Star Wars GOUT in HD using super resolution algorithm (* unfinished project *) — Page 42

FrankT said:

Zyrother said:

dave88 said:

DrDre said:

A video sample for SRV13 is being processed. Should be finished by the beginning of next week. We can then do a proper comparison. The slow moving grain is much more apparent on my HD-TV than on my laptop. Also the static nature of the grain can't really be seen in a single screenshot. 

 Is this the same static grain that is so clearly seen on Teamblu's most recent effort? I assumed it was something they had added rather than something they brought out from the GOUT.

I found it quite distracting, it almost seemed like looking at the image through a lace material or something. I would rather watch their V3 release due to it.

 Technically, yes. When the Gout DVD was mastered, it of course, received all the defects of an analog source, IE, this top layer "grain". Since the mastering was so lazily done, this top layer "grain" is extremely noticeable because of the higher resolution of DVD compared to LaserDisc.

Super Resolution makes it even more apparent. :/

 Is there any feasible way to get rid of it?

 I guess if you absolutely slather it with DNR, it would probably go away. But then, of course, you are left with no detail whatsoever, and wax people. If you want to see the damage too much DNR does, check out the 2010 Blu Ray release of "Predator: Ultimate Hunter Edition". Thats what too much DNR looks like. >.<

Seems like the best thing would be to work around the "grain". Sharpening detail like what DrDre is already doing. But, we would need some high level, professional equipment to get industry standard results.

Lucasfilm really did all they could top make the Gout look patently terrible, while at the same time, making it just good enough to slow down the black market of the LaserDisc rips.

You could actually use the same LaserDisc source. Whoever at Lucasfilm did the transfer did not care, and did the most lazy, and pathetic transfer ever. 

There are a number of people in this community doing LaserDisc captures. Since these people actually care about Star Wars, and the quality it is presented in, the captured video and audio is very good quality.

Though, the best LaserDisc set of Star Wars that is generally agreed upon is the 1986 widescreen release from Japan. The trilogy set is categorized as Star Wars: Japan Special Collection or known shorthand as JSC. It has the best detail, and is free from DNR, and a host of other problems that plague the 1993 "Definitive Collection" or known shorthand as "DC", of which this Gout DVD is sourced from. Though the JSC does not have the best color palette. The "DC" has better color.

Sorry for the long winded answer. The short answer is, it takes special care and technique to get a very clean, and proper LaserDisc capture. Something that Lucasfilm in 2006, did not do. :/

FrankT said:

So overlaying another source on top as a difference matte or something wouldn't do much good?

 I cant imagine it would. But, i'm not well versed in that area. Someone else here might have a definitive answer. Sorry.

Harmy said:

Yeah, except they just used the DIGITAL masters which the LDs were sourced from, so short of intentionally introducing artifacts, they could hardly have added any that weren't present on the LDs as well.

 I remember when the Gout first came out, people were adamant that they added fake grain to make it look terrible. Which is completely absurd.

That would require too much effort on Lucasfilm :P

Which source would you like me to try this on?

Just to have something to do while the video sample is being processed, I decided to have a look at some color corrections. As far as I know most color corrections are done using a Technicolor IB print for Star Wars. 

In the -1 thread I posted frame 8228 from a print that I used as a reference for some preliminary tests I did using -1 reel 1 video sample:

http://www.thestarwarstrilogy.com/image.axd?picture=/2015/06/35mm-Frame-8228.png

The question arose about the correctness of this reference frame. Having looked around a bit on the web, I came across some photos of a screening of an Technicolor IB print a few years back of the same scene (amongst others):

http://fd.noneinc.com/savestarwarscom/savestarwars.com/images/senatorcorrected/technicolor2.jpg

Aside from some over exposure of this photo of frame 8228 of the Technicolor IB print, the colors closely match the reference frame I used for the color correction. 

The question is, whether it is possible to get the same frame for the upscaled GOUT to match the reference frame. The answer is pretty closely:

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/138206

When we compare the before/after frames, the difference is pretty stunning:

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/138207

Yikes. It's indeed an interesting task, but my question about the correctness of the frame is still in place even with another capture having been located.

The difference is indeed striking, but I can't say I like the look of this at all. Just a personal preference, of course. Perhaps when Mike Verta is done color correcting his IB print he will be willing to share low res images from a wide variety of shots? I don't know. 

I might be in the minority here, but I like the general color scheme of the GOUT. I think it rather looks best with only brightness, contrast, and saturation tweaks (on a scene and/or shot basis as required). And in fact, the preservation of the GOUT color, along with the 'purity' of using GOUT alone, is what has had me so interested in this upscaling project. Obviously, you haven't said that you are going to release a color corrected version, and you're sharing some interesting experiments.

Nonetheless, you've done a great job color matching the source you were using. I think, as you'll notice from your Jawa/Droid sale shot, that it will surely not be possible to simply apply settings across the film. As always with SW, it's either shot by shot or nothing.

This is indeed just experimenting. I will definitely go for the version with the GOUT colors first. However, I was always intrigued by that frame, because it somehow has a real seventies feel to it, and the colors really stand out, unlike the GOUT. 

I agree with towne32, the color palette of the Gout is very good. No, its not what the theatrical prints looked like, but, the goal of this upscale is not to mimic the theatrical look.

The only thing I think the Gout needs, besides the obvious detail enhancement, is some minor contrast and brightness correction. Black levels are quite poor.

Excellent work anyway! The matching of the frames is quite impressive.

That color correction looks good. Maybe a tad too much green though?

The blacks are crushed and the highlights are blown out.  The same look can be achieved without blowing out the details.  Just need to be careful with the curves.  The first 35mm frame has the blacks crushed also where the second one is not as bad.

What is stunning is that in some parts of the frame, super-resolution has more actual detail than the 35mm print (especially the non-color corrected version).

DrDre said:

When we compare the before/after frames, the difference is pretty stunning:

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/138207

The matching is good, but it is way too bright overall, and too heavy on contrast.

I very much doubt the accuracy of those TechniColor caps. Even if the print was fine, many, many thing can go wrong before it appears on your screen. Also, a lot depends on the projector bulb that was used for screening etc. It's a black hole.

I wouldn't change the overall brightness of the GOUT, maybe I'd give it a bit more contrast, and most definitely color correction.

Oke, I'm going to do this in three separate posts. 

The screencap I used as a reference does closely match the Technicolor IB print. Whether the print is accurate is a matter for debate. Interestingly, if you match the same frame for Harmy's Despecialized Edition to the reference the following result is obtained:

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/138301

The match is pretty much exact, and there is a surprising amount of detail visible, simply because the frame from Harmy's Despecialized Edition is in better shape than the reference frame. 

I created a color mapping model, such that I can transfer the color correction optimized to the reference frame to all the other frames. Just to clarify. These color corrections are based on a single frame, namely 8228. These are the results:

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/138303

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/138308

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/138310

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/138311

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/138312

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/138313

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/138314

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/138315

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/138316

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/138317

Sorry if I misunderstood. Is that just Harmy's color correction or have you done more on top of that?

It looks like his (namely, the green). As I think I said before, your recent corrections do look like Harmy's 2.5 a bit. But as Harmy has said, he did his corrections based on the misunderstanding that low res 35mm frames he (I believe) from Mike Verta were color matched to the print or color corrected when they were indeed (mostly?) raw scans. And I believe (again, I'm pretty sure but would hate to put words in his mouth) he said that if he knew that last time he would not have colored it the way he did. And indeed that if he revisits it that is something he will change.

No that's not Harmy's color correction. Here's Harmy versus the corrected Harmy (when I say corrected I mean to the reference frame):

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/138320

In Harmy's version the stormtroopers have a greenish color. In the corrected version they are white as snow. 

Interesting experimentation, as always. But this again goes to show you that color correcting the film based on one frame is impossible. While that Tantive shot looks *okay* (though not preferred by some of us), some of those others look downright bad. Though, it really does have that look of an old projected print.

You haven't made any claims to them looking good, so I hope that doesn't offend you. :) On that note, and as a general thing worth discussing *before* diving head over heels into color correction, how calibrated is your setup?