Are we back on square one?
Just because one shows signs of edge enhancing, denoising etc. and other none of it, it doesn’t mean they’re not from the same master/same scan (and the opposite).
It could be the same master differently post-processed.
You could overimpose BluRay footage over the logo, couldn’t you?
In this case yes, but in this case there’s no need to do any kind of logo removal
I wasn’t commenting on the itv logo, which is relatively small and semitransparent.
I was talking about the other two, which seemed pretty big and solid. But if you think you can make them go away very well too, please post some examples with intricate background. Just out of curiosity.
Molly said:
I have some of the tools to do so (the user end tools; I can’t make logo masks) and regularly remove more complicated logos (such as those of Nittele and Animax) from my TV encodes.
The removal of those can’t be good without having the same footage without logo (at least on that part of the picture).
Hey,
It’s not strictly on topic, but I think it’s a good place to ask. I’d like to know what languages was Back to the Future (the first movie only) dubbed into. I know about these so far:
Russian
Hungarian
Polish (not really a dub, but still…)
Chinese
Korean
Czech
Spanish
Hindi
French
Italian
Portugese
Japanese
There’s probably a German dub too, but I’ve never heard it. Anyone know more dubs?
Noone put any effort into it. It's pure incompetence and negligence the way they handled the transfers. Perhaps they didn't even want to remove the pillarboxing, but even if they did they had the wrong reason for it. It was pointless (overscan in 2006 anyone?), they've lost information on both sides and the encode didn't even have new detail.
They just didn't care. It was hard to swallow, but it's been 9 years already. Let's move on.
The end result of GOUT in this project is not worthless or anything close to that; in fact, it'll be the best "original" print perhaps for several years from now on. TN1's version may take years to be released, and Disney may never even release their's. The logical thing would have been to do it prior SW VII. It didn't happen.
Even when this GOUT upscaling becomes obsolete one day, it will be still useful as a guide for other projects. Probably it'll even have intact frames, details that are not present in other prints due to damage.
thorr said:
If we ever actually got it, the whole point of this site would sort of go away. No more journey. Although again, it would be nice to finally get it someday.
Oh, don't worry, there'll be plenty of other journeys to make... with different but still important movies.
It does look better on the screenshots. Less artifacts, but the details are retained.
Kingherb said:
Despecialized 2.5 of Star Wars was based on the Tech IB colors, that looked excellent on my screen.
I can't decide whether you're arguing or agreeing with me.
I believe the reason people liked the mix of GOUT and TechniColor more instead of the pure TechniColor was also more about the heavy contrast, and not the color balance itself.
That why I wrote 'personally'.
So you did mean it, no irony anywhere?
A video of a video as a proof of the right colors? Come on, that is absurd.
By the way, I personally didn't criticize the color balance, in fact, I said the TechniColor IB's colors could be used, BUT with reduced contrast, else it wouldn't look good on TV screen.
DrDre said:
A while a ago I posted a color correction to the GOUT, based on an Technicolor IB print, that was criticized by some, who didn't believe Star Wars used to look this way, with greater contrast and blown out whites:
I assume it's pure irony, but one can't be sure about it these days. :)
DeHalo_alpha, while very effective in eliminating halos, makes everything waxy. It is impressive for animation, but for live footage? I always had to pass on it eventually.
Intruder said:
http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/143105
http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/143111
http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/143113
What do you all think?
It is the same thing as the original, tuned slightly differently. It's a bit sharper, but artifacts are also sharper and detail-wise it's the same.
At this point, the only thing GOUT could really benefit from, is eliminating the halos without losing detail. Of course, it's next to impossible to achieve, but an interesting topic nonetheless.
Wazzles said:
Has anyone tried to upscale the Blu Ray to 4k using this technique? I'm curious how well it would work with a higher quality source. That is assuming that SRV11 isn't written specifically for the GOUT.
This technique works well on the GOUT because of the extreme aliasing the transfer has. The Blu-ray has none.
