msycamore said:

mverta said:

Absolutely possible.  What's curious is I've seen it on 4 4k sources with identical offset.

_Mike

 Hmm, then I don't know what to believe.

I suspect an offset made its way onto an IP or IN at some point and generated a batch of prints like that.  It's the only explanation I can think of outside of it being intentional.  However, if it's NOT an offset, then it IS a glow.  It's definitely not just a straight channel alignment.  However, that glow may be just a byproduct of the technique.

_Mike

Atlantis said:

I just watched that Greedo BD shot. I think the subtitles move way too much. It's more of a distraction and you notice the subtitles instead of the scene.

I honestly don't see why they need to move. You use the BD shots (or other sources) to have the best quality, clean shots. So your work is like a restoration. In a restoration you would also fix any subtitle problems.

So to have them added intentionally, is no restoration and if you are not doing a restoration, you should not use the clean BD or HDTV sources.

Sorry but that's bullshit. In a restoration, you're trying to restore the way things originally looked and since the subs did originally shake, it wouldn't be a restoration if you didn't make them that way. You seem to be mistaking digitalness and cleanness for quality. I use these sources because they have the best resolution. In an ideal world, we'd have a scan of SW that looks like this:

or this:

Unfortunately these unnaturally cleaned up BD and HDTV captures with screwed up colours and crushed blacks are the highest resolution sources we have, so they have to do.

Why not add grain and scratches and hairs?

Funny that you should mention this in such an ironic way, because I'm actually seriously considering that. I even already did some tests and I like what I'm seeing.

Harmy said:

Why not add grain and scratches and hairs?

I'm actually seriously considering that. I even already did some tests and I like what I'm seeing.

Yes please.  Well, at least grain restoration. 

Well, actually, there is quite a lot of grain there on the BD, so if I was adding any, then just very lightly. But it gives it such a nice retro feeling to have a spec of dust or a hair appear from time to time

It is Harmys project, and I say go for it, now this is really sounding very interesting, I hope you decide to do that Harmy, you have my attention now.

I was thinking rather of adding fake grain to frames that have zero grain, such as rendered credits and far, far away text.  I'm not interested in adding it where the source (BD) adequately captured the grain of the film.

Actually, having thought about it a bit more, artificial grain seems like a perfectly acceptable way to attempt to restore the feel of a film, if you feel it's been damaged by excessive DNR.

The problem, in my opinion, is that DNR really isn't something I'd say is a big problem with these films.  Excessive sharpening, sure, crushed blacks, definitely, but DNR?  I don't really think so.

As for adding hairs and scratches, I'm just plain against that.  People who want hairs on their film can empty their vaccum cleaner bags on their projectors, and those who don't don't have to.  It seems like a bad thing to have in the source image.

Not to sound harsh or anything but, you always have the previous version to fall back on, and also, you could make your own, any of us that make these projects are well aware that we will not please everyone, and most of us are pretty content with that, it is just the nature of the beast.

I have to say Harmy, I love this approach, go for it man!

I'm working on a video to show it. And I'm not going for a grind-house look by any means, just a less digital look. When they did the 2004 master, what they did was basically try to make it more like the prequels, which were shot digitally.

You can see a lot of dust and scratches in the 1997 SE transfer and it gives it a very film-like look.

Anyway, it would actually be added during the AVCHD encoding, so it would be no problem to make a version without it, if there were enough people who'd want it.

I'm not a huge fan of the idea of adding dirt and scratches. I'd have to see a comparison first (one of those half/half videos, preferably), but I don't think it would look right, especially since most people tend to want these as the "Blu-ray with the crap gone". Could be a side-release maybe....

Adding hairs/dirt/specks of dust/etc. would be insanity. Dirt and hair is not inherent to the composition of film - it's a byproduct of poor projection and dirty reels. Are you trying to recreate the film as it originally existed under ideal conditions or the film as it would've been projected in the worst case scenario in some random shitty cinema? If it's the latter there are a billion different ways it could've appeared. Why not make it purposely out of focus at times? Many theaters had poor focus and even worse projectionists.

Grain is inherent to film but other anomalies specific to certain individual reels and theaters are not.

Also, adding in artificial grain is silly. By removing the original grain a certain amount of fine detail was forever lost, by adding in artificial grain you're further obscuring what fine detail remains. You can never restore the natural grain that was wiped by away DNR, it's best to work with what grain structure remains and not try to make a bad situation worse than it already is. By adding in grain you're making a decision based on how you feel you'd like it to appear, not how you're certain it once appeared given the evidence at hand. You can never restore the original grain structure, you have no idea how it would appear or how finely it would've been resolved had the movie been mastered properly. 

Sign me up as one of the people who would prefer a version without all these artificial "enhancements" added into the presentation - if that counts for anything.

Stinky-Dinkins said:

Adding hairs/dirt/specks of dust/etc. would be insanity. Dirt and hair is not inherent to the composition of film - it's a byproduct of poor projection and dirty reels. Are you trying to recreate the film as it originally existed under ideal conditions or the film as it would've been projected in the worst case scenario in some random shitty cinema? If it's the latter there are a billion different ways it could've appeared. Why not make it purposely out of focus at times? Many theaters had poor focus and even worse projectionists.

Grain is inherent to film but other anomalies specific to certain individual reels and theaters are not.

Also, adding in artificial grain is silly. By removing the original grain a certain amount of fine detail was forever lost, by adding in artificial grain you're further obscuring what fine detail remains. You can never restore the natural grain that was wiped by away DNR, it's best to work with what grain structure remains and not try to make a bad situation worse than it already is. By adding in grain you're making a decision based on how you feel you'd like it to appear, not how you're certain it once appeared given the evidence at hand. You can never restore the original grain structure, you have no idea how it would appear or how finely it would've been resolved had the movie been mastered properly. 

 

Sign me up as one of the people who would prefer a version without all these artificial "enhancements" added into the presentation - if that counts for anything.

It's weird when Stinky makes this much sense...but it happens from time to time.  I'm in full agreement.

dark_jedi said:

Not to sound harsh or anything but, you always have the previous version to fall back on, and also, you could make your own, any of us that make these projects are well aware that we will not please everyone, and most of us are pretty content with that, it is just the nature of the beast.

Should have added that I agree with this too.  If Harmy goes that route, I'll just stick with the previous version, which is plenty good in my book.