Originally posted by: superrune
Sorry about my explanations, english is not my first language.
With wobble I mean that the information within the frame is shifted in relation to each other, like distortions under water, and that this relative shifting differs from one frame to the next. If the movie was doing something like that it would be very obvious. That's why I questioned the method of tracking several areas of the frame, instead of a single location (the stabilization you need if the frame is just shifting). I would assume the warping that is in the frame to be lens-distortions from the old telecine (at least that's what I think I see), and perhaps some corner squeezing in order to get more of the image inside the safe frames.
Some noise-reduction routines and DVD compression can produce an effect similar to wobble, making the dark areas lag one frame behind the rest of the image. But I haven't examined the movies enough to confirm that particular effect.
Rune
What if the 2004 version was digitally stabalized reducing camera wobble, and the OUT wasn't?
Sorry about my explanations, english is not my first language.
With wobble I mean that the information within the frame is shifted in relation to each other, like distortions under water, and that this relative shifting differs from one frame to the next. If the movie was doing something like that it would be very obvious. That's why I questioned the method of tracking several areas of the frame, instead of a single location (the stabilization you need if the frame is just shifting). I would assume the warping that is in the frame to be lens-distortions from the old telecine (at least that's what I think I see), and perhaps some corner squeezing in order to get more of the image inside the safe frames.
Some noise-reduction routines and DVD compression can produce an effect similar to wobble, making the dark areas lag one frame behind the rest of the image. But I haven't examined the movies enough to confirm that particular effect.
Rune
It is a bit of both.
Some scenes require only a 'set warp' to align them, but most require a tracked warp.
I think this is because we have multiple problems.
1. Lens distortion - if this was the only problem then you could devise just one warp for the whole transfer.
2. Film movement in the gate. Both sprocket wobble and the film not being perfectly 'flat' causing planar distortion in Z rather than just wobble in X&Y
3. Stabilisation differences.
It is easier to track the warp to get the 'set warp' done anyway, rather than trying to do it manually.
A simple warp would probaly work OK though, the resulting artefacts probably wouldn't disturb 90% of viewers, especially when moving.
It would certainly be worth a try, and would be a lot less effort.
The 2004 release seems to be somewhat stabilised, this is why I stabilise all footage before combining, so that at least movement within the frame is locked down and you aren't chasing a moving target.
Boris the flaws you discovered where already clearly pointed out by Rune and myself beforehand, as Rune said when mentioning the limitations of the process in his first post he said that just "Transforming the GOUT is too simple, you need a warp to properly match the two images"