form of media. A 1080p data stream is limited to 1080 vertical lines for instance.

The point here is that the equivalent to lines for 35mm film is extremely high and is far above any digital standard in existence right now. Therefore, sourcing from such a form can yield excellent results for things like bluray (since downscaling is easy). There's no reason they can't go to 40mm film for instance and get even more information but 35mm is already extremely high.

Everything is "stuck" at whatever it could hold at the time of recording, but it's just that current digital recording is below that of the old film in terms of information.

Edited September 18, 2009 by ChronoReverse

[Keith]

If you're referring to the frame error when Bodolza is going up, I'm pretty sure that predate's the remaster, but for some reason it's much more apparent. And while we're at it, damn the soundtrack needs to be cleaned up. Again, all the audio pops & DYRL were present before, by the remaster makes them so much more obvioius. After seeing Honneamise on bluray, as well as various other classic animated features, I have no doubt DYRL can look awesome, the care just needs to be put into it, and the guy sitting around with the auto tools needs to be fired.

[SchizophrenicMC]

God, I don't even care enough anymore. Video is not my specialty, alright? I go by hearsay.

[VT 1010]

The point here is that the equivalent to lines for 35mm film is extremely high and is far above any digital standard in existence right now. Therefore, sourcing from such a form can yield excellent results for things like bluray (since downscaling is easy). There's no reason they can't go to 40mm film for instance and get even more information but 35mm is already extremely high.

Everything is "stuck" at whatever it could hold at the time of recording, but it's just that current digital recording is below that of the old film in terms of information.

Not quite true. Keep in mind that the amount of detail in a 35mm film frame isn't always going to be extremely high. There are many variable that determine the final "resolution" of 35mm film. Also, don't forget Digital Cinema standards as well. Many new films--as well as old ones when they are digitally remastered--are scanned at the 2k or 4k (or sometimes even 6k) resolution standards for compositing, editing, and telecine (I can't remember the exact pixel dimensions off the top of my head, but think of it like 1080p being around 1.5k or so). These standards are used by professionals in the film industry because it is believed that this is approximately the equivalent amount of picture information contained on the film. These resolutions allow for the preservation of fine grain detail. The higher the resolution at which you scan the film, the more you get diminishing returns. Once you've accurately captured all of the film grain, you kind of reached the limit of picture information.

[VT 1010]

I forgot to add that this doesn't even factor in the experimental and eclectic standards, which have gone even higher in resolution.

[ChronoReverse]

The point is that they're not the video standards we're using in the mainstream. It's not like I said film has infinite fidelity but that it has very high fidelity. I also assumed it would've been obvious that poor film or even poorly used film wouldn't have the equivalent to high numbers of lines.

You're right about the studio editing formats being high though. Keep in mind that they use more bits per color channel as well for increase fidelity so just the number of equivalent pixels isn't the end of the story.

As for recording technology, isn't the experimental at only about 4k lines right now? That would be equivalent to high quality 35mm I guess. Dealing with that much digital information just boggles the mind though. Let's see, assuming square pixels, at an aspect ratio of 2.38:1 with 4000 lines would be 9520x4000 making about 38 million pixels. Using 10 bit color channels that would be about 136MB per frame. Time 24 frames per second (although it could be 30 or 60 let's stick with good old film for now) means over 3GB per second of recording. Uncompressed of course but lossless compression usually only cuts out half so that would still be over 1.5GB per second. I'm sure they have the tech to do this easily but it's still rather amazing.

Edited September 18, 2009 by ChronoReverse

[eugimon]

Not quite true. Keep in mind that the amount of detail in a 35mm film frame isn't always going to be extremely high. There are many variable that determine the final "resolution" of 35mm film. Also, don't forget Digital Cinema standards as well. Many new films--as well as old ones when they are digitally remastered--are scanned at the 2k or 4k (or sometimes even 6k) resolution standards for compositing, editing, and telecine (I can't remember the exact pixel dimensions off the top of my head, but think of it like 1080p being around 1.5k or so). These standards are used by professionals in the film industry because it is believed that this is approximately the equivalent amount of picture information contained on the film. These resolutions allow for the preservation of fine grain detail. The higher the resolution at which you scan the film, the more you get diminishing returns. Once you've accurately captured all of the film grain, you kind of reached the limit of picture information.

