Star Wars on Super8 (Released) — Page 14

It's easy to miss something on a project like this.  If people are posting scripts and saying that frames are messed up it isn't like we are trying to put you down, we just want to help.

poita said:

RU.08 said:

Poita, how's the 35mm version going?

Half Res: (3984x1791)

http://i.imgur.com/WCqVvw8.jpg

 Wait. ~4K is only half res? :O

Feallan said:

poita said:

RU.08 said:

Poita, how's the 35mm version going?

Half Res: (3984x1791)

http://i.imgur.com/WCqVvw8.jpg

 Wait. ~4K is only half res? :O

 He's probably scanning the reels in 10K indeed. Then 4K would be used for the master and finally, 2K/1080p for the release.

Feallan said:

Wait. ~4K is only half res? :O

4K is full res, I think what he means is that the vertical resolution has been roughly halved because the 35mm frame is anamorphic. The frame provided was at 3984x1791, full res would be the flat scan whatever it is - 3984x3350 or something like that.

Feallan said:

poita said:

RU.08 said:

Poita, how's the 35mm version going?

Half Res: (3984x1791)

http://i.imgur.com/WCqVvw8.jpg

 Wait. ~4K is only half res? :O

 Yes, it is half the resolution that the raw scans are in.

From the guy who loves to post "random" scripts
here's my not-so-random script-of-the-day:

# aviSynth

cX0= aviSource("X0.Project.DC.Capture.Timecode.Print.divx.avi")

cSync=\
trim(cX0, 00096, 70728)\
+trim(cX0, 70728, 81701)\
+trim(cX0, 81703,144148)\
+trim(cX0,144150, 00000)

return cSync.trim(4083,-1)
__END__

Um OK. I just typed in http://x0project.com. reminds me of all the defunct websites you see advertised in 00's TV shows lol!

Man, I remember when we used to think the X0 Project looked super awesome... @_@

Time flies.

RU.08 said:

Feallan said:

Wait. ~4K is only half res? :O

4K is full res, I think what he means is that the vertical resolution has been roughly halved because the 35mm frame is anamorphic. The frame provided was at 3984x1791, full res would be the flat scan whatever it is - 3984x3350 or something like that.

 If you want to see a full resolution file, then here is a (compressed) example.

http://i.imgur.com/S7xD0aa.jpg

happycube said:

Anyone got uncompressed X0 screenshots so I can some comparisons against my stuff? Thanks!

Looks good.

It looks a little noisy, and the LD Decode shot looks a lot more alias-y on threepio's hand for example.

Probably should start a new thread for discussion though.

DrDre said:

Hey funny, I was just looking at that screenshot for my project:

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/128709

It looks like the laserdiscs have far less of a problem with haloing artifacts than the GOUT, albeit with a significant drop in detail. I really think there could be a best of both worlds project in here somewhere.

What is fun though is to overlay the X0/Laserdisc shot over the film scan, both of them at full resolution.

i.e. pixels in each being the same size.

age said:

probably the raw give much better results

I can hook you up with the raw if you send me either a 1TB HDD or the money for a WD10EZEX and your address.

poita said:

 If you want to see a full resolution file, then here is a (compressed) example.

http://i.imgur.com/S7xD0aa.jpg

Looks amazing, thank you. :)

poita said:

What is fun though is to overlay the X0/Laserdisc shot over the film scan, both of them at full resolution.

i.e. pixels in each being the same size.

That's the size of the scan though not the size of the detail. To determine the detail in your full 4k picture you resize it down and then back up and look for detail loss, right? Eg resize to 2k and back to 4k and see if any detail was lost. You could do the same thing to the X0 - it may have less detail than 480p(/480i since it's a T/C).

But great work on the scans (the 35mm anyway, the 8mm had issues as you mentioned) - you'd clearly give MikeV a run for his money with that shot! *(not that it's a competition of course). Out of question though how many prints have you scanned for SW?

There is a definite drop in detail from 4K to 2K, quite a lot actually. Even going from full aperture 4K to DCI 4K native loses some detail.

There is still extra detail being resolved at 10K vs 4K, but not really enough to justify a full 10K scan, it is mainly just defining the grain better.

As it is scanning is being done at double the 'standard' 4K, over 14 Megapixels per frame, and with a huge dynamic range, so we really should be getting all the detail that is likely to be extracted from the prints.
This also allows things like stabilisation to be applied without the sub-pixel smearing that you would get if scanning at the lower 4096x2160 resolution, (or the much much lower 2K resolution)

It certainly isn't a competition, a lot of sharing of materials, knowledge and techniques goes on behind the scenes that people don't see here. Mike V, Harmy, Adywan, myself etc. all help each other out and none of us work completely in isolation. Work done by anyone benefits pretty much everyone.