logo Sign In

.: The X0 Project Discussion Thread :. (* unfinished project *) — Page 21

This topic has been locked by a moderator.

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Grinder
Hmm... but isn't it right that anamorphic just contains more information in the vertical dimention. How can that look less good then an image containing less information (on a regular TV-screen). It seems logical that it would look at least as good. I bought this TV just a month ago btw, before that I also had a 21" regular TV, but I've never experienced anamorpic DVD's looking different from non-anamorphics. It seems to me you just don't notice it being anamorphic on a regular TV, but do notice it on a bigger screen. Or am I missing something here?


You're absolutely correct in your assumption that anamorphic images contain more vertical resolution than their letterbox counterparts and that produces a better image on a widescreen television. No questions asked. However there is no gain any horizontal resolution. It's merely "stretched" on a 16x9 monitor. Because the DVD standard must accomodate 4x3 televisions, we're stuck in this rather pitiful resolution rut of 720 lines.

What would be ideal, and this is what I was talking about before, would be to have native 16:9 images not squished 4x3 pictures. 16:9 images...in High Def! Ah! Bring on Blu-Ray!

Why letterbox is better on 4x3 televisions: When DVD players take anamorphic material and show it on a 4x3 television, they get rid of every 4 lines of resolution. While this may not be too badly noticible with professional DVDs, the Star Wars bootlegs are created from letterboxed masters with inferior resolution compared to DVD, and it's better just to get the letterbox master if you have a 4x3 television than to take an upconverted anamorphic video image and then have its resolution hacked to pieces again.

Understnad?

What’s the internal temperature of a TaunTaun? Luke warm.

Author
Time
Post link
Well I think anamorphic is ALWAYS better since it can also be viewed normally on a 4:3 tv (don't say it looks vertically stretched, just "tell" your dvd player you have a 4:3 tv) and fullscreen can't be viewed normally on a 16:9 tv (unless you zoom or something). Besides you either can't see the difference or it looks better. Some people seem to think it has something to do with the picture being letterboxed, well it doesn't (although a 2.35:1 / 4:3 image is "more" letterboxed then a 2.35 / 16:9 image) see below!

THESE ARE NO IMAGES FROM THE X0 CAPTURE! (offcourse I don't need to tell you because the difference is clearly vissible).

4:3 Image
http://img173.echo.cx/img173/1429/436jj.jpg

16:9 Image
http://img124.echo.cx/img124/2040/1693jn.jpg

16:9 Anamorphic Image (=16:9 image stretched vertically to 4:3)
http://img124.echo.cx/img124/4966/169anamorphic5sp.jpg

Also, an 800 x 600 movie looks better on a 1024 x 876 projector than on a 800 x 600 projector.

Am I off topic???
Fez: I am so excited about Star Whores.
Hyde: Fezzy, man, it's Star Wars.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Arnie.d
Well I think anamorphic is ALWAYS better since it can be also be viewed normally on a 4:3 tv (don't say it looks vertically stretched, just "tell" your dvd player you have a 4:3 tv) and fullscreen can't be viewed normally on a 16:9 tv (unless you zoom or something). Besides you either can't see the difference or it looks better. Some people seem to think it has something to do with the picture being letterboxed, well it doesn't (although a 2.35:1 / 4:3 image is "more" letterboxed then a 2.35 / 16:9 image) see below!

Also, an 800 x 600 movie looks better on a 1024 x 876 projector than on a 800 x 600 projector.

Am I off topic???


You lost me...what are you trying to say?

What’s the internal temperature of a TaunTaun? Luke warm.

Author
Time
Post link
There are a lot of people who don't own widescreen televisions and for those cases, letterbox will be ideal. Your claim of non-anamorphic material being "always inferior" is a simplistic and somewhat naive opinion.


I'm trying to say the image being letterboxed has nothing to do with 16:9, 4:3 or anamoprhic.
I'm also trying to say an 16:9 image (whether or not anamorphic) can be viewed in the right aspect ratio on a 4:3 tv, but a fullscreen image ( in this case 4:3/fullscreen, 2.35:1 letterboxed) can't be viewed in the right aspect ratio on a 16:9 tv. So go for 16:9 anamorphic, then everybody can view it in the right aspect ratio no matter their tv.

Fez: I am so excited about Star Whores.
Hyde: Fezzy, man, it's Star Wars.
Author
Time
Post link
"I have an X9 laserdisc player and the Faces laserdiscs"

If you live anywhere near Southern California, then send me a PM, because you may become my new best friend.

"I'm trying to say the image being letterboxed has nothing to do with 16:9, 4:3 or anamoprhic."

But it has a great deal to do with the *quality* of the the image.

Commercial anamorphic DVDs are made from the original telecine, which has a greater resolution than the subsequent DVD. The LDs that these bootlegs are made from have far less resolution than the telecine, and less resolution than what the DVDs are capable of as well - and the letterbox LDs have even less resolution than the pan-&-scan LDs.

