logo Sign In

.: The XØ Project - Laserdisc on Steroids :. (SEE FIRST POST FOR UPDATES) (* unfinished project *) — Page 57

Author
Time
Post link
As long as the progressive flags are set correctly (which, incidentally, they appear to be on the GOUT transfer), then there is no reason it will 'look crap' on progressive displays.

I do however agree with you. A soft 3:2 encoding is better than a hard 3:2 encoding in terms of space saving.
Author
Time
Post link
That's exactly what happened with the GOUT. I guess that proves that GL isn't in his right mind!
Author
Time
Post link
The NTSC GOUT is 23.976fps, is it not?

But there's one or two IVTC errors but this only affects 3-4 frames.

My PAL EOD crawl seems to be 29.97fps encoded to 25fps PAL thank you so much LFL for that one.

Author
Time
Post link
If it was transferred from the laserdisc master tape without being inverse telecined (which I believe is the case, maybe someone knows for sure?), then it will be 29.97fps.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Darth Mallwalker
Originally posted by: Alan Partridge
The source doesn't need to be deinterlaced before transferring to DVD.
But it should be inverse-telecined (IVTC) before transferring to DVD.
Ohterwise you're wasting bit-budget by encoding the same fields twice.
Yes, DVD stores fields not frames, but there's not much point wasting space storing two copies of the same field.
If you store telecined "frames" (two fields from different film frames) on your DVD, it'll look crap needlessly on progressive displays (computer screen, plasma TV, projector, etc.)
Not to mention, color correction routines will work best on progressive frames.

Fortunately, the X0 team members already understand the benefits of IVTC'ing their sources.


I see you edited your post for clarity.

My point still stands though. As long as each field is flagged correctly as belonging to the correct frame, then the deinterlacer will know which fields belong together, regardless of any fields stored as mixed pairs. A 23.976fps telecine and a 29.97fps telecine will have no discernable difference on your display as long as the flags are set correctly in either instance (which unfortunately, is very often not the case)
Author
Time
Post link
I remembered that this thread already covered some of this.

6. IVTC errors - the master video will have had 3:2 pulldown applied to produce the NTSC framerate of 29.97fps. For the DVD, the video was inverse telecined (IVTCed) to convert to 23.976fps. Unfortunately there were some cadence errors in the master, resulting in some flickering artefacts on R2D2 in the scene with Ben and Luke after the Sandpeople attack. These artefacts are visible when viewing on a computer or a progressive display.


And more stuff here

And there's also the issue with the vertical filter that probably was applied to hide the poor de-interlacing job.

Author
Time
Post link
" If video is stored on DVD in interlaced format (which it is), then I'd say it's fair to say that DVD is an inherently interlaced medium."

No, because DVD is not limited to interlaced video.

How Progressive Players Work

How The Information is Stored on Disc

It’s important to understand at the outset that DVDs are designed for interlaced displays. There’s a persistent myth that DVDs are inherently progressive, and all a DVD player needs to do to display a progressive signal is to grab the progressive frames off the disc and show them. This is not exactly true. First of all, a significant amount of DVD content was never progressive to begin with. Anything shot with a typical video camera, which includes many concerts, most supplementary documentaries, and many TV shows, is inherently interlaced. (Some consumer digital video cameras can shoot in progressive mode, and a handful of TV programs are shot in progressive, particularly sports events.) By comparison, content that was originally shot on film, or with a progressive TV camera, or created in a computer, is progressive from the get-go. But even for such content, there is no requirement that it be stored on the DVD progressively.

DVDs are based on MPEG-2 encoding, which allows for either progressive or interlaced sequences. However, very few discs use progressive sequences, because the players are specifically designed for interlaced output. Interestingly, while the sequences (i.e., the films and videos) are seldom stored progressive, there's nothing wrong with using individual progressive frames in an interlaced sequence. This may sound like a semantic distinction, but it’s not. If the sequence is progressive, then all sorts of rules kick into place which ensure that the material stays progressive from start to finish. Whereas if the sequence is interlaced, then there are fewer rules and no requirement to use progressive frames. The encoder can mix and match interlaced fields and progressive frames as long as each second of MPEG-2 data contains 60 fields, no more, no less (or 50 fields per second for PAL discs). The progressive frames, when they are used, are purely for compression efficiency, but the video is still interlaced as far as the MPEG decoder is concerned. - LINK


Satellite TV is component format video, yet very few DTV receivers have component video out. Most people use the S-Video, but this does not mean satellite TV is suddenly an "S-video format". You can't fault the system for the material being fed through it. DVD is capable of progressive video, it simply isn't used as such because, again, most TVs were interlaced when the format came out. It really comes down to changing a chip or two in the player. Too bad they weren't as forward-thinking about that as they were about anamorphic video.

This reminds me of the confusion with LD players with S-video out. Many people believe that the S-video out is better, but laserdisc is a composite video format. Whether or not the S-video looks better depends on the relative ability of the LD player's comb filter versus your television's comb filter (which, being newer, is generally better, thus the composite video of your LD player should be used.)

God, now I know why Lasersman hates NTSC.

<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
These technical lessons are great, don't get me wrong...but I was wondering if I could get away with being a little spoiled pampered X0 child one more time and ask about seeing a couple more screens or samples...? Maybe? Please?

I love everybody. Lets all smoke some reefer and chill. Hug and kisses for everybody.

Author
Time
Post link
Ok, if you want to be really pedantic about, I guess 'inherently' is the wrong word to use. Yes, you can encode a progressive frame on a DVD (just like you could encode a progressive frame on a CD if you wanted), but it's meaningless. The fact is, it can't be played back on a DVD player as such because MPEG decoders decode in an interlaced fashion. The only way to get a progressive signal out of a DVD player is if it uses a separate chip to deinterlace AFTER the interlaced video has been decoded
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Red5
For the DVD, the video was inverse telecined (IVTCed) to convert to 23.976fps. Unfortunately there were some cadence errors in the master, resulting in some flickering artefacts on R2D2 in the scene with Ben and Luke after the Sandpeople attack. These artefacts are visible when viewing on a computer or a progressive display.


