Making our own 35mm preservation--my crazy proposal — Page 60

NeverarGreat said:

Just an idea that's probably been discussed elsewhere:

 

If you had two or more 35mm prints of a movie, both in poor condition (scratches, blurring), would it not be possible to scan both of them and merge the frames using an algorithm?

I'm thinking of something like the X0 project, so it would probably be time consuming in the extreme, but would this even be theoretically possible?

you might want to look into mike verta's project,

and also join his  starwarslegacy.com site.

==================================

http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/StarWarsLegacy-com-The-Official-Thread/topic/1418/

*edit great minds think alike.

- none, you need to check and respond to the

pm's, have some news for you

later

-1

NeverarGreat said:

Hi negative1, I'm a lurker who just had to make an account for this topic.

 

These tests are excellent, and there are many people who see and appreciate them without commenting.

 

Keep up the amazing work, and if you're going to be making your efforts available only to those expressing interest, sign me up! (Don't know how that system works)

 

In any case, thank you for saving Star Wars!

for anyone new, please check out the details in the star wars 35mm

thread:

================================================

http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/negative1-star-wars-1977-35mm-theatrical-version-release-details-and-updates/topic/14590/

later

-1

by the way,

did you guys notice any difference in the test clips

about the lack of cropping? those are full frame!

for more examples :

===================================

http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Cropping-the-Original-Trilogy-35mm-vs-dvd-gout/topic/13945/

oh, and since you're here, you might else well

check this out:

================================

http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/cleaning-up-dirty-frames-for-scenes/post/595213/#TopicPost595213

and answer the question...

i don't want you to become all disillusioned and defeated

like skyjedi2005, mike o, and generalfrevious who think

we are fighting a losing battle, and will never get anywhere

(well at least with an official restoration - why would you

want to trust lucasfilm with doing one anyways, when they

haven't been able to prove they can do it in the past???)

why does it have to be official to make people believe it?

anyways... back to our regular daily scheduled postings..

later

-1

jero32 said:

I never did mind a little cropping if the movie wasn't really meant to be shown fully anyway.

I compare it to nes games. Some games "counted" on there being overscan areas so they put garbage in the tiles on the sides, turns out that modern tvs DO display everything, and you get to see it all. It's quite distracting.

Super Mario Bros. 3 is an excellent example of this.

jero32 said:

AntcuFaalb said:

jero32 said:

I never did mind a little cropping if the movie wasn't really meant to be shown fully anyway.

I compare it to nes games. Some games "counted" on there being overscan areas so they put garbage in the tiles on the sides, turns out that modern tvs DO display everything, and you get to see it all. It's quite distracting.

Super Mario Bros. 3 is an excellent example of this.

Super mario 3 is actually something slightly different than garbage tiles. (I won't bother you with the technical details unless you really want them)
But they couldn't really prevent it in that case.

I've done quite a bit of NES programming, actually.

The SMB3 garbage tiles are probably the result of keeping the first (less than 4) name table columns blank, but storing non-zero attribute table entries to colorize the visible parts.

Edit: Using an MMC5 would be an expensive way to get around this.

jero32 said:

Heh, a fellow nes programmer. You go on nesdev.com? What's your nick?

Ok back on topic :P

PM sent :-D

snicker said:

Negative1, I've been thinking about your comments a while back regarding the limited dynamic range in your main print due to fading. If the red print has better dynamic range you could set up luma difference mattes for keying (one each for shadows and highlights) and have the red print luma replace the other print in instances where it has better information. That is, darker shadows and lighter highlights. This would eliminate the need for expanding the luma range in your main print which will introduce banding (gaps in your histogram). This approach is non-destructive but would require the black and white points and gamma to first be adjusted correctly in the red print.

thanks for the thoughts,

i'll pass it onto the team..

they've got a lot of good ideas,

so thanks to everyone for the suggestions.

if we do use it, we'll definitely be creditting

people for them..

later

-1

NeverarGreat said:

If you had two or more 35mm prints of a movie, both in poor condition (scratches, blurring), would it not be possible to scan both of them and merge the frames using an algorithm?

 Perhaps. But blending together a good condition print with a poor condition print doesn't sound like it would improve much =)

ww12345 said:

-1, I think this has been said before, but I'm pretty sure your project has decimated the GOUT.

Allegedly, the word "decimate" means "to reduce by one tenth".

They're trying to ruin the English language >:(

Asaki said:

NeverarGreat said:

If you had two or more 35mm prints of a movie, both in poor condition (scratches, blurring), would it not be possible to scan both of them and merge the frames using an algorithm?

 Perhaps. But blending together a good condition print with a poor condition print doesn't sound like it would improve much =)

i've seen amazing things done with software out there..

 

ww12345 said:

-1, I think this has been said before, but I'm pretty sure your project has decimated the GOUT.

Allegedly, the word "decimate" means "to reduce by one tenth".

They're trying to ruin the English language >:(

 

well historically it mean destroy 1 out of 10 soldiers..

i think decimalate would be good for 1/10th reduction.. ha ha

later

-1

Thanks for directing me to the Star Wars Legacy site, I had no idea that such a project was underway. 

Mike's position on distributing his restoration sounds like the knight from Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade:

"You have chosen wisely. But the Grail cannot pass beyond the Great Seal. That is the boundary and the price of immortality."

...at least as long as Lucas stands in the way.

NeverarGreat said:

...at least as long as Lucas stands in the way.

 Even if George himself said it was okay, there are many others who own the copyrights to the movie(s). If he ever released his preservation, his career would be in serious jeopardy.

Yeah, no.

Brooks said:

Asaki said:

NeverarGreat said:

...at least as long as Lucas stands in the way.

 Even if George himself said it was okay, there are many others who own the copyrights to the movie(s). If he ever released his preservation, his career would be in serious jeopardy.

Not to sound dumb, but who else owns the copyrights?  And why would his career be in jeapordy??

i would think 20th century fox.

anyways, you can't just go around dealing with copyrighted material

in this manner, and then releasing it when you're in the industry.

i'm sure he would be blacklisted and all sorts of legal repercussions.

since we're (mostly) anonymous in ours, we do have some risk.

but i'm willing to take it on. because this is too important an issue

for me..

most people have families, careers, and real life to worry about.

i don't have anything, or any of those to worry about..

i live in an empty vacuum. (with some air)..

so even if i get taken out, nobody else will get into trouble

i don't mind taking the hit.

besides, it's not like i have a martyr complex.

there's plenty of people on this board that

have taken grave risks to get material out,

and their own versions released, etc.

i just like finishing projects that i started. 

it's an OCD thing, i think.

later

-1

but i'm willing to take it on. because this is too important an issue

for me..

Thank you, -1. I think I speak for all of us when I say that we do appreciate it.