There would be insignificant gain only, if any, but I didn't actually try it. Noone did yet.
Zyrother said:
zee944 said:
So after all, the removal of "slowly moving grain" has been canceled? Too much detail loss?
Some of it was removed for V11, but not to the extent of 12-14. Versions 12-14 removed too much detail in the process.
DrDre was working on SRV13 when he said he'll try to eliminate the slowly moving grain...
So after all, the removal of "slowly moving grain" has been canceled? Too much detail loss?
dvdmike said:
Thats the one, but not the same JP one as the super old one
Elaborate please.
I assume the filename you mentioned was the "old" AXN HD open matte 16:9 version. And there was the "flawed" Japanese HDTV.
Is there a third one?
DrDre said:
confusedgambler said:
DrDre said:
For one reason only, because that's what the colors looked like in 1977.
Come on, Darth Vader is solid black with no detail left. You can't seriously say that looks right or good or even "what it looked like in '77" Not a chance, no way.
Also,that's not what Mike Verta's version looks like and he has better sources to judge by.
Sorry to dissappoint you, but the reference is a scan of an unfaded Technicolor IB print, corrected to the print. Although there can be variation between prints, the colors are the way they are on the print. The reason detail is lost, is because the GOUT lacks the color depth to show the detail, but on the print it is definitely there.
I agree with confusedgambler completely.
I'd like to say beforehand that I never trust a scan that I didn't do myself or at least I couldn't compare it with the print I held in my bare hand... I'm just skeptical. I've seen so many times so-called references turning out to be wrong.
But even if these are accurate copies of frames, when they're projected, they look a bit different depending on the projector/light bulb setup... And TV screen is also different. It would look horrible on TV if it looked like the corrected caps. Too deep blacks, burnt out highlights and possible oversaturation (maybe just due to heavy contrast). The untouched GOUT looks better, more natural and (ironically) more film-like. Sure it could use deeper blacks, a bit heavier contrast, but not that much.
If you're sure those scans are consistent with each other, then the colors could be used, but the luma levels are either should be disregarded or fixed by reducing the contrast. One setting for the whole footage. In my opinion, of course.
I also think the color matching script didn't handle this well, I don't think those artifacts particularly visible on the Obi-Wan comparison should be there.
clutchins said:
So would the one on the spleen be pretty much the best possible way to watch it as it stands?
There are two HD versions of the special edition available somewhere. Although the quality is worse than the theatrical Cinemax version, they still look nice, nowhere near the horrible DVD.
Zyrother said:
Granted, the GOUT colors reproduction is not as great, but the amount of detail it has compared to Team -1s frame is stunning. It even has better contrast in some areas.
It's not that comparable, as their work is much softer. You can make it much sharper which will bring out a lot of details. And halos too (of which GOUT has plenty).
DrDre said:
it may also indicate the photos are a reasonably good representation of the Technicolor print.
It would (in theory) only indicate that the photos are consistent, and not that the color balance - or anything else for that matter - is right.
However, I disagree that the similarity/difference between your caps and the IB caps would be particularly consistent. Some caps are totally different. But it is to be expected, it's not due to the histogram matching method.
One correction for the whole movie would probably never match the GOUT to an existing print color-wise. And of course, I didn't criticize the experimenting in any way. I've only stated that the photos are not reliable, no matter how much good intent is behind them.
Yeah, I have seen these pictures on that site many years ago already. But I never thought they'd be useful color correcting, or that anyone would use them for any practical work.
There are a million ways to get the caps wrong. It counts a lot how the film is projected to begin with. Any accidental auto-setting on the camera they take the photos with. And so on. It's crazy.
DrDre said:
That may certainly be true. On the other hand these photos have been the basis for a large number of color correction projects on this forum. However, it would of course be better to compare directly to scans of the print.
You mean people used those photos taken in the theater as reference? What a horrible idea. I don't know what they were thinking.
Even film scans go wrong many times. Photos about film frames? Oh, my.