That's neither here nor there. We were specifically talking about why/how film can be remastered to "HD" but something captured in digital "SD" can't be "upscaled" to true HD resolution

Yes, just because an image is captured on film doesn't mean it's going to be high resolution. The focus, lighting, composition, subject matter, whether there was any in camera effects like a diffusion screen will affect how successfully a 35mm print can be transferred. This is particularly true of older classics that loved throwing on a diffusion screen every time the leading lady was on screen. Just look at The Sound of Music, "HD" is nearly meaningless when the image is purposefully diffused in order to hide wrinkles and other 'imperfections'. However, that doesn't diminish the general rule that given a scene with the same focus, lighting, composition, etc, the image shot on film will contain more information, color depth, etc, than a digital equivalent.

[ChronoReverse]

Well, there is digital recording capability high enough to match 35mm film but I don't think any of it is actually used for movies right now (being experimental). I think that's what he's saying? There's only one person who's confused about upscaling (which I think most of us understand isn't even nearly as good).

In any case, I think that the source material for Macross Plus has enough detail to warrant an HD release assuming they cleaned it up =).

Edited September 18, 2009 by ChronoReverse

[eugimon]

Well, there is digital recording capability high enough to match 35mm film but I don't think any of it is actually used for movies right now (being experimental). I think that's what he's saying? There's only one person who's confused about upscaling (which I think most of us understand isn't even nearly as good).

In any case, I think that the source material for Macross Plus has enough detail to warrant an HD release assuming they cleaned it up =).

Ah, okay, gotcha.

[VT 1010]

Well, there is digital recording capability high enough to match 35mm film but I don't think any of it is actually used for movies right now (being experimental). I think that's what he's saying? There's only one person who's confused about upscaling (which I think most of us understand isn't even nearly as good).

Yeah, that's pretty much it.

However, that doesn't diminish the general rule that given a scene with the same focus, lighting, composition, etc, the image shot on film will contain more information, color depth, etc, than a digital equivalent.

My earlier comments didn't in any way contradict this, nor did it claim this to not be so. That said, if you have poor film stock (as well as lenses/cameras), this may not necessarily be the case. There are, however, so many variables with both shooting formats that it isn't easy to just make a blanket statement that one is inherently better than the other.

The point here is that the equivalent to lines for 35mm film is extremely high and is far above any digital standard in existence right now.

I was primarily responding to this statement. There are current standards that exist which are capable of virtually equaling the RESOLUTION of 35mm film. I was referring to the telecine and editing processes as an example of this and 35mm's limitations. I guess I just wasn't clear enough in articulating my point. I would think any further discussion of this specific point would probably be best to continue in the Home Theater thread, since we seem to be getting off topic here...

In any case, I think that the source material for Macross Plus has enough detail to warrant an HD release assuming they cleaned it up =).

I completely agree with you. Like you mentioned before, there are other advantages to a Blu-ray release than just resolution.

[JB0]

That has more to do with how the community USES the containers than any real restriction.

While AVI does not support some features of MPEG-4 that MKV does, there is absolutely nothing preventing AVI from being larger or higher-quality than an MKV, either in general or when using an MPEG-4 codec.

ORLY?

Yup.

The joy of container formats. You can stuff damn near anything in there.

Actually, HD is being used as a buzzword with no real understanding of the term.

Officially, for TV purposes, high-definition is anything with 720 or more lines of resolution. Regardless of source quality, compression level, or anything else.

And when you export in HD, you resize the video so it has that many lines of resolution, yes? Thus, on larger screens, it has higher theoretical quality, right?

Upsampling doesn't improve the image.

Assuming we're starting with a high-quality source... it depends greatly on compression settings.

If you turn the compression up far enough(like YouTube does), all the resolution in the world won't help.

I've seen some fansubs where one group's SD release looked massively better than another group's HD release because of that, too. Idiots think if you release it 1080p, it's automatically better, and they can crank the compression TO THE MAX!11 to save bandwidth.

You mean "repaired the film degradation so it looked as good as it did when it was first released"

I wasn't talking about the Remaster...

This was a SECOND release. FIRST was the remaster, THEN was the Special Edition. And I have the unedited remaster tapes to prove it.