Is there actually any evidence that this is the case? I'm not trying to prove anyone wrong, I'm just interested in how this conclusion was reached. I don't understand why they would bother taking the time to inverse telecine when there is no technical reason to do so. It seems they spent as little as possible on this release, so I'm not sure why they would bother doing this when the results would be the same either way.

I don't see any errors in that scene to indicate cadence errors. I do see lots of jaggies though, presumably from the telecine wobble inherent on the master tape.
Author
Time
Post link
Boris, is that you?

“I love Darth Editous and I’m not ashamed to admit it.” ~ADigitalMan

Author
Time
Post link
Is Boris the guy that's always trying to defend the GOUT? If so, I've no idea why you would deduce that we are the same person, since there is nothing in my posts that defends the GOUT (indeed, I think it's a terrible transfer). I'm not saying the transfer WASN'T inverse telecined, I'm just asking for evidence that it WAS. I can't see any evidence that it was myself (and can't think of any technical reason to do so, other than disc space saving), but then I'm not analysing the MPEG data on a computer, I'm merely going by what I see on my TV screen.
Author
Time
Post link
Maybe you should ask in a GOUT thread

However, in practice you must take into account the “fuckwit factor”. Just talk to Darth Mallwalker…
-Moth3r

Author
Time
Post link
"Ok, if you want to be really pedantic about,"

You know, it could be said that we're being "pedantic" about all the details we are focusing on and effort we are putting into the X0 Project as well. If such behavior makes you uncomfortable, then you might want to find a less pedantic thread to post in.

"I don't understand why they would bother taking the time to inverse telecine when there is no technical reason to do so."

Well, I'll let someone else explain the necessity for doing so. I don't want to come across as being too pedantic.

<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: Alan Partridge
Is Boris the guy that's always trying to defend the GOUT? If so, I've no idea why you would deduce that we are the same person, since there is nothing in my posts that defends the GOUT (indeed, I think it's a terrible transfer). I'm not saying the transfer WASN'T inverse telecined, I'm just asking for evidence that it WAS. I can't see any evidence that it was myself (and can't think of any technical reason to do so, other than disc space saving), but then I'm not analysing the MPEG data on a computer, I'm merely going by what I see on my TV screen.



I don't think you are being unreasonable at all, and perhaps those who have researched it more thoroughly can fill us in. I don't know enough about DVD authoring to comment myself.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: zombie84
Originally posted by: Alan Partridge
Is Boris the guy that's always trying to defend the GOUT? If so, I've no idea why you would deduce that we are the same person, since there is nothing in my posts that defends the GOUT (indeed, I think it's a terrible transfer). I'm not saying the transfer WASN'T inverse telecined, I'm just asking for evidence that it WAS. I can't see any evidence that it was myself (and can't think of any technical reason to do so, other than disc space saving), but then I'm not analysing the MPEG data on a computer, I'm merely going by what I see on my TV screen.



I don't think you are being unreasonable at all, and perhaps those who have researched it more thoroughly can fill us in. I don't know enough about DVD authoring to comment myself.


But Darth Mallwalker's point is valid though. This discussion is off topic here. Who's gives a crap about the GOUT in the X0 thread? If I wanted to learn more about the GOUT I'd visit a GOUT thread. Leave the X0 thread to X0 specific topics...

I love everybody. Lets all smoke some reefer and chill. Hug and kisses for everybody.

Author
Time
Post link
Yeah, it's great to see how meticulous the X0 team is with making sure the colors and such are as accurate to Star Wars as possible. I agree about the opening crawl, either use just the opening crawl from the GOUT in the X0 transfer, since there seems almost no doubt it is the original Star Wars crawl that they used and you can't get any more accurate than the original , or at least make it an option in the main menu to watch Star Wars with the GOUT opening crawl in place, instead of the DC opening.

Those X0 screen shots before are so impressive, the quality is really excellent.

The Star Wars trilogy. There can be only one.

Author
Time
Post link
Zion says the GOUT crawl is the original one than that's good enough for me....however the quality isn't the same. My concern if you combined the GOUT crawl with the X0 you'll get a jarring Ocpmovie like effect where you have a drastic difference in image quality....just my 2 cents


I love everybody. Lets all smoke some reefer and chill. Hug and kisses for everybody.

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: vbangle
Zion says the GOUT crawl is the original one than that's good enough for me....however the quality isn't the same. My concern if you combined the GOUT crawl with the X0 you'll get a jarring Ocpmovie like effect where you have a drastic difference in image quality....just my 2 cents


But if they do cleanup on the GOUT crawl, as they're doing on the LD...?
Author
Time
Post link
For what it's worth, I think the X0 team should leave the "Episode IV: A New Hope" in the crawl. I've literally been watching Star Wars for as long as I can remember (I was born in '77), and having grown up watching ANH on home video, that's the opening crawl I (and presumably many other people) have grown up with and love.

“It’s a lot of fun… it’s a lot of fun to watch Star Wars.” – Bill Moyers

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: corellian77
For what it's worth, I think the X0 team should leave the "Episode IV: A New Hope" in the crawl. I've literally been watching Star Wars for as long as I can remember (I was born in '77), and having grown up watching ANH on home video, that's the opening crawl I (and presumably many other people) have grown up with and love.


My feelings exactly - but if they do choose to remove it, wouldn't the best thing be to just paint it out of the LD capture?

DE
Author
Time
Post link
I would prefer it without, personally...