1080i. Really interlaced?

[j7n]

I've read a review of Short Circut (1986) (http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/418/shortcircuit.html), released on Blu-ray. It describes the video format of this movie as 1080i. How could this be? Note: I have not seen this film before on DVD.

If this is a film, the how can it possibly be interlaced?

If this is a video, how did it originate in 1986 in such a high resolution?

[Atak_Snajpera]

If this is a video, how did it originate in 1986 in such a high resolution?
It was simply transfered from original tape and upscaled to fake HD resolution.

If this is a film, the how can it possibly be interlaced?
If they set for some stupid reason interlaced flags it's possible :)

[Blue_MiSfit]

Yeah... studios do very stupid things. It probably has hard pulldown...

~MiSfit

[j7n]

I see. :eek:

[Mug Funky]

HDCAM tapes store progressive frames as interlaced in a lot of cases (there's a 24PsF and a 23.98PsF, but no 25 which sucks - you've got to go out as 50i with progressive frames). maybe their master was just in a different format?

i doubt it's an upres from SD. that'd be completely pointless for a blu-ray release. they'd have gone back to the interneg and scanned/TK'd in high def.

[setarip_old]

Hi!

Perhaps this review of the technical aspects of the video component of the Bluray release will provide some insight regarding the resolution:The Video: Sizing Up the Picture


Fans distracted by ‘Short Circuit’s bargain-bin pricepoint will be quick to forgive the disc’s abundant visual inconsistencies, but I could barely contain my discontent. For every splash of color I caught in Image Entertainment’s 1080i/AVC-encoded transfer, there were countless flaws that resulted in fluctuating palette stability and vibrancy, contrast wavering, and detail inconsistency. There are quite a few scenes that offer significant improvements over previous home video releases, but the majority of the film looks as if it’s been pieced together from a variety of sources, each plagued by a different set of problems. Skintones are abnormal, black levels are rarely resolved, and shadow delineation is fairly awful. Worse still, noise is a frequent issue -- incredibly clean shots are often followed by ugly, grain-drenched scenes that don’t look much better than on an upconverted DVD presentation. Artifacting occasionally clutters the image, edge enhancement slithers into the picture from time to time, and dark scenes tend to crush. To make matters worse, scratches and blemishes haunt the picture from beginning to end, making it clear that the original print isn’t in the best of shape.

Thankfully, one element of the transfer preserves the integrity of the upgrade -- fine object detail. While it’s merely a fundamental improvement inherent to the increased resolution, the blurred textures and soft edges of previous releases are a thing of the past. On-screen text is far more legible, plantlife is more defined, and the smallest wires on Number-5’s frame have been rendered with care. Such improvements fail to make up for the disc’s ample shortcomings, but I was at least pleased to see something verify I was watching a high-def presentation. If fans have any hope of enduring ‘Short Circuit’s subpar visuals, they should brace themselves for the worst and approach every scene with appropriately low expectations.

[communist]

And how many PAL DVDs were (and still are) encoded interlaced even though the source and actual picture is progressive? Don't trust encoder flags, look at the picture.

[SeeMoreDigital]

And how many PAL DVDs were (and still are) encoded interlaced even though the source and actual picture is progressive? Don't trust encoder flags, look at the picture.It's probably more accurate to say "many PAL DVDs were (and still are) "flagged" as interlaced even though the source image is encoded as progressive"!

[Mug Funky]

incredibly clean shots are often followed by ugly, grain-drenched scenes

look hard enough and every movie will have shots like this. cutting between indoor and outdoor means exposure variation. this is handled either by shooting a faster film (with more grain), or "printing up" that shot in the printing process (which gives a grain increase plus less definition and a colour cast in the blacks). with digital intermediates this problem can be alleviated, but obviously Short Circuit never had a digital intermediate done (nor did any film before "O Brother, Where Art Thou?"), so it can be expected to look a little flaky in parts.

[woah!]

its MBAFF 1080i

[Tagert]

I own Predator on bluray myself and I seem to think the quality is quite "HD'ish" but since the movie is from 1986 as well, is is true to believe this one also is upscaled? :o

[Blue_MiSfit]

No - neither film is upscaled :)

It's very likely the film was re-scanned in at HD (at least), and processed from there.

It's impossible to make an existing SD transfer look like real HD. You can play some tricks and improve things, but a true HD transfer is always better :)

~MiSfit

[SeeMoreDigital]

I own Predator on bluray myself and I seem to think the quality is quite "HD'ish" but since the movie is from 1986 as well, is is true to believe this one also is upscaled? :oIn actual fact, any movie that was originally shot on "film" has the capability to be digitised at a much higher resolution than 1920x1080 pixels.

It's up to companies who own the movies to decide whether it's in their financial interest to generate new high-def digital masters of their movies, or just puke out up-scaled versions from std-def digital masters!