>but you'd probably be surprised at how well they could clean that footage up and remaster it.
You would be surprised at how shitty it would look. Not only does that VHS tape have a time stamp running on it, but it also has lines of interference in it here and there, like so - https://i.imgur.com/ObPTRme.jpg.
Keep in mind that that's a VHS tape, so it's not even the original format of that workprint. VHS is not a professional video format. The original workprint would have been on something like Betacam (not to be confused with Betamax, which is a consumer format that is just as crappy as VHS), Betacam SP, or U-matic SP, so not only is that workprint on a low-quality consumer format, but it's also at least a second-generation dub, which means generational loss.
If they had the original Betacam (or whatever) workprint master tape, then it would be more or less good enough for a DVD release, but it wouldn't be anywhere near good enough for a Blu-ray release. Betacam SP has 340 lines (interlaced) and a component video signal, while DVD has 480 "lines" (progressive) and a component video signal, so it is lower quality than DVD but still sort of in the same ballpark. Blu-ray has 1080 "lines" (progressive), i.e., Betacam SP is not even in the same ballpark as Blu-ray, let alone lowly VHS (240 lines, interlaced, composite video signal, and with only a pitiful 30 lines of chroma resolution). And that VHS tape isn't even an example of VHS at its best, but rather, it's at least a second-generation dub with a time stamp running over the picture and occasional lines of interference across the middle of the picture.
On top of that, the workprint doesn't have a score, so if they made a "director's cut", they would have to do some rescoring.
reply
share