logo Sign In

The Cowclops Transfers (a.k.a. the PCM audio DVD's, Row47 set) Info and Feedback Thread (Released) — Page 20

Author
Time
Post link
Might this difference in sharpness come from the anamorphic process on V2? With it being in fact zoomed. I just can´t believe the old transfer is sharper. I bet the anamorphic version looks better on a widescreen set though. Also I think it is vital that screenshots for both transfers should be taken with the same computer. There can be a difference in screengrab quality between different computers, settings and software. Otherwise, keep those comparisons coming...
peace,

Rebelscum
Author
Time
Post link
Could it be that the original 1.0 was artificially sharpened more than 2.0? That would explain less jagged edges in 2.0 when zoomed in close, and it would also explain the appearance of a sharper picture in the 1.0 caps. Maybe I'm just being optimistic, but it could be that 1.0 appears sharper in the caps, but 2.0 is closer to the LD source due to fewer adjustments in sharpness. I guess only Cowclops would know if this is the case.

HARMY RULES

Author
Time
Post link
I might be way off with this sharpness thing, but I noticed that if I look at the these captures at 800% zoom in paint the 2.0 looks MUCH cleaner than the 1.0. A good reference point is the red light on R2D2 in the top comparison. I looks very smooth and colorful in the 1.0 shot, and it looks blocky and terrible by comparison in the 1.0 screenshot.

HARMY RULES

Author
Time
Post link
That may be the case, but the contrast doesn't look as good in the v2 screenshots either. I wonder why both sharpness AND contrast look worse in those shots.
Author
Time
Post link
Let's hope that it is a matter of the 2.0 shots being more true to the LD and the 1.0 shots going through more tweaking and adjustment. If that is the case I would be happy to find out that Cowclops didn't go overboard with the sharpness or contrast tweaking. Even though it is tempting to do so with any transfer, you are really just inserting false information into the final product. I would much rather have it left up to me by using the sharpness and contrast on my tv rather than having the person doing the transfer making subjective adjustments regarding how much to change the picture. Since I don't have the LD I can't make a distinction as to which one is more accurate.

HARMY RULES

Author
Time
Post link
That is precisely what it is-although the older shots may seem better upon first glance, once you watch the films in motion you will see there really is no comparison. Cowclops had to compromise a bit on some aspects to get everything balanced properly-if your TV is calibrated correctly it will look better, although it may be slightly darker. The brightness was too high on the old version and the extra sharpness you see is a result of 2 things:
The old set had artificial sharpening added (albeit minor)
The new set is anamorphic, which loses a small amount of resolution.
Together both of these factors contribute to what you are seeing; it was unavoidable due to the conversion process. The contrast, chroma levels and brightness are nearly untouched from the source, so you are seeing them as they are on the LDs with very little modification. The contrast may seem worse but what you are seeing in the old set is a false sense of good contrast, ie black detail is lost but the blacks are deeper.
Author
Time
Post link
Here are clips of the beginning of ANH with C-3PO and R2-D2 in the corridor of the ship. There is a clip from v.1 and v.2, the only change is that the audio has been converted to AC3 to make the file size smaller. The video is exactly the same as you would find on the DVD's.

cowclops_v1_sample.zip

cowclops_v2_sample.zip

The clips are hosted on Rapidshare.de so that I don't have to worry about bandwidth issues and they can stay up as long as necessary. Please download both clips and compare the video quality for yourself.
My DVD Collection

alt.binaries.starwars
Usenet. Get it! Learn it! Love it!
Author
Time
Post link
88keyz: I have probably been (perhaps unfairly) the most critical of the old Cowclops edition of anyone here.
But I will defend one thing:
There was no compression artifacts on it.
I wish this arguement would die. He has been meticulous with regards to balancing compression vs. quality from the word go.
There were artifacts arising from the DV capture to DVD conversion, but the mpeg compression did not cause any artifacts.

V1 problems DID include
pure blue/red blockiness (from the DV Capture): Fixed
overdriven audio: Fixed
blacks too grey (with bad contrast): Fixed

I look forward to getting my grubby hands on these. Even if the screenshots look a bit funny in color and sharpness, actually watching the video will produce a different experience all together.
My favorite edition till now has been Farsight whose screenshots are VERY soft, but give a nice viewing experience.

Dr. M

Author
Time
Post link
If you adjust the brighntess on your tv seperatley for each version there is no comparison between the two. I use the method that Cowclops proposed: adjust the brightness until there is very little difference between the discs 2:35.1 bar and a bar generated by a dvd player or tv until there is ALMOST no difference. Once that sweet spot is found on version 1.0 most dark areas seem to be black and void of detail (no different than truley black areas). Once the sweet spot is found on version 2.0 those areas still have visible detail (very different than black areas). The color is also greatly improved, this is most evident in very dynamic scenes like the approach to Cloud City, but it can be appreciated in any scene. I have studied version 1.0 to the point of ridiculousness, sometimes agonizing over one bar of brightness by comparing hundreds of shots. This new version has no such issues, one or two bars of brightness is not a huge deal because the picture is so much more detailed. So far I have found that the 2.0 is superior in EVERY way unless you prefer the picture altered from the source in terms of sharpness and contrast.