I was talking about the Special Edition. I have both. We actually just had to get rid of an original unremastered tape because it got roaches in it. They EAT the tape. But, save Jedi, I have the remasters and the Special Edition. And, for that matter, even without the film degradation, it was sharper. Again, I bring up the unremastered tape from the 80s. We kept them in dry storage for years. Took 'em out when we moved to my current location, where cockroaches got in and ATE THE TAPES.

Ah. I haven't seen the Special Edition since the theatrical release, so I haven't really had a chance to compare them directly.

Damned roaches!

HAN SHOT FIRST.

Not in the fixed version.

LIES! :'(

[Mercurial Morpheus]

If you're referring to the frame error when Bodolza is going up, I'm pretty sure that predate's the remaster, but for some reason it's much more apparent. And while we're at it, damn the soundtrack needs to be cleaned up. Again, all the audio pops & DYRL were present before, by the remaster makes them so much more obvioius. After seeing Honneamise on bluray, as well as various other classic animated features, I have no doubt DYRL can look awesome, the care just needs to be put into it, and the guy sitting around with the auto tools needs to be fired.

That's what I was referring to. That the current remaster is just a cleanup of the current transfer, or at least uses the same source given the recurring flaws. The high amount of grain also suggests it came from a secondary negative as well. I'm not sure on the specifics of how DYRL was shot though. "Remaster" has become something of a buzz word itself. A new transfer would be nice, but since they cleaned up the old one, I'm guessing it won't happen, and since cels were considered toxic waste back in the 80s, there's no way they can just reshoot it. The best scenario would be if the current transfer isn't from the actual best source out there, but a dupe. It could explain the grain, as I've seen it with other animation transfers. I think the Bodolza error might have been the result of the Perfect Edition splicing.

It does augment the downside of a remaster or transfer to higher resolution. The flaws become more obvious. The sad thing is when studios feel modern audiences can't handle them and would prefer a 50 year old movie to look like it was shot yesterday.

Though we should all be glad that Bandai doesn't mess with the color of their animated library the way Disney (and from what I've heard Warner) loves to. Sleeping Beauty and a lot of others sport lovely remasters all fouled up because they sourced the cels themselves instead of the color tests for the tint.

"LIES! :'("

Indeed. all the "fixed versions" I've seen, Han still shoots first.

It's also true that many factors go into the projected resolution of a film. Hence why some argue that a 2k system is just as good if not better than a 35mm projection (anyone ever seen a 70mm projection? It's quite glorious). It all goes into how it was shot, how fast the film is, the lens used, and how many times it was processed if there are any effects, etc. The point of the discussion though is that film can have more detail squeezed out of it with the right equipment to a certain limit as technology improves. Digital, on the other hand, is stuck at whatever it was captured at. Both can be tweaked to look nicer to modern tastes though.

Edited September 19, 2009 by Mercurial Morpheus

[nhyone]

The film vs digital debate reminds me of the film scanner vs DSLR debate when DSLRs were still 6Mp.

A low-end film scanner, even at 2400dpi, has higher resolution. But 6Mp clean pixels, even when bayered, is hard to beat. Higher film resolution doesn't help much. Sure, you get more details, but they are blurred and mixed with the film grain.

In any case, I think that the source material for Macross Plus has enough detail to warrant an HD release assuming they cleaned it up =).

Personally, I doubt so. Anime just don't have very fine details. (Usually the animators stopped drawing beyond a certain size. This can be seen even in remastered DVDs.)

Is encoding a problem? The Japanese like to max out their bitrate. Even if MPEG-2 isn't very efficient, I'm sure MPEG-2 at 9.3Mbps (leaving some for audio) is an even match for H.264 at 4Mbps. And H.264 fansubs already look good even at 2Mbps.

The only reason worth buying is if the DVD has EE.

[nhyone]

Dealing with that much digital information just boggles the mind though. Let's see, assuming square pixels, at an aspect ratio of 2.38:1 with 4000 lines would be 9520x4000 making about 38 million pixels. Using 10 bit color channels that would be about 136MB per frame. Time 24 frames per second (although it could be 30 or 60 let's stick with good old film for now) means over 3GB per second of recording. Uncompressed of course but lossless compression usually only cuts out half so that would still be over 1.5GB per second. I'm sure they have the tech to do this easily but it's still rather amazing.

