I hear so many people telling me that Remastered DVD's are not real Blu-ray disc's because that are only remastered, but the studio made proper Blu-rays are the real thing. My question is : just how or what do the makers actually do to remaster old dvd's that is different to having a so called genuine Blu-ray? is the quality really any different from a remastered old dvd to a new movie made with Blu-ray, I just don't undertand the real difference. I would appreciate someone clarifing this for me, as I hear so many differering opinions. Thanks in advance
A Blu-ray movie isn't taken from a re-mastered DVD. Blu-Ray whether mastered or not is actually taken from the original film or restored film. You cannot go from 480p to 1080p and have the results that BD produces. When a remaster is done the industry just takes new technology and applies it to the same original film. For example, alot of BDs at launch were mastered in mpeg2, since then h264 has flourished... one great example is the Fifth Element, watch the original release on BD, then watch the remastered version that was released about 18 months later... you'll see the difference. Same goes for DVDs, same codec... just different encoding methods, which produces higher bitrates at the same resolution.
Thanks odin24, is what you are trying to explain to me saying that a remastered BD is as good as or in some cases better than a genuine studio produced BD? I am still a little unclear,
Correct, usually in all cases it is better than the first release. h264 aka MPEG4/AVC is a type of video compression, similar to mpeg2 for DVDs. Except h264 is far more effiecient; much better picture quality in a smaller file size.
