It's done, and right now I'm trying to secure it so it doesn't accidentally get distributed.  But darn it, I seem to have misplaced a copy.  I hope it didn't end up in the wrong hands...

Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:

It's done, and right now I'm trying to secure it so it doesn't accidentally get distributed.  But darn it, I seem to have misplaced a copy.  I hope it didn't end up in the wrong hands...

yeah,

we wouldn't want that to happen now,

would we.

 

later

-1

Peter Lorre: Noo, noo we wouldn't want anything like that to happen..(chuckles)

where is it precious, where is it??? we needs it we does

Congrats, Puggo!  PM sent!

No need for PMs just yet... watch the thread. I may have accidentally put it in the wrong envelope.  I hope that person whose name is on the envelope isn't one of those nefarious uploaders.  He said he was, but I thought he was just kidding.

Very nice to hear that you have finished this! I know that you want us to lower our expectations but I already know that this release of ESB will completely destroy every version out there as of now. :)

Puggo, I know you were thinking of making HD versions of your captures - are you still considering this? I think these projects would benefit from a more modern codec seeing as the grain and dirt play havoc with mpeg2. Also, because the initial image is in scope, there should be adequate vertical resolution for a good uprezzed HD image, seeing as a scope 2.35 film is 817 pixels tall in 1080p - 544 pixels in 720p.

I came to this thread to say... what Mavimao just said... To the letter.

A good thing I'm not suffering from asplenia.

djchaseb said:

Getting my pregame on with Puggo Grande

DITTO!! The anticipation is killing me. Seriously.

Mavimao said:

Puggo, I know you were thinking of making HD versions of your captures - are you still considering this? I think these projects would benefit from a more modern codec seeing as the grain and dirt play havoc with mpeg2. Also, because the initial image is in scope, there should be adequate vertical resolution for a good uprezzed HD image, seeing as a scope 2.35 film is 817 pixels tall in 1080p - 544 pixels in 720p.

IIRC puggo said that this would require a new workprinter.

we're in for a good time shortly!

many thanks again..

 

later

-1

captainsolo said:

djchaseb said:

Getting my pregame on with Puggo Grande

DITTO!! The anticipation is killing me. Seriously.

Mavimao said:

Puggo, I know you were thinking of making HD versions of your captures - are you still considering this? I think these projects would benefit from a more modern codec seeing as the grain and dirt play havoc with mpeg2. Also, because the initial image is in scope, there should be adequate vertical resolution for a good uprezzed HD image, seeing as a scope 2.35 film is 817 pixels tall in 1080p - 544 pixels in 720p.

IIRC puggo said that this would require a new workprinter.

If you wanted to make a native HD version, yes, but this was done at 720 x 480 DV. The image on the film frame was an anamorphic 2.35 image (actually wider, but I can't recall the AR on this specific print). So the 480 vertical resolution would work great on a 720p upscaled version in which 2.35 is 544 pixels tall. It would only need a slight upconvert and then stretched out. Plus the benefit of having a H.264 encode would be wonderful as well.

captainsolo said:

djchaseb said:

Getting my pregame on with Puggo Grande

DITTO!! The anticipation is killing me. Seriously.

Mavimao said:

Puggo, I know you were thinking of making HD versions of your captures - are you still considering this? I think these projects would benefit from a more modern codec seeing as the grain and dirt play havoc with mpeg2. Also, because the initial image is in scope, there should be adequate vertical resolution for a good uprezzed HD image, seeing as a scope 2.35 film is 817 pixels tall in 1080p - 544 pixels in 720p.

IIRC puggo said that this would require a new workprinter.

yeah, the 16mm HD ones look sweet!

-----------------------------------------------

http://www.moviestuff.tv/16mm_telecine.html

 

later

-1

Here's a visual example of what I'm talking about. Here's an image from Puggo's site showing a frame of a DV capture with 480 pixels of horizontal resolution:

[img]http://s12.postimage.org/iks9qqn3d/DV_Before.jpg[/img]

The great thing about this image is the fact that it's an anamorphically squeezed image. There's much more resolution available than say a letterboxed 4x3 (ie the GOUT). So, here's the same image but stretched out to 1280 by 480 (1280 being the horizontal resolution in 720p)

[img]http://s18.postimage.org/k91uq9cut/720_HDafter.jpg[/img]

NOTE: this was just a quickly done example to show how stretching out the initial capture would work. Please note, the 720p example does not reflect the correct aspect ratio.

Mavimao said:

 

If you wanted to make a native HD version, yes, but this was done at 720 x 480 DV. The image on the film frame was an anamorphic 2.35 image (actually wider, but I can't recall the AR on this specific print). So the 480 vertical resolution would work great on a 720p upscaled version in which 2.35 is 544 pixels tall. It would only need a slight upconvert and then stretched out. Plus the benefit of having a H.264 encode would be wonderful as well.

 

This is correct.  I CAN make a slight but real improvement in the quality of PG and PSB by releasing them in HD, even though they are SD captures, because of the anamorphic aspect ratio.  It is something I will definitely do - it's all just a question of priority.  There are only so many hours in the day, and I have about 3 or 4 other SW projects in the queue, plus similar projects in other areas.  For example, I might want to get ROTP out there before squeezing those last pixels out of PSB - it's still going to look pretty grungy after all.

Note this isn't the same as doing a real HD transfer to begin with.  That I doubt that I will ever do, because I don't have plans to upgrade to HD telecine.  It's not as simple as switching cameras, not by a long shot.

I have made the full raw captures available for other projects - for example, Harmy used a couple of segments to enhance his edition.  That is really the main reason I've done these captures - for research purposes and to help others doing preservation work.

Mavimao said:

Here's a visual example of what I'm talking about. Here's an image from Puggo's site showing a frame of a DV capture with 480 pixels of horizontal resolution:

 

 

 

 

The great thing about this image is the fact that it's an anamorphically squeezed image. There's much more resolution available than say a letterboxed 4x3 (ie the GOUT). So, here's the same image but stretched out to 1280 by 480 (1280 being the horizontal resolution in 720p)

 

NOTE: this was just a quickly done example to show how stretching out the initial capture would work. Please note, the 720p example does not reflect the correct aspect ratio.

fixed the picture links. (and resized)

 

later

-1