logo Sign In

Darth Editous

User Group
Members
Join date
23-Mar-2005
Last activity
31-Jan-2022
Posts
844

Post History

Post
#545862
Topic
StarWarsLegacy.com - The Official Thread
Time

TServo2049 said:



<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaDlP-kmzWk" target="_blank" title="www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaDlP-kmzWk">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaDlP-kmzWk</a>

This is a detail from the Mos Eisley shot he just posted. I think it's clear now that he's working from a high-quality (possibly IB Technicolor) print scanned in 4K.

I tell you, this detail-recovery thing looks amazing


It's not, really, though the more I read the more I get the impression he'll be very gratified to hear you say that - not that I blame you for saying it! What you'll probably end up with is amazingly steady static backgrounds (which will still have lost some detail - take a look at his crawl shot with it's bland lettering) while anything moving - unless he can track every pixel perfectly - will still be grainy. Of course this is just based on his description of the video, but from the sound of it's not much different than such things as mdegrain, which useful though it can be, is no magic bullet.

If there's to be a preservation, it should be as close to the source as possible, grain and all.

DE

Post
#545736
Topic
StarWarsLegacy.com - The Official Thread
Time

He previously referred to his image of the SW logo as being 4K.


I still find it odd, even with the hand-wavy "it averages pixels" explanation, that the internal pixels all had exactly the same RGB values. It smacks of Magic Wand+Fill to me.

I was not aware he was selling stuff, and that is a Bad Thing. And in case anyone cares, his hatred of fan-edits (his recreating starfields in Maya notwithstanding, I think that counts) was already burning six years ago - must see if I can dig out that email...

Still, I've got to admit I wish George Lucas had half his passion for the theatrical versions.

DE

PS Just had a look at this latest caps:

Original subtitles? Check.
Very preliminary, but still... cool.


Might as well ask "Who's The Daddy?" and be done with it.

Post
#545470
Topic
Info &amp; Ideas: ESB and ROTJ Wishlist
Time

Sith eyes are lazy shorthand. The Dark Side doesn't need to be portrayed as some tangible thing that infects you, like the black oil in The X Files - it should just be there in everyone, ready to be brought out by fear/hate/suffering/credit card bills/the ex-wife.

For me, it takes some of the tragedy out of Annakin's turn (not that there was much to begin with, you'd have to like the whiny little snot first).

DE

Post
#544098
Topic
The GOUT crawl
Time

So I'm looking at the GOUT crawl for ANH - y'know, the one missing the whole "Episode IV/A New Hope" bit. I've got a vague memory of reading that the GOUT crawl is actually a modern recreation - the opening logo is a much straighter version than on the "later" crawl, and the lines of the crawl are split differently - because the rest of the GOUT is based on a laserdisc master that did have "A New Hope" on it.

Also, the GOUT crawl doesn't show the same "bend" at the bottom right that the special editions and later (and possibly earlier) do. Did they just do a poor job when they made the "Episode IV crawl" in 1980?

Can someone clue me in?

DE

Post
#543785
Topic
Star Wars coming to Blu Ray (UPDATE: August 30 2011, No! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!)
Time

kenkraly2007 said:


the blu-ray's of the star wars saga are the best the films (have) ever looked and sounded, some m(a)y not agree but that is for anyone to judge.


The way you write, "but that is for anyone to judge" comes across as "but they are wrong."

Try using the words "in my opinion" more often and you might not rub so many people up the wrong way.

DE

Post
#541052
Topic
STAR WARS: EP V &quot;REVISITED EDITION&quot;<strong>ADYWAN</strong> - <strong>12GB 1080p MP4 VERSION AVAILABLE NOW</strong>
Time

AuggieBenDoggie said:


Those Jpgs really don't mean much, and you know better than to do that,


They mean exactly what I meant them to mean - that on some frames there is a big (and on every frame, moderate) quality difference between HDTV and Blu-ray, so there is every justification for using the Blu-ray rip as the source of an edit, your impatience not withstanding.

You're mistaken on several other points, but we've gone too far off-target already, so you can have the last word if you want it (frame-based is the correct term, 756 pixels is based on the perceived resolution (70%) of full-frame field-based interlaced against progressive material, progressive wrapped in interlaced is fine, digital either works or doesn't, I was being facetious about Monster cables, all HD TVs must decode 720p, "720p is the preferred format for the broadcast...")

DE

Post
#540660
Topic
Star Wars coming to Blu Ray (UPDATE: August 30 2011, No! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!)
Time

shandy706 said:


VHS = 480x333
SVHS = 560x420


Didn't spot this one before, but just for clarity, both VHS and SVHS have completely separate horizontal lines, so their vertical resolution is a full 480 (576 for PAL), and their horizontal resolutions are only measured in effective pixels (because it's a continuous signal, not broken into pixels). Vertically, they would get blurred a bit to reduce interlace twitter, a practice which is still occuring as far as I'm aware.

