logo Sign In

team negative1 - star wars 1977 - 35mm theatrical version (Released) — Page 71

Author
Time
 (Edited)

As mentioned previously, the comparison goes through at least 3 consecutive compressions, thus causing the detail loss.

We'll post the standalone video shortly.

Team Negative1

Author
Time

Mmmm yeah. See before I was pretty sure the clean up was being done by hand but lately it seems as though it's shifted to using off the shelf automation and that's highly prone to weird artifacting like in that Dagobah clip a while back.

If the team has shrunk over time and the ability to do clean up frame by frame has been lost. I think it would be best to just upload high quality grindhouse-esque versions of the films and let the community work on the clean up as a whole. The more eyes that are on this the less likely errors would slip through.

But of course, that's just based on speculation. A lot of the sample clips have looked spectacular so hopefully it's all being put through a strenuous QA process.

Forum Moderator
Author
Time

team_negative1 said:

As mentioned previously, the comparison goes through at least 3 consecutive compressions, thus causing the detail loss.

We'll post the standalone video shortly.

Team Negative1

 Okay, I would have assumed that the compression would have affected both the before and after samples in much the same way, but I guess not.

Donations welcome: paypal.me/poit
bitcoin:13QDjXjt7w7BFiQc4Q7wpRGPtYKYchnm8x
Help get The Original Trilogy preserved!

Author
Time
 (Edited)

It seems to me that it's some kind of motion blurr or temporal denoising, unless it's the result of some kind of temporal compression, as not only is detail missing, but blurred detail has also been added. It's also not visible in other parts of the frame, which is odd. I guess Team Negative1 knows best, since they have access to the uncompressed source.

Author
Time

Tobar said:

I think it would be best to just upload high quality grindhouse-esque versions of the films and let the community work on the clean up as a whole.

That's not a good option, because it would either mean uploading/downloading terabytes of data or cleaning up a compressed material.

"Grindhouse" releases of the other two movies would be awesome though.

Fanrestore - Fan Restoration Forum: https://fanrestore.com

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Ok, we went back and rechecked the clip.

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

1) There was an issue with the first part of the clip, a layer of cleanup was left in obscuring some detail. This has been fixed.

2)  The comparison script, and method with all the compression is being changed.

This way, there won't be some many levels.

3) The clips are A/B checked against the orignals.

4) There is some light auto cleanup, but that's not what caused the problem.

5) This is just a first pass WIP, there is more checking going on, as these aren't final clips.

6) There will several people checking it before it goes final.

So in the end, we wouldn't worry too much about the comparison clips, there's some dropped frame going on to sync the scenes. Don't try to extrapolate too much from them.

We have at least 3 people working on that are experienced in it. These clips are just to show some of the progress being made.

I don't think we need to put all the disclaimers on every single video we post as being works in progress.

The only posted cleaned final clips, are the Intro, Crawl, and end credits.

Note, that some of the Orange marks accidentally got erased also.

Here's the fixed intro clip:

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

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/k4gXRsA4EstzO0beDWq

---------------------------------------------------------

If you want a better idea of what our cleaned clips look like, check out the 2 minute preview in the 8mm version, or from the links in the posts above. (Disregard the compression).

We'll post the completed clip shortly.

Team Negative1

Author
Time

team_negative1 said:

I don't think we need to put all the disclaimers on every single video we post as being works in progress.

 You don't. I don't think we all assume that the final is going to be blue and blurry. We know you're not going to release the final version until it looks right. But if you want feedback, the feedback is going to mention both the good and bad of those samples. Thanks for the continual updates, though. They are appreciated.

Author
Time

Great! But I think you went a bit too far, NeverarGreat

Author
Time

I think the colors are pretty spot on. I think the compression on the frame makes it looks like it needs more work, and the color correction reveals the compression artifacts, rather than create new artifacts.

Author
Time

I tried to get the hallway as close to neutral as possible, but perhaps it needs to go a bit warmer in the shadows: http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/128125

In any case, -1 will have much more control with the full quality scans, I just wanted to get a rough idea of what was possible. It looks like the reds are boosted around the edges of the frame somewhat, but other than that, it's in pretty good shape, all things considered.

You probably don’t recognize me because of the red arm.
Episode 9 Rewrite, The Starlight Project (Released!) and ANH Technicolor Project (Released!)

Author
Time

team_negative1 said:

For those that missed it, the 8mm Grindhouse version has a 2 and half minute preview of the LPP

Here's my GOUT-sync script for that LPP segment, whose first frame is GOUT 37662
# aviSynth

cSource= ffVideoSource(\
"team_negative1_presents_poitas_star_wars_super8mm_grindhouse_v1.mp4")\
.showFrameNumber(scroll=true)

c37662= trim(cSource, 37923, 38195)
c37935= trim(cSource, 38198, 38347)
c38086= trim(cSource, 38352, 38921) # FIXME
c38656= trim(cSource, 38921, 39703)
c39442= trim(cSource, 39706, 39910)
c39648= trim(cSource, 39911, 40098)
c39837= trim(cSource, 40099, 40158)
c39898= trim(cSource, 40159, 40254)
c39995= trim(cSource, 40255, 40368)
c40110= trim(cSource, 40369, 40588)
c40331= trim(cSource, 40589, 40613)
c40357= trim(cSource, 40614, 40654)
c40399= trim(cSource, 40655, 40756)
c40502= trim(cSource, 40757, 40813)
c40560= trim(cSource, 40814, 40830)
c40578= trim(cSource, 40831, 40841)
c40590= trim(cSource, 40842, 40859)
c40609= trim(cSource, 40860, 40875)
c40626= trim(cSource, 40876, 40897)
c40649= trim(cSource, 40898, 40913)
c40666= trim(cSource, 40914, 40925)
c40679= trim(cSource, 40926, 41006)
c40761= trim(cSource, 41007, 41176)
c40932= trim(cSource, 41177, 41260)
c41017= trim(cSource, 41261, 41354)
c41112= trim(cSource, 41355, 41375)
#41134

cSync = blankClip(cSource,37662)+ c37662\
+ c37935+ blankClip(cSource, 1)\
+ c38086+ c38656+ blankClip(cSource, 3)\
+ c39442+ blankClip(cSource, 1)\
+ c39648+ blankClip(cSource, 1)\
+ c39837+ blankClip(cSource, 1)\
+ c39898+ blankClip(cSource, 1)\
+ c39995+ blankClip(cSource, 1)\
+ c40110+ blankClip(cSource, 1)\
+ c40331+ blankClip(cSource, 1)\
+ c40357+ blankClip(cSource, 1)\
+ c40399+ blankClip(cSource, 1)\
+ c40502+ blankClip(cSource, 1)\
+ c40560+ blankClip(cSource, 1)\
+ c40578+ blankClip(cSource, 1)\
+ c40590+ blankClip(cSource, 1)\
+ c40609+ blankClip(cSource, 1)\
+ c40626+ blankClip(cSource, 1)\
+ c40649+ blankClip(cSource, 1)\
+ c40666+ blankClip(cSource, 1)\
+ c40679+ blankClip(cSource, 1)\
+ c40761+ blankClip(cSource, 1)\
+ c40932+ blankClip(cSource, 1)\
+ c41017+ blankClip(cSource, 1)\
+ c41112+ blankClip(cSource, 1)

return cSync#spline16Resize(640,360)
__END__


Looking at source frame numbers:
38196 and 38213 are the same frame
38197 and 38195 are the same frame
38351 and 38264 are the same frame

The last 22 shots of that sequence are each missing their respective last frames.

I'm voting "no confidence" in that team's editor.

-later

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

Author
Time

towne32 said:

You don't. I don't think we all assume that the final is going to be blue and blurry. We know you're not going to release the final version until it looks right.

You'd be surprised how many newbies come here to complain about issues that get explained on every other page.

This signature uses Markdown syntax, which makes it easy to add formatting like italics, bold, and lists:

Author
Time

The preview is just that, a preview. We've never cared about GOUT compatibility, but duplicate frames won't be an issue either in the final version.

People on the blog will be the first to check things out and give feedback when the time comes.

Team Negative1

Author
Time

I have a two part question.

1) How do you sign your name in each post - do you type it out each time, do you copy/paste, or do you have some advanced algorithm developed?

2) Why doesn't your signature match your username?

I'll hang up and listen to your answers.

Author
Time

Text2speech saying "control plus v" to paste it (saves a syllable).

Author
Time

TV's Frink said:

I have a two part question.

1) How do you sign your name in each post - do you type it out each time, do you copy/paste, or do you have some advanced algorithm developed?

2) Why doesn't your signature match your username?

I'll hang up and listen to your answers.

 You listen to sports radio, do you? Yuck-a-roo...

Author
Time

I have a question, if you were to compare the 35 mm preservation to the 2011 bluray how would you rank it in terms of detail on a scale from 0-100 (the bluray being 100)?

Author
Time

Looks awesome! Colors are, of course, a bit off, but the print looks really cleaned up. Does this mean you're almost finished?

What’s the internal temperature of a TaunTaun? Luke warm.