From Wiki, 4K = 4096*2048. The highest listed bitrate is 3.2Gb/s. With lossy compression, it can be 10x smaller.

Should be doable in RAM or with multiple HDs.

[hissatsu]

Personally, I doubt so. Anime just don't have very fine details. (Usually the animators stopped drawing beyond a certain size. This can be seen even in remastered DVDs.)

Is encoding a problem? The Japanese like to max out their bitrate. Even if MPEG-2 isn't very efficient, I'm sure MPEG-2 at 9.3Mbps (leaving some for audio) is an even match for H.264 at 4Mbps. And H.264 fansubs already look good even at 2Mbps.

The only reason worth buying is if the DVD has EE.

Sorry, but this sounds as if you're speaking entirely hypothetically without having looked at any examples. Other OVAs done on film have been released on blu-ray and look far better than their DVD counterparts. The Bubblegum Crisis blu-rays look far better than any of the DVD releases with a much higher level of detail. The Gunbuster Movie blu-ray portions taken from episodes 5-6 look far better than the DVD release, and even the portion of the movie taken from episodes 1-4 which were done on 16mm film look better than the DVD releases.

Even at maxed DVD bitrates, mpeg-2 cannot handle very detailed high motion scenes without very obvious compression artifacts, whereas h.264 or VC-1 at blu-ray bitrates do a far better job. For an example, the transformation sequence in the Gunbuster movie taken from episode 5. On the DVD it's full of compression artifacts even with maxed bitrate throughout the entire scene, whereas the blu-ray is completely clean (at a bitrate close to 40 Mbps for much of the scene).

Frankly, if you can't tell the difference between a DVD and well-done blu-ray of a film based anime, you're either watching on a very small screen or your eyes are going bad. There is just no comparison. Macross Plus will eventually get a blu-ray release, and unless they totally screw it up, it will look much better than the DVDs.

Edited September 19, 2009 by hissatsu

[VT 1010]

Personally, I doubt so. Anime just don't have very fine details. (Usually the animators stopped drawing beyond a certain size. This can be seen even in remastered DVDs.)

Is encoding a problem? The Japanese like to max out their bitrate. Even if MPEG-2 isn't very efficient, I'm sure MPEG-2 at 9.3Mbps (leaving some for audio) is an even match for H.264 at 4Mbps. And H.264 fansubs already look good even at 2Mbps.

The only reason worth buying is if the DVD has EE.

There are other advantages to Blu-ray than resolution alone. Bitrate has already been mentioned, but another important advantage is color. Blu-ray uses a different color space and should have better color reproduction than the DVD. Blu-ray also can store the video at 24fps (I know I'm over-simplifying the frame rate here). If it's encoded at 24fps, it shouldn't have the same artifacts than if it were a 60i source converted to 24p with IVTC. 24p also helps with the compression.

As for resolution, sure there is only so much detail you're going to see with animation; however, if the resolution is higher, then the lines should be thinner and clearer. The image should have an overall more "pleasant" look with a good HD transfer--even if you don't notice new "details."

And yes, the DVD did have EE.

[JB0]

There's also the big-screen effect.

Macross Plus was animated with a movie in mind, and animation intended to be projected onto a 20-foot screen should have a tad more detail than anime intended to be broadcast to a 25-inch one, just because it's that much bigger so the detail will show quite readily.

[shiroikaze]

So this is the Macross Plus movie version...

[JB0]

So this is the Macross Plus movie version...

No, but the point is that most, if not all, the animation made for the OVA was created with the intent of throwing it on the big screen later. So there's probably a lot of detail that wouldn't show up on TV(even ignoring the horrible encoding job Manga did on the DVDs, and the pathetic VHS rip of the movie).

It'd be especially nice if the OVA-exclusive scenes were animated to the same level of detail(I may prefer the movie, but the OVA has some damn nice sequences).

[shiroikaze]

Actually... I meant to say that with awe and wonder, since I never seen those scenes before.

Edited September 21, 2009 by shiroikaze

[ChronoReverse]

Really now? You're missing out on some pretty intense scenes =(

Here's a treat just for you:

Edited September 21, 2009 by ChronoReverse

[JB0]

Actually... I meant to say that with awe and wonder, since I never seen those scenes before.