"Well I think anamorphic is ALWAYS better since it can also be viewed normally on a 4:3 tv"

Again, your statement does not take the source material into account. The LDs already have less resolution than the DVDs. Now, if we blow this transfer up to anamorphic status, and then play it on 4x3 mode, you are now removing *even more* resolution to get it to fit on your screen. Point being, on a 4x3 tv, a non-anamorphic bootleg transfer of Star Wars will have more resolution than an anamorphic bootleg transfer of Star Wars. If you have a 4x3 television, then you should watch a non-anamorphic transfer. If you have a widescreen TV, then anamorphic will look fine.

Now, this does not take into account any upsampling of the transfer image when making it anamorphic, but then again, there's still some debate about the best way to do this, so it's not quite the magic bullet that everyone makes it out to be.

<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: Sadly, I believe the prequels are beyond repair.
<span class=“Bold”>JediRandy: They’re certainly beyond any repair you’re capable of making.</span></span>

<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: You aren’t one of us.
<span class=“Bold”>Go-Mer-Tonic: I can’t say I find that very disappointing.</span></span>

<span class=“Italics”>JediRandy: I won’t suck as much as a fan edit.</span>

Author
Time
Post link
Yeah, this is something that is misunderstood, if you take the original 277 lines (of picture) from the letterbox laserdiscs, scale that up to anamorphic resolution you get a slight loss in quality due to image processing - not much but some.
If you then rely on your DVD player to turn in back into 277 lines again for display on a 4:3 TV, you lose a *LOT* of quality unless you have an exceptionally good player.
This is simply because it has to do a realtime resize, so can't use the best method.

So why go through two resizing steps (one good, one average) on a source that is resolutionally challenged to begin with, when you could display the original as is.

Now of course if you have a widescreen set or something similar you will be better off with the original 277 scaled up to animorphic, as we can do a better job than the realtime scaler in your player or TV.
Author
Time
Post link
This is interesting, I'm going to do some tests to see how noticeable downscaling anamorphic is on a 4:3 TV. But nonetheless, a question you could ask yourself is which screen format (16:9 or 4:3) is most suitable for displaying 2.35:1 footage.

That's no moon. It's a LaserDisc.

Author
Time
Post link
Well, SW would still be 2.35:1 regardless. What makes the real difference is the resolution of the source material. If it's a low-resolution source (i.e. VHS), then you are better off watching it on a 4x3 TV. A high-resolution source like DVD would look great on a 16x9 screen. LD is closer to DVD, but the SW discs aren't without their flaws, and blowing up the image makes them even more pronounced. After having removed the dots and speckles from the first third of ANH (frame by frame), I almost can't watch the bootlegs anymore without these defects jumping out at me.

Maybe I'll make a Wookie-groomer type video, so you can see all the blemishes, as well as the tremendous improvement that can be achieved with the right software.

<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: Sadly, I believe the prequels are beyond repair.
<span class=“Bold”>JediRandy: They’re certainly beyond any repair you’re capable of making.</span></span>

<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: You aren’t one of us.
<span class=“Bold”>Go-Mer-Tonic: I can’t say I find that very disappointing.</span></span>

<span class=“Italics”>JediRandy: I won’t suck as much as a fan edit.</span>

Author
Time
Post link
I have a couple more questions?

1.) Do you have any problems with the audio being out of sync using the PDI Deluxe?
2.) For IVTC, are you using AVISynth, VirtualDub, or something else?
3.) Did you guys have to go through several DC sets to get one that doesn't have any rot or any problems?
4.) Crazy question for my own curiousity. If I have a D-VHS with Component outputs, would there be any advantage of recording my LD's to it first and then capturing the D-VHS recorded material to the PDI Deluxe using Component cabling since it has Component Inputs. I don't have a D-VHS, but I was just curious how it would be.

Thanks.

Patrick
"When you have to shoot, shoot. Don't talk." - Tuco from The Good, The Bad And The Ugly
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: zion
Anamorphic, definitely. Letterbox, maybe.

Thanks for the info Zion, great news! Sorry I opened up the can of worms.
Author
Time
Post link
So...uhh...*cough*...yeah! How's it going!...(whensthenewslettergoingtobesent?)

Oh man! Look at the time! Take care!


What’s the internal temperature of a TaunTaun? Luke warm.

Author
Time
Post link
"If I have a D-VHS with Component outputs, would there be any advantage of recording my LD's to it first and then capturing the D-VHS recorded material to the PDI Deluxe using Component cabling since it has Component Inputs."

No, for a couple of reasons. First of all, just like any type of recording, you want the shortest distance possible between the source and your recorder, as everything in your signal path has the opportunity (and tendency) to "add" to the original signal - and by "add", I mean signal noise.

Secondly, even if the component connections offered a pristine, non-noise-added signal transfer, the original capture still can only be made with the LD player's best output - which would be the composite video anyways.

Best case, you would simply get the same composite video from the D-VHS that you would have gotten from the LD player in the first place - making it redundant and unnecessary.

Worst (and most likely) case, you would get the composite video as well as some "added colorization" that would be inherent in the video processing of the D-VHS player (and this is a quality of all audio/video components - nothing has a "pure" signal path.)

<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: Sadly, I believe the prequels are beyond repair.
<span class=“Bold”>JediRandy: They’re certainly beyond any repair you’re capable of making.</span></span>

<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: You aren’t one of us.
<span class=“Bold”>Go-Mer-Tonic: I can’t say I find that very disappointing.</span></span>

<span class=“Italics”>JediRandy: I won’t suck as much as a fan edit.</span>

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: MeBeJedi
"I have an X9 laserdisc player and the Faces laserdiscs"

If you live anywhere near Southern California, then send me a PM, because you may become my new best friend.



According to his Profile, he lives in Illinois.... Not astronomically far from California. Better than Europe.

I think he should start up a whole LD->DVD transfer service! Imagine the transfers we could do! ...I don't know about you guys, but Howard the Duck would be pretty sweet with a souped-up image, a 5.1 sound remix. Get MeBeJedi to go through FRAME BY PAINSTAKING FRAME to get rid of blemishes and dirt!

"Goodbye duckworld!"

What’s the internal temperature of a TaunTaun? Luke warm.

Author
Time
Post link
MeBeJedi...I was being sarcastic

What’s the internal temperature of a TaunTaun? Luke warm.

Author
Time
Post link
Don't dis Howard.




<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: Sadly, I believe the prequels are beyond repair.
<span class=“Bold”>JediRandy: They’re certainly beyond any repair you’re capable of making.</span></span>

<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: You aren’t one of us.
<span class=“Bold”>Go-Mer-Tonic: I can’t say I find that very disappointing.</span></span>

<span class=“Italics”>JediRandy: I won’t suck as much as a fan edit.</span>

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Mavimao
Originally posted by: MeBeJedi
"I have an X9 laserdisc player and the Faces laserdiscs"

If you live anywhere near Southern California, then send me a PM, because you may become my new best friend.



According to his Profile, he lives in Illinois.... Not astronomically far from California. Better than Europe.

I think he should start up a whole LD->DVD transfer service! Imagine the transfers we could do! ...I don't know about you guys, but Howard the Duck would be pretty sweet with a souped-up image, a 5.1 sound remix. Get MeBeJedi to go through FRAME BY PAINSTAKING FRAME to get rid of blemishes and dirt!

"Goodbye duckworld!"

Is the X9 considered to be better than the X0? I did some reading on it and all I found up is that the X9 is newer and has some supa-dupa comb filter.
I live in IL, so chances are is that if he isn't too far away, I could aid in the capturing process. I have a decent capture card, and if would indeed make a really good transfer, I'd be more than willing to drop a bit of money on a better card.
Author
Time
Post link
In direct real-world comparisons, Laserman found the X0 to be better. That being said, the X9 ain't slim pickings, and if one could be found near any of the X0 members, it would be put to good use.

<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: Sadly, I believe the prequels are beyond repair.
<span class=“Bold”>JediRandy: They’re certainly beyond any repair you’re capable of making.</span></span>

<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: You aren’t one of us.
<span class=“Bold”>Go-Mer-Tonic: I can’t say I find that very disappointing.</span></span>

<span class=“Italics”>JediRandy: I won’t suck as much as a fan edit.</span>

Author
Time
Post link
The X0 is noticably better than the X9 - the X9 had a more modern comb filter for the S-Video output, but it can't compete with the composite output of the X0 using one of todays comb filters.
The noise floor is better than the X0, less smearing, better SNR, better everything really except the comb filter which we don't use.
The X9 also weighs a lot less and is a lot easier and cheaper to obtain!

Both are very nice, and quite expensive players though...
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: MeBeJedi
Don't dis Howard.






Shh! don't want remind Lucas about Howard, he might start having plans on re-editing, who knows what he might do to it...

http://www.haku.co.uk/b3ta/HowardDeathStar.jpg

edit: BTW, apart from the laserdisc I also have the soundtrack on vinyl and the 12" mix vinyl (I know I know, lost cause and all that)
http://www.haku.co.uk/pics/LukeCruise.gif http://www.haku.co.uk/pics/dontcare.gif
***Citizen's NTSC DVD/PAL DVD/XviD Info and Feedback Thread***
Author
Time
Post link
Thaaaaaweet!

What’s the internal temperature of a TaunTaun? Luke warm.

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: zion
Originally posted by: MavimaoExpect it sometime this US evening.


You're 6-12 hours behind us...
Hurry up