Harmy's STAR WARS Despecialized Edition HD - V2.7 - MKV (Released) — Page 81

Atlantis said:

No professional restoration job would actually add elements such as dirt and hairs though, that's the opposite of preserving the best possible image.

Or shaky subtitles. I agree.

Ah, but shaky subtitles are not an element added by poor projection or accidents. They're inherent in making something with analog film and compositing. In fact, they fall into the same realm as matte-lines: Part of the original film.

Adding grain is a bit like dithering in audio... an image that is overly perfect might be made more visually pleasing by a tiny, even unnoticeable amount of noise.  It is possible that the grain is a sort of inherent dithering that makes film so pleasing on the eye.  That said, if grain still exists in the OT sources, its hard to believe that artificial grain would do anything but degrade the image slightly.

Fake hairs, dirt, and scratches rarely look real, and I'd avoid them.  Mouse droppings, however...

The fundamental issue, though, is not how aesthetically pleasing Person X finds it, it's the fact that by doing it the project would cease to be a preservation effort and become a complete fan edit.

He would not be restoring or recreating the original grain structure, he would be introducing an artificial effect purely on an aesthetic whim. The issue with wiping grain from film is not only the fact that you remove the visible grain structure (which when present contributes to the film-like projection appearance during playback) but also because you remove fine detail by wiping grain - there's no way around it. The detail that's absent due to DNR is gone forever. By introducing artificial grain he's exacerbating a pre-existing issue... he'll be further obscuring what fine detail remains by adding an additional layer of artificial noise. Not only that, it won't be a representation of the original grain structure, it'll be an arbitrary artificial after-effect.

It's best to work with what original grain structure still exists. Adding artificial grain wouldn't make the presentation more faithful (it would neither be the original grain structure nor would it restore the fine detail caused by scrubbing out some of the original grain,) it would make it worse overall. DNR is an issue with the BD release, but it's not as if the original grain structure has been entirely eliminated (like in the new Predator release for example.)

I am not a big fan of adding dirt, grain, hair. I would hope if you do decide to do that,  that you would make a version without it, IMO.

Just my 2 cents.

Troy

I think the fairest compromise would be adding a single pube. I've got one I can contribute, I've had my eye on it for a while.

It is breathtaking.

Wow, I never said I was gonna do it folks, just that I was considering it. It's just that seeing these 70mm scans I posted above (here) really makes me want it to see it look like that.

@Stinky: Yes, but that is only in the case of the original negative. Every single print derived from the original negative will have its own unique and random grain structure on top of the o-neg grain, and make no mistake, it's own dust and scratches too, so if you had a preservation made from a print or even an IP, it would have extra, totally random grain and some dust and scratches.

And here's a little sample - right is with, left is without:

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=GYHHN67T

On the subject of grain: if you truly want to add some artificial grain, make sure it looks convincing and is done well.  If you're not careful it will just look like bad sharpening filters were added to the film; it's something that used to be done in early DVD releases before DNR was so prevalent and frankly I find it edge enhancement in abundance almost as bad!

Harmy said:

Wow, I never said I was gonna do it folks, just that I was considering it. 

And that, exactly, is why I never consider doing anything.  It's also a lot easier.

I'm interested in seeing a side-by-side demo, but I have to admit I'm just as skeptical as the rest of the lynch mob.

Harmy said:

Wow, I never said I was gonna do it folks, just that I was considering it. It's just that seeing these 70mm scans I posted above really makes me want it to see it look like that.

@Stinky: Yes, but that is only in the case of the original negative. Every single print derived from the original negative will have its own unique and random grain structure on top of the o-neg grain, and make no mistake, it's own dust and scratches too, so if you had a preservation made from a print or even an IP, it would have extra, totally random grain and some dust and scratches.

 

But you're not scanning a print, the grain you're proposing would be entirely artificial and further obscure fine detail. You're adding artificial grain over a pre-existing home video release. You won't be recreating a legitimate/original grain structure. The grain would not be totally random originally - it would be part of the film composition itself (along with everything else in the frame.)

Likewise, by adding in dirt/scratches/dust you would not be recreating something genuine, you would be adding in something based solely on your aesthetic preference. Random dirt/scratches/and dust were not part of the original in any sense... they were defects specific to certain prints/reels/and poor projection setups.

Stinky-Dinkins said:

I think the fairest compromise would be adding a single pube. I've got one I can contribute, I've had my eye on it for a while.

 

It is breathtaking.

The grain, from what I can barely tell, seems nice. The dirt I could do without, but I wouldn't object either.

Well, seeing all the reactions, I guess I won't do it then ;-)

Too late, the pube is in the mail.

OK, I'm putting my foot down. The shake stays and that's final.

As to the grain and stuff, I think I'll just make an MKV "vintage" version with it.

Harmy said:

As to the grain and stuff, I think I'll just make an MKV "vintage" version with it.

I like this decision a lot. I may end up preferring it; who knows.

Harmy said:

And here's a little sample - right is with, left is without:

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=GYHHN67T

For what it's worth, that looks a lot better than I thought it would, and it wouldn't be a dealbreaker for me.  But I still prefer the no-grain version.

I would still want this sort of effect applied to the credits and other "rendered" grain-free content, though, to help it blend.

if asked i'd vote no to the grain/pubes/dust/mouse poop

the subtitle shake is ok with me either way

I tried to watch the video and all I got was sound. Its due to some fault of my computer.

So you are doing two version?  If so will there be some name on the end credit card saying which version it is?

I don't think so, because I'll first render a master and then add the effect to the whole file. But it should be clear which is which.