logo Sign In

Puggo GRANDE - 16mm restoration (Released) — Page 8

Author
Time

yeah, I am not really into that feathered look.  it is a bit distracting.  I cant wait to see the tests, puggo.  I think that will help to actually see it.  In the meantime, have fun skiiing!!!

ThrowgnCpr’s edits on Fanedit.org

Author
Time
 (Edited)

What resampling are you referring to?

 

The cropping and resizing, chiefly, though its image stabilising may also prove useful.

The thing is, I don't know AviSynth/VirtualDub all that well (G-Force's GOUT corrector has been my first real experience with that) and for all I know, its resampling math is as good as anyone else's, but AE's always been highly regarded for this sort of thing.

Maybe something to try after the official version gets done - you seem to have everything nicely in hand so far!

Author
Time

I would vote against any side black bars. My HDTV is set to 'just scan' and it's more preferable when the image goes all the way from side to side. People that have TV's with overscan won't know the difference, but people like me will...

You can go about your business. Move along, move along.

http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/4962/nowplayingbannermasterzc2.jpg
The Story of Star Wars
The Adventures Of Luke Skywalker

Author
Time

Ok, dudes, I figured out how to do curved borders in Vegas.  It was easier than I thought it would be... I simply had Vegas generate a large rectangular white frame, then used the "deform" filter, which includes independent controls for curving top, bottom, left, and right.  Disabled "stretch to frame", and adjusted pan as needed. I then rendered that out as a mask, which I chroma-keyed in a second pass.  The whole thing only took a couple of hours (for a small sample clip).  Now that I know how to do it, future masks will be quick to generate.

I've posted a new clip, so you can all compare straight borders versus curved borders, scene-by-scene.  It's about 30 seconds long and includes about 8 different scenes.  There has been no pulldown yet, but I have resized it according to Mothr's suggested dimensions.  I have also done modest color correction, removed the yellow corner, and done a little bit of spot removal.  A link to the clip is found at the bottom of the Grande pictures page:

http://www.hardbat.com/puggo/grandePics.html

Scroll down and right-click on "border comparison", and save the resulting .avi file.  Close comparison shows advantages of each... the curved border shows a tiny bit of more content, the straight border is - er - straighter.

Thoughts?

"Close the blast doors!"
Puggo’s website | Rescuing Star Wars

Author
Time
 (Edited)
Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:

Ok, dudes, I figured out how to do curved borders in Vegas.  It was easier than I thought it would be... I simply had Vegas generate a large rectangular white frame, then used the "deform" filter, which includes independent controls for curving top, bottom, left, and right.  Disabled "stretch to frame", and adjusted pan as needed. I then rendered that out as a mask, which I chroma-keyed in a second pass.  The whole thing only took a couple of hours (for a small sample clip).  Now that I know how to do it, future masks will be quick to generate.

I've posted a new clip, so you can all compare straight borders versus curved borders, scene-by-scene.  It's about 30 seconds long and includes about 8 different scenes.  There has been no pulldown yet, but I have resized it according to Mothr's suggested dimensions.  I have also done modest color correction, removed the yellow corner, and done a little bit of spot removal.  A link to the clip is found at the bottom of the Grande pictures page:

http://www.hardbat.com/puggo/grandePics.html

Scroll down and right-click on "border comparison", and save the resulting .avi file.  Close comparison shows advantages of each... the curved border shows a tiny bit of more content, the straight border is - er - straighter.

Thoughts?

 

looks nice but it still needs to be set to anamorphic. switch the aspect ratio to 16:9 in VLC and it looks right. By default the video doesn't stretch to 16:9

 

As for the border, either looks fine. I like the curved because it gives you a little more picture information

I'd also do a little more color correction and clean up.

Author
Time

Nice.  thanks for the comparisons Puggo.  I for one prefer the straight version a little better.  Really I don't see the benefit of a couple extra pixels in some areas (and also it shows some edge artifacts), and the straight crop seems more natural and less distracting.  Its not an extreme curve though, so whatever you choose will be fine in the end I think.

ThrowgnCpr’s edits on Fanedit.org

Author
Time

I vote straight border as well.

Author
Time
Octorox said:

looks nice but it still needs to be set to anamorphic. switch the aspect ratio to 16:9 in VLC and it looks right. By default the video doesn't stretch to 16:9

Doh!   I can't believe I made that mistake.  Oh well, you get the idea :)

"Close the blast doors!"
Puggo’s website | Rescuing Star Wars

Author
Time

I suppose another "straight border" vote would be redundant?

A little word on video aspect ratios:

Normally, AVI files are encoded for display at 1:1 Pixel Aspect Ratio (and without any black borders). Obviously in this case you wanted to demonstrate the alternative options for the final MPEG-2 encode at a DVD-compliant resolution. If this sample was encoded to MPEG-2 (with the 16:9 flag set) then it would display correctly, however as it's an AVI file then it does require the correct AR 'forcing' in your media player.

Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:

I also tried applying that impressive avisynth filter chain by videoFred (thanks for the link, Mothr!) to a segment of reel 1.  The results were disappointing - overemphasis of grain, especially.  But it is making me more aware of some things I can experiment with.

I finally managed to get that script working for myself. (If there's one thing I dislike about AviSynth, it's using someone else's complex script that requires you to chase all over the web for the obscure versions of the dll files required for the plugins to work. And those gurus at Doom9 complain if someone zips them all up into a convenient download because <voice="whinging nerd"> it violates the terms of the GPL  </voice>. )

I applied the script to your clip.avi sample you provided a while ago. I see what you mean about the overemphasis of grain, but the effect can be reduced by lowering the parameters in the sharpening section of the script. And it's extremely slow on my machine.

From what you said earlier I'm assuming you are not intending to use any processing as heavy as this. I would tend to agree with this premise - I have no objection to stabilization, levels adjustment and colour correction, but degraining and sharpening may be beyond the scope of "preservation". I can post some samples if you're interested.

Guidelines for post content and general behaviour: read announcement here

Max. allowable image sizes in signatures: reminder here

Author
Time
 (Edited)

By the way, the "hair" that's visible on the left side of the frame in some of the scenes is not from my film gate, it's actually embedded in the film!  In fact, it's present on most of reels 2 and 3 as well.  I spent about three hours trying to chase it down in my WorkPrinter, until I looked very closely at the film itself and discovered there was going to be no getting rid of it.  That, plus the over-cropping, gives you an idea of how much care went into producing these 16mm prints (or at least this one).

"Close the blast doors!"
Puggo’s website | Rescuing Star Wars

Author
Time

Puggo,

I vote for straight borders. But the difference between the two is much less than I was expecting. The few extra pixels that we get from the curved borders aren't that great (light, bad colors) anyway.

 

You know of the rebellion against the Empire?

Author
Time

This is how the clip previously posted looks when processed with the videoFred script. (Right-click, save as).

 

Guidelines for post content and general behaviour: read announcement here

Max. allowable image sizes in signatures: reminder here

Author
Time

Hmm...it does look sharper and more vibrant but the contrast does really make it too dark

Author
Time

Looks like videoFred's script is poorly suited for this high-contrast 16mm print.  HDTVs usually enhance the contrast in video anyway, so it's probably best to leave the contrast and brightness levels alone.

Author
Time

Interesting.  There are also some really wierd motion artifacts.  Look at the frames as the scene changes from the ship approaching the green planet, into the scene of the ship above the forest.  Besides the obvious movement of the planet and forest as the scene changes, there's a HUGE tear at the top of the planet, presumably as "depan" tries to extend the top of the frame after having moved it  This particular problem might be fixable with better scene detection - is it an option?

"Close the blast doors!"
Puggo’s website | Rescuing Star Wars

Author
Time

Yes, I noticed some serious motion errors. There's probably a way to reduce the strength of the stabilization filter which could help.

With regards to the contrast, I used the auto levels option for that demo. Manual adjustment would probably give better results. That said, the lack of detail in dark areas is not down to the script's adjustments - the detail was simply not there in the first place.

Guidelines for post content and general behaviour: read announcement here

Max. allowable image sizes in signatures: reminder here

Author
Time

OK, now I have a very specific technical question regarding .m2v encoding.

I have been able to resize correctly to 16:9, and verified it against the 2004 disks.  However, there is one small point I need to make sure I'm doing correctly...

I am using TMPGEnc to encode to mpeg2.  One of the parameters is the output aspect ratio.  It allows me to select 4:3, 16:9, or 2:11...(can't remember the exact numbers on the third one - but that choice is irrelevant anyways because if I choose that, DVD-Lab claims it isn't compliant with encoding to DVD).  The question is, should I choose 4:3 or 16:9.  Now, before you tell me that I'm stupid for even asking, hear me out...

It doesn't seem to matter on both DVD players I've tried with my widescreen plasma TV.  In both cases, if I view it in 16:9 it properly stretches the image across the width of the screen.  And, in both cases, if I view it in 4:3, it produces the same gray side bars in both cases and uses the same provided letterbox.  I can't tell any difference whether I selected 4:3 or 16:9 during encoding to .m2v.  Also, to my consternation, BOTH versions fail to squish to the proper aspect ratio if I set the aspect ratio on the TV to 4:3 (i.e., it doesn't add additional letterbox in either case).

However, there is SOME difference in the resulting files, because the icons that are created in DVD-Lab when I open up the .m2v files are different - one icon has larger letterboxes than the other. My question is, what is the difference in the .m2v files?  Is it just meta information stored along with the video, that some applications use?  Is my television somehow compensating and the end result just looks the same on that particular set?  Is the difference significant, and should I care?  Is it normal for the 4:3 playback to still look unsquished (too tall)?  I thought that anamorphic DVDs were supposed to have correct aspect ratio regardless of playback at 4:3 or 16:9 (mine are only correct if I set my TV to 16:9).

I know this is a lot of questions, but I want to make sure and encode this thing correctly.

"Close the blast doors!"
Puggo’s website | Rescuing Star Wars

Author
Time
Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:

Also, to my consternation, BOTH versions fail to squish to the proper aspect ratio if I set the aspect ratio on the TV to 4:3 (i.e., it doesn't add additional letterbox in either case).

You need to set the aspect ratio on the DVD player to 4:3 to test this out.

However, there is SOME difference in the resulting files, because the icons that are created in DVD-Lab when I open up the .m2v files are different - one icon has larger letterboxes than the other. My question is, what is the difference in the .m2v files?  Is it just meta information stored along with the video, that some applications use? 

The only difference is the 16:9 flag. The actual encoded video is the same either way. (Unless the encoder is doing any resizing.)

 

 

Guidelines for post content and general behaviour: read announcement here

Max. allowable image sizes in signatures: reminder here

Author
Time
Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:

The question is, should I choose 4:3 or 16:9.

In TMPGEnc (I'm looking at an old version, so menus & tabs may not be exact to yours), in the MPEG setting window, the Video tab is for setting how the video is output. For anamorphic video (which you want to be automatically detected and resized either in a stand-alone or software DVD player) these are the correct settings:

"Size" = "720" x "480"
"Aspect ratio" = "16:9 Display"

NOTE: the "16:9 Display" value merely sets an internal flag in the video. It specifies that the video, while ACTUALLY in 4:3 aspect ratio (720x480), should be SHOWN in 16:9 aspect ratio.

It doesn't seem to matter on both DVD players I've tried with my widescreen plasma TV. ... I can't tell any difference whether I selected 4:3 or 16:9

Both your DVD player and your plasma TV have independent resizing functions. Sometimes when changing a size on one device, the other device produces an unexpected effect. Just remember that those device settings are in relation to one another, not necessarily to the video.

To further complicate the matter, the TV and (possibly) the player have up-convertion functions. If your player up-converts the DVD from 480 to 1080, the TV will display it as-is. If the player does not, the TV will up-convert to 1080 to fill it's screen.

Suffice it to say, just confirm that the DVD player is set for "wide" or "auto" and that the TV is set to "full" or "aspect" (whatever the actual language they use). Then it will display correct.

If you cannot get it right, post the various display settings available on both your player and TV, and we'll sort it out.

in DVD-Lab ... one icon has larger letterboxes than the other ...

Is it normal for the 4:3 playback to still look unsquished (too tall)?

Yes, that is normal. The program icon is trying to fairly represent the video picture. If the video has it's aspect ratio flag set to 4:3 (even on an anamorphic video that also has pre-made bars, like your video and the official Star Wars movies), it will show unchanged. If that video has it's aspect ratio flag set to 16:9, the icon will compensate for the anamorphic squeeze, which results in thicker bars but properly ratio'ed picture area.

I thought that anamorphic DVDs were supposed to have correct aspect ratio regardless of playback at 4:3 or 16:9

Arbitrary settings change the "display equation". Video-to-player-to-TV is a process and arbitrary changes along the way will skew the ultimate result.

I know it's a difficult concept to see. That's because each device affects the outcome. If you really want to "get" what's going on, play around with the device settings and see what happens on a commercial widescreen DVD (to eliminate your video creation settings from the equation). It will make sense after a while.

 

Author
Time

Ok, this is all very helpful.  Thank you so much for the detailed answers! Unfortunately, neither of the DVD players that I have tried have explicit settings for 4:3 vs 16:9.  I've got a couple of other players I can try, which I'll do tonight.

After having tried several filter options, it's looking more and more like I will be doing less and less.  The film is noisy and grainy enough that trying to really clean it up aggressively always seems to leave heavy artifacts or loss of detail.  I'll probably end up doing some color correction, a little bit of patching, maybe a very light temporal and spatial smoothing (as much to improve compression as anything else), and that's about it.  So far my attempts at spot removing, cleaning, sharpening, and even contrast adjustment(!) have all - in my opinion - made it look worse. I'm still playing with smoothing/cleaning filters and settings.  I don't want any artifacts.  Of course, if anyone else wants to try and work with the original captures and do their own cleaning, that is always possible because I'm keeping the raw frame captures too.

And, after playing with many sample clips, at the risk of enduring some agonizing cries, I'm going with the slightly curved borders.  In my opinion they look the best on a large screen, considering the degree of vertical cropping.  Actually I think they look cool, even a bit "retro".

"Close the blast doors!"
Puggo’s website | Rescuing Star Wars

Author
Time

This is a cool project. Cant wait to watch this old school looking vid and with mono for the first time

Author
Time

The vid you posted before with color correction has a green tint. You need to work a little more on CC than clean up I think.