www.nbcnewyork.com
It was! I did some last minute cleanup and color correction, but the source tapes were upconverted and licensed under UMe.
In other words, they didn’t go back to the film negatives and rescan them for HD, but tapes from maybe the mid-80’s!
You did the clean up? Obviously, you're a man of many talents!
Oh no, as I mentioned, they’d already upconverted the tape. There was still some additional ‘tweaking’ that we felt needed to be done to all of the Carpenters video assets used for our media press kit before Mike and I would give it the final sign off.You did the clean up? Obviously, you're a man of many talents!
But like Tom, I am surprised that UMe didn't offer up a hi-res scan of the original negs. In any event, you did a great job with whatever source material UMe provided.
Oh wow, that CTY video does look really good on this clip...can you do that "tweaking" on all their videos? lol yup we need a whole new video collection tweaked to perfection like this one.Oh no, as I mentioned, they’d already upconverted the tape. There was still some additional ‘tweaking’ that we felt needed to be done to all of the Carpenters video assets used for our media press kit before Mike and I would give it the final sign off.
We must put this on our To Do List of wants....Every official video ever made on 1 Blu-Ray disc lol 
You also have to remember that by the time you see it, the video has been recompressed a few times, so on broadcast or streaming (a lot of times both of those can give you a signal that’s only 1/10 or less than what the original video masters are at. I still work with a lot of DVCPROHD which runs at 100Mbps, Blu-Ray runs at between 9.0 & 40 Mbps, while most broadcast channels HD at between 9.0 & 17 Mbps), it may look like decent HD, but up-converting doesn’t improve a video image. All that’s happening with upconverting is enlarging (in this case probably a NTSC source) from 720 by 480 interlace up to 1280 by 720 progressive or 1920 by 1080 interlace/progressive or even 3840 by 2160 (4K) and duplicating/triplicating/quadruplicating pixels. And you can throw all the software at that 480i signal, but you’ll never get a 1080i/p or 4K image like you would from a scan right from film.
Yes it does. Think of 480i/576i video being like a postage stamp versus 1080p being like a CD cover and then 4K being like an LP cover. If you were just using the postage stamp for the LP cover, it would work but not be as sharp or detailed as going from the original 35mm film negative. Same with CTY; also in the early-70’s, videotape was still enormously expensive and was not portable, People would’ve still remembered the “Twilight Zone” experiment of trying to save money by shooting on videotape 10 years earlier and how while the tape was cheaper than processing film, the “saved” cost went into having to build everything on a studio soundstage, or in the case of CTY, probably renting a stage from Universal or Disney and setting up there rather than just shooting on the A&M stages (although I’ve noticed on BBC programs from the era they did 50/50, outdoor or external shoots were on film, but interior parts of shows were on videotape.) Also, with CTY being a promo film, film was the international standard: all countries used 24fps film for broadcasting.