Oh.

Maybe it is, then.

The Guld VS. Ghost battle is INFINITELY better in the movie. And not JUST because it takes place with Information High playing the background.

[Radd]

Gorgeous, and if you watch carefully at the end, you will see a trio of VF-17s parked on the ramp that the YF-19n lands on, they are right in front of the VF-11 battroids.

Fantastic catch there, never noticed it before. Of course, the Manga release was pretty poor video quality and that's all I've ever had.

[shiroikaze]

The Guld VS. Ghost battle is INFINITELY better in the movie. And not JUST because it takes place with Information High playing the background.

While the battle was so much better in the movie, I kinda rather prefer Guld's death in the OVA over the movie's...

[SchizophrenicMC]

While the battle was so much better in the movie, I kinda rather prefer Guld's death in the OVA over the movie's...

Yeah, but in the movie, his eyes explode!

[derex3592]

Yeah, but in the movie, his eyes explode!

Yeahhh, that was a little much for me, I'll stick with the OVA version even if the video quality sucks....where can u buy the movie version on DVD?

[eugimon]

Yeahhh, that was a little much for me, I'll stick with the OVA version even if the video quality sucks....where can u buy the movie version on DVD?

the US DVD release of the movie is horrible, worse than VHS.

[shiroikaze]

Yeah, but in the movie, his eyes explode!

I wish I had that 4-panel summary of the entire movie, so I could post it right now.

"Blargh! 2Fast2Furious!"

[JB0]

Yeahhh, that was a little much for me, I'll stick with the OVA version even if the video quality sucks....where can u buy the movie version on DVD?

The eye-explodey bit was a bit much for me too.

See, I'm torn.

On the one hand, his body doesn't get graphically shattered in the OVA. Just immolated "offscreen."

On the OTHER, it's a chump death. He goes out with STYLE in the movie.

And the final shot of the YF-21 drifting in space is awesome.

And Info High. Can't forget Info High.

[SchizophrenicMC]

The eye-explodey bit was a bit much for me too.

See, I'm torn.

On the one hand, his body doesn't get graphically shattered in the OVA. Just immolated "offscreen."

You know, in this case, gore adds to the effect

On the OTHER, it's a chump death. He goes out with STYLE in the movie.

This is how the world ends... Not with a bang, but with a whisper...

And the final shot of the YF-21 drifting in space is awesome.

Only the manliest of men...

And Info High. Can't forget Info High.

If we get the transient facts

Then we feel the Info High

If we get the transient facts

Then we are really free

To fly high

In space!

[derex3592]

SOOOOoooo....back on topic here: that "whatever the hell they did to the video" in the first post looks pretty damn good to me. I think Mac Plus deserves a good "clean up/remaster", whatever, and a Blu-Ray release SOONER than later! And put BOTH versions on the disc PLEASE!

[Keith]

SOOOOoooo....back on topic here: that "whatever the hell they did to the video" in the first post looks pretty damn good to me. I think Mac Plus deserves a good "clean up/remaster", whatever, and a Blu-Ray release SOONER than later! And put BOTH versions on the disc PLEASE!

Both versions on one disc? Hell no! "Maybe" the whole OVA on one disc, but I'd say still put it on 2, and then the movie on a 3rd disc.

[UN Spacy]

I wish I had that 4-panel summary of the entire movie, so I could post it right now.

"Blargh! 2Fast2Furious!"

[shiroikaze]

You are so awesome. Thanks!

[Mercurial Morpheus]

the US DVD release of the movie is horrible, worse than VHS.

Hence why I never "upgraded" and missed out on the MW box (are those even still around?).

Guld's movie death alone is worth preferring that version over the OAV. It's one of the most visceral on-screen deaths I've seen. You could feel it and it makes the sacrifice all the more poignant.The

I'd love to see M+ on Blu, provided it's the current remaster sans the EE. They fiddled with it enough. Disney's set plenty of examples of what not to do, sadly. There are a few sites that mention it too. I just found the one below.

http://johnkstuff.blogspot.com/2006/12/col...-plunk-and.html

Edited October 2, 2009 by Mercurial Morpheus