DrDre said:
Thanks Brooks! There is such a thing as single frame super resolution, which uses the fact that images are often self similar. However, these results are generally not as good as multi-frame/image super resolution.
Aaah, that makes sense, thanks guys! :)
I just saw this thread today, I haven't had a chance to read the previous 30 pages yet. Is this something that can be applied to still photos in photoshop? I looked at your samples and I'm intrigued. I have a ton of old negatives that I've scanned and I'm curious if this technique will work. Keep up the great work! -Brooks
Gracious, that looks amazing!
Holy goodness, that difference is phenomenal! Wow!!
Whatever algorithms, software you've created for this you should market, it's amazing.
mverta said:
That's funny... throwing out the entire EU gave them credibility in my book. Though admittedly I thought their press release, "Sorry, nerds, glorified fan fiction does not count. Love, Disney," was kinda harsh.
Did they really say that?!
I think we all love analog media, but let's not forget how freeing digital has been for all of us. None of the preservations on this forum would have been feasible without digital. I know I've taken thousands of pictures of my son and I would not have been able to afford doing that on film.
The thing that bugs me the most about new tech is how cell phones have replaced cameras almost completely. It's handy to have a cell phone if you need to take a quick pic but I've seen people using their cellphones to record/take pictures of their newborn babies and graduations and even weddings. Convenience has overtaken quality in a lot of peoples priorities I think.
I do miss film though, there's something magical about those little negative strips.
if a solar flare erases all harddrives then movies will be the least of our problems :)
The same thing is happening in audio production. Analog/Film still presents great quality but the end product in albums and films is always digital anyways. I miss shooting still film but I honestly haven't touched my film camera in ten years. :( Too expensive...
Twenty years ago my friends made a short film, 16mm. It cost around $3000 to shoot, develop, and edit a ten minute film. For that amount they could buy a nice digital cam and editing software and make as many "films" as they want. On the plus side, it looked fantastic.
This is an interesting little article, I'm sorry if someone has posted it already. I'm glad that Abrams is shooting the new film on actual film.
http://insidemovies.ew.com/2014/07/30/quentin-tarantino-jj-abrams-save-kodak/?hpt=hp_t2
"In just a few years, digital video has overtaken film-based shooting by an overwhelming margin. But in the interest of staving off premature extinction, a group of directors have banded together to keep the Eastman Kodak Co. making movie film.
The Wall Street Journal reports that a group of directors, led by the likes of Quentin Tarantino, Christopher Nolan, Judd Apatow, and J.J. Abrams (who is filming Star Wars VII on film) pushed studio heads into negotiations with the film company. These discussions, which the WSJbroke the lid on, revolve around promises to buy a set quantity of film for the next several years, regardless of whether they plan to use all of it.
Kodak’s motion-picture film sales have fallen 96 percent since 2006, from 12.4 billion linear feet to an estimated 449 million. Fujifilm Crop. left the business last year, and Kodak is the only major company left producing the product.
The company’s chief executive, Jeff Clarke, told the WSJ that Kodak initially hoped to enlist studios in a joint venture on its Rochester, N.Y., plant, but that proposal failed. The second solution, involving the purchase of mass quantities of film, became the consensus after filmmakers started to join the discussion (and personally lobby executives).
Tarantino, for instance, appealed to Bob Weinstein, co-chairman of Weinstein Co. “It’s a financial commitment, no doubt about it,” Weinstein told the WSJ, “But I don’t think we could look some of our filmmakers in the eyes if we didn’t do it.”
Weinstein’s claims are supported by comments from other directors. Apatow told the newspaper that both film and digital video are “valid choices” but “there’s a magic to the grain and the color quality that you get with film.” In a separate interview, Abrams argued that “film sets the standard and once it’s no longer available, the ability to shoot the benchmark goes away. Suddenly you’re left with what is, in many cases, perfectly good but not necessarily the best, the warmest, the most rich and detailed images.”
In negotiations with Kodak, Weinstein Co. is joined by Warner Bros, Universal Pictures, Paramount Pictures, and Walt Disney Studios."
That's perfectly understandable. A lot of us are gearheads and just love looking at that stuff, we can't help it :)
The sunset is really an iconic scene, kind of magical. It would great to see it!
looks amazing as always! :)
You guys have worked hard for a long long time. Congratulations on almost making it to the finish line! :)
awesome, thanks for sharing! Can't wait to see more!
poita said:
...I pointed out that in three years' time, Greedo will have had the first shot for longer than Han did....
So I have a deadline.
Wow, that's kind of shocking!
Congratulations though on the marriage, and I sincerely hope you're feeling better :)
Your version of that shot is gorgeous. I can't even handle how dark that blu ray version is, it's kind of freaking me out. What were they thinking??
the end scene looks great! It's so much more vibrant than the gout :)
that video was great! I love when you guys post stuff like that :)
If I may ask what software were you using for the vid? I thought it was neat how you could show video and then cut back to cam like that.
Baronlando said:
I missed part of it but there was a lot of good stuff in there. It made me wonder if its possible to simulate, side by side, the differences in the look of an IB print vs. an ideal opening day Kodak print.
The fact that all the hundreds of crawls were chopped off and replaced in 81 is pretty crazy. I guess it explains why they had an original lying around for the 2006 DVD, they must have a box of them. Although I picture GL wearing them like the severed ear necklace in Universal Soldier.
It's hard for me to imagine that NONE of those made it out of that lab somehow. If I worked there and they were cutting off elements and tossing them in the trash I surely would have taken one as a souvenir, even if it were for a movie that I wasn't some superfan of. Did they have armed guards there watching? There must be one somewhere...
mverta said:
HA!
Oh, for new members: stuff is being moved around and reorganized, so you might see threads shrinking/growing, disappearing, etc. It's all going to the Reel-by-Reel breakdown. For now, feel free to hunt a bit.
Is all the old content still there? I loved the videos you used to have up.
TV's Frink said:
It's exactly like that time the Berlin Wall came down.
... only this is much more important historically.
Don't listen to the naysayers, we all loved the show M Verta! I think what they meant by all talk no show is that they were hoping for some video examples from the restoration. We all enjoyed all the info you shared, I personally appreciate it greatly :)
yeah, that link gives a 410 error :(
NeverarGreat said:
The talk was less revealing than the last one in terms of the restoration itself, but more interesting in terms of the stories behind the restoration. It was more tell than show, but people forget that the story of this restoration is remarkable and well worth sharing on its own, regardless of what else is shared.
He did talk at length about the prints he's using (5 diff prints) and some of his other sources, about the crawl, about his process of dirt/grain removal... I thought it was really interesting