logo Sign In

Star Wars GOUT in HD using super resolution algorithm (* unfinished project *) — Page 49

Author
Time

No the clip is not accurate. There are several color shifts in the clip, but most of the color is intact, and in several ways it is much closer to the Tech IB, than for example the GOUT or bluray.

Author
Time

Its important to understand the difference between what a theatrical print would have looked like, versus what it looked like in real life.

Theatrical prints of the era were not true to real life colors and contrast. IE, the overblown whites, crushed blacks, and the 'warm' color palette. A good example of this is the Bu Ray set of The Godfather trilogy. The Blu Ray set was deliberately made to look exactly like the theatrical prints.

So, the color correction here is accurate to the theatrical look, but not to real life.

Author
Time

Looks awesome - How's it going with the '40 something day render' of SW?  I may have been out of the loop on the progress, if that ever was 'released' or if it was scrapped for a new version.  Are you doing the other OT films next? Thanks Dr.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Most of the issues are due to oversaturation, here what it looks like if you reduce the saturation in some of the color channels. It's very consistent with the Tech IB:

Author
Time

So you did mean it, no irony anywhere?

A video of a video as a proof of the right colors? Come on, that is absurd.

By the way, I personally didn't criticize the color balance, in fact, I said the TechniColor IB's colors could be used, BUT with reduced contrast, else it wouldn't look good on TV screen.

Author
Time

zee944 said:

So you did mean it, no irony anywhere?

A video of a video as a proof of the right colors? Come on, that is absurd.

By the way, I personally didn't criticize the color balance, in fact, I said the TechniColor IB's colors could be used, BUT with reduced contrast, else it wouldn't look good on TV screen.

 I wasn't referring to you ;-). 

Author
Time

That why I wrote 'personally'.

Author
Time

zee944 said:

That why I wrote 'personally'.

 Maybe I was a little naive in thinking I could convince anyone with that picture. 

Author
Time

I believe the reason people liked the mix of GOUT and TechniColor more instead of the pure TechniColor was also more about the heavy contrast, and not the color balance itself.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

zee944 said:

So you did mean it, no irony anywhere?

A video of a video as a proof of the right colors? Come on, that is absurd.

By the way, I personally didn't criticize the color balance, in fact, I said the TechniColor IB's colors could be used, BUT with reduced contrast, else it wouldn't look good on TV screen.

Despecialized 2.5 of Star Wars was based on the Tech IB colors, that looked excellent on my screen.

Author
Time

Kingherb said:

zee944 said:

So you did mean it, no irony anywhere?

A video of a video as a proof of the right colors? Come on, that is absurd.

By the way, I personally didn't criticize the color balance, in fact, I said the TechniColor IB's colors could be used, BUT with reduced contrast, else it wouldn't look good on TV screen.

Despecialized 2.5 of Star Wars was based on the Tech IB colors, that looked excellent on my screen.

 He based his colors on the IB color. But obviously he did it manually and used some judgement about how it looked on a monitor. His palette was based on Mike's scan, but the levels, brightness, and contrast were adjusted (shot by shot, I'm sure). 

Author
Time

Kingherb said:

Despecialized 2.5 of Star Wars was based on the Tech IB colors, that looked excellent on my screen.

I can't decide whether you're arguing or agreeing with me.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

My understanding is that Technicolor prints require a bright-ass bulb to prevent them from looking really murky, and this is part of why they've been historically more difficult to scan than other prints.  Blown out whites and murky blacks are likely just part of their distinctive look.  They don't look like other film prints, they don't look like the prints the DP's look at to approve the timing, heck, they don't even necessarily look like other Technicolor prints--their primary