HARMY RULES

Author
Time
Post link
Great work Zion, adding these screenshots, been looking forward to that. But it's also true they only give an impression to a certain level: Dr. Gonzo isn't very promising in the shots, but still is the best so far to my opinion (not counting Moth3r and Cowclops v2, 'cause I haven't seen those yet).
Doctor M, I'm not quite with you on the absence of compression artifacts on the Cowclops v1. They definitely are there, I can't say for sure what caused them: DV-capture or MPEG-conversion, but there is no doubt of their presence. I must say the visibility of them depends a lot on your DVD-player, on the ones giving the sharpest image the compression artifacts are more pronounced, combined with a big screen even more. On the less expensive ones coupled to a smaller screen you might not notice them.
I compared the following sets: Dr. Gonzo, Cowclops v1, Isomix, EditDroid and Farsight, and on my high-end 32" widescreen TV with a DVD-player giving sharp image Farsight is also the worst looking transfer of all. Way too bright, beyond the possibility of adjusting to the right level: information has been lost in the bright area's (all that's left is white). On top of that it's the most unsharp of all, aswell as the most blocky one: limited vertical source resolution most clearly visible. I'm also surprised you found the viewing experience good, my eyes hurt 'cause of the brightness after watching it. No offence, just my opinion on the issue.

P.S. 88keyz, great initiative posting those clips.

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

Author
Time
Post link
I CAN say for sure where the "artifacts" came from, and it wasn't technically compression related. Uncompressed 4:1:1 sampled video would suffer from the exact same problem. DV camcorders (American ones anyway, European PAL camcorders use the same color format as all DVDs) only record one color sample for every 4 luminance samples. So, when it comes time to play it back, if theres a 1 pixel wide bit of bright red surrounded by a a few pixels of some other color, the red will bleed through. In fact, only red, blue, and purple should have issues as the nature of YPbPr video recording means that the resulting green channel is basically full bandwidth. They do this because the human eye is most sensitive to green.

So, no, its not the DVD compression that did it. In fact I compressed the second set using pretty much identical parameters to what I did with the first set.
Author
Time
Post link
CC: I don't know how many times you're going to have to say that before people believe you.

Regarding the rest: Dr. Gonzo's transfer is pretty good, but (and I can't see from where) there is halo-ing around edges. This to me makes for a noisy and unpleasant picture.

You should NOT have to adjust your brightness and contrast for every movie you watch. My TV is well calibrated, to alter that in order to suit a specific movie indicates a failing in the transfer (somewhere between the original negative and the final DVD). I'm not saying that the DVD transfer may not be a perfect duplicate of the laserdisc, the laserdisc might as well be at fault.

I don't argue the softness of Farsight's movie, but it does lack noise and artifacts as a trade-off. Also it actually has whites that are white, and blacks that are black without having to touch my tv.
Sure some whites are washed out, but on the whole it seems closer to the white/black levels as, oh say, the XO project.

Dr. M

Author
Time
Post link
"With the original subs from the laserdisc (non-removable) and the Cowclops created subs (removable)"

One of the options is having to watch with both? That doesn't make sense.

"I looks very smooth and colorful in the 1.0 shot, and it looks blocky and terrible by comparison in the 1.0 screenshot."


Maybe it should have been put on a DVD-9?
Author
Time
Post link
Maybe it should have been put on a DVD-9?



Oh man, you didn't just go there...

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

Author
Time
Post link
"who has done those extensive and great reviews of available Star Wars bootlegs on his site www.prillaman.net"

To my knowledge, that is actually TR47's site.

"You should NOT have to adjust your brightness and contrast for every movie you watch."

Actually, you would...even for THX DVDs. Even the on-disc THX setups are often tweaked for individual films. There's a reason why NTSC is nicknamed "Never Twice the Same Color."

<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: Doctor M
Sure some whites are washed out, but on the whole it seems closer to the white/black levels as, oh say, the X0 Project.


What does this sentence mean? Do you mean...

"Sure some whites are washed out, but on the whole it seems closer to the [original] white/black levels [than], oh say, the X0 Project."

or...

"Sure some whites are washed out, but on the whole it seems [as close] to the [original] white/black levels as, oh say, the X0 Project."??

Because your 'closer... than' or 'as close... as' parts don't agree, I can't figure out if you think this is better than or not as good as what we've seen from the X0 Project so far.

Author
Time
Post link
Doctor M: I have yet to see any fan created DVD set that did not have some level of compression artifacting. This includes both Cowclops versions. V.2 is better than V.1 and that was better than almost every other release out there but even in V.2 there are still compression artifacts. Its impossible to totally get rid of them because your dealing with MPEG-2 video which is compressed and by its nature is bound to have some level of artifacting. Next time you're watching your "TR-47" release discs check out the title cards and the opening crawl and tell me you don't see some compression artifacts there, its not serious but if you look you'll see them. These are the same sort of artifacts that you get when watching digital satellite/cable, small blocks appearing in the picture, usually in dark areas of the screen.