DE

Post
#540633
Topic
STAR WARS: EP V &quot;REVISITED EDITION&quot;<strong>ADYWAN</strong> - <strong>12GB 1080p MP4 VERSION AVAILABLE NOW</strong>
Time

AuggieBenDoggie said:


Thats not a vary fair approach to prove your point. Your using 1080p jpg's that have been modified to actually show the difference.

They have not been modified at all - cherry-picked to prove a point, perhaps. I chose a reasonable amount of compression for the jpeg and they are an accurate depiction of those two sections of an HDTV frame and a BD frame.

All media is interlaced on TV

"In the United States, 720p is the preferred format for the broadcast and cable networks of Fox/FX/Fox Sports Net, ABC/Disney Channel/ESPN, A&E Television Networks, Ion Television, MLB Network, and DirecTV's Audience Network."

Progressing scanning will give you a better picture.

That's a massive generalisation, and not relevant to already frame-based material.

I have a line conditioner hooked up to my cable box, and the picture looks fantastic, very clean looking compared to how it looks without one.

This is only relevant if the HDTV rips were made from an analogue cable broadcast, which seems extremely unlikely. If you're on digital cable and you can see a difference in picture quality with or without a line conditioner... well, I'll stop there, because you just can't, but I have some Monster cables you can buy off me.

(edited to add: actually this is probably not quite right. Line hum can cause waves and other distortions to get through to the TV via earth, but if you're capturing digitally, it won't make any difference)

Most people don't know this but the 1080i signal is actually a 1920x540 resolution signal where every other frame (actually called a field) is interlaced with the frame after it, giving you a perceived total resolution of 1920x1080

No, it gives you a perceived resolution of about 1920x756, if you're talking about truly interlaced material. For progressive material you get a perceived and actual resolution of 1920x1080 (barring some minor differences in how colour is processed).

DE

Post
#540137
Topic
Star Wars coming to Blu Ray (UPDATE: August 30 2011, No! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!)
Time

bkev said:


The jump in quality is less significant for dvd to blu than it was vhs to dvd. I know plenty of people, young AND old, who claim they can't see the difference at all.


Don't forget that when we made the change from VHS to DVD, we didn't have flat screen TVs with dedicated upscalers. That's not to say you don't have a valid point, but it's a little unfair to draw the conclusion that Blus aren't inherently that much better than DVDs.

DE

Post
#537777
Topic
Star Wars coming to Blu Ray (UPDATE: August 30 2011, No! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!)
Time

Darth Lars said:


All PAL releases have been sped up from 24 fps to 25 fps because PAL is 25 fps. Maybe that is what the chart is referring to... I dunno.


It's not - PAL laserdiscs can store longer movies anyway (the SEs all fit on a single disc). They really did "time compress" NTSC ones, but I've never been able to figure out whether they dropped frames here and there, or just upped the framerate a bit, but still within tolerance of an NTSC TV.

DE

Post
#537775
Topic
Info: 1997 SE DV Broadcast Info &amp; Discussion
Time

LeeThorogood said:


The broadcast versions will always be sharper/more detailed as they were broadcast and captured in native PAL 16:9 (1024x576) where as DJs LD captures are coming from a letter-boxed NTSC 4:3 (640x480) source, which roughly speaking gives the broadcast versions ~37.5% more resolution.


"PAL" 16:9 broadcasts are only 720x576, as they're anamorphic.

By my reckoning, there's 60% (1.6x) more vertical detail in anamorphic PAL than 4:3 NTSC (432 lines of active picture against 270).

DE

Post
#537056
Topic
Star Wars coming to Blu Ray (UPDATE: August 30 2011, No! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!)
Time

sooner or later, someone is going to throw them up on an HD scanner, make high-quality HD masters and release them as bootlegs - either for free online, or on BD-R or other digital media sold at conventions. How do I know that? Well, I've actually had bootleg HD copies of the "special edition" Star Wars films for a couple years now, mastered from European HD satellite


How does "I've got a copy of the SE from someone who TIVO'd it when it was on TV" lead directly to "A private collector with a print is bound to get it professionally scanned"?

DE

Post
#534718
Topic
DIF - Difference tool to spot visual changes - Current 2004 vs 2019
Time

To shorten the reviewing process, looking for something which will analyze the colors and making a simple chart of RGB over the video length, and frames which show an alteration will spike the chart


You could always use another filter to really boost the levels, then press shift-ctrl-[right arrow) in Virtualdub. In run through frames as fast as it can, and stop at what it thinks is a scene change (I think you can alter the threshold in preferences).

* though thinking about it, that wouldn't help if the change is brought in gradually.

DE