OT_Wan: Welcome to the forums. I wouldn't bring up the DVD-9 vs. DVD-5 debate in this thread if I were you. Its a real sore spot with some. Just a bit of friendly advice.
My DVD Collection

alt.binaries.starwars
Usenet. Get it! Learn it! Love it!
Author
Time
Post link
Karyudo: Yes the second one: "Sure some whites are washed out, but on the whole it seems [as close] to the [original] white/black levels as, oh say, the X0 Project."

Sorry for the bad grammer but Entourage was coming on and I had to dash.

The THX Optimode does indeed compensate individually for any given movie.
For those that don't know what THX's Optimode is about, it is suppose to be a perfect audio/video Optimizer in it's raw form that is then subjected to the same transfer process to DVD along with the movie.

The theory being that when you adjust your TV with it for that DVD it will correct for the DVD transfer process and give you a movie viewing experience as close to the intended source material as possible.

If you ask me that's fairly bullsh_t worthy. In reality if the people producing the DVD don't screw up (which if it's really being supervised by THX technicians in order to get its certification) there should be little to no difference from DVD to DVD.

I think anyone who has had their home theater professionally cailbrate would strongly disagree with the principle of Optimode. Besides, I have seen enough really bad THX certified movies to know that it's once again Lucas bleeding the system because it's easier than making a good movie.

Dr. M

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: OT_Wan
"With the original subs from the laserdisc (non-removable) and the Cowclops created subs (removable)"


One of the options is having to watch with both? That doesn't make sense.


The laserdisc subtitles are below the widescreen image, so those with a widescreen TV have to turn on Cowclops' created subs to see any subtitles at all (though some may see the very top of the old subs still). It doesn't make sense for those without widescreen TVs to watch with both options turned on, but the second option wasn't created for them in mind anyway.

http://www.kineticpast.com/starwars/thecheatlaserdisc.gif
Ooh, a laserdisc. The Cheat's playin' something on a laserdisc.
Everything is better on a laserdisc. Whatever happened to the laserdisc? Laserdisc!

Author
Time
Post link
That's why I always burn my subs into the video.

"In reality if the people producing the DVD don't screw up...there should be little to no difference from DVD to DVD."

It's not a matter of "screwing up". Different companies use different recording/mastering/authoring equipment and software. You can't help but have differences. Not to mention the fact that none of the people on this forum use all pro-level equipment in their transfers to begin with. The only person would might have come close was Editdroid, since this system was designed by Lucasfilm, and later became AVID. Of course, this is *only* the editing software.

Regardless, you can't reasonably expect home-made DVDs to automatically be of the same quality as those of major labels.

What you describe would be a nice scenario, but it's far from reality.

<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
You don't have to adjust your TV on a movie by movie basis, but if you were to use, say, the AVS laserdisc to set up your TV and then use, say, digital video sesentials, you will find that the settings are not the same. The brightness will be set higher on the DVD because its capable of outputting a "blacker black" in the first place. If you used the same brightness setting on a DVD player as you would on an LD player, the LD would look washed out. Seeing as the video source of this is LD and not film (which has a higher dynamic range than both of these formats) you must account for the fact that there is no shadow detail to be reclaimed. SO, then people say "why not just clip the signal so what was 7 IRE on the LD is now 0 IRE on the DVD." The problem with that is that when you hard clip an image, that is detail that can't be brought back. The reason why its so hard to make the starfield visible is because the difference between the black of outerspace and the dark grey of the starfield is not different enough. Had it been a transfer from film, there would be a greater difference between the "blackest black" of the background and the stars. The only way to maintain it without clipping many of the stars to black is to adjust it in the ANALOG domain, whereby you have much more leeway. If you tweak the brightness setting on your TV, you can choose yourself whether you want ALL the shadow detail and stuff or whether you want the blackest blacks. However, if I were to adjust the black to be blacker for the DVD, it would mean NO one is gonna get quality star fields and everybody is gonna lose shadow details. Thats not a tradeoff i'm going to make, so I stuck to my plan of "DVD on LD."

As long as the video source is LD, black should NOT be 0 IRE, it should be 7 IRE.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Cowclops

As long as the video source is LD, black should NOT be 0 IRE, it should be 7 IRE.


Should read:

"As long as the video source is North American spec NTSC LD, black should NOT be 0 IRE, it should be 7 IRE."

Japanese spec NTSC is 0 IRE. Looks like PAL is, too.

Author
Time
Post link
That is almost right, PAL & Japanese NTSC is IRE0, USA NTSC is IRE 7.5 for 'black'.

BTW, IRE is really only relevant for analogue sources, as it is a measurement of voltage, for a digital source that adheres to REC-601
(such as DVD) you should refer to the setup level that NTSC uses which is code 16 for black and code 235 for white, assuming an 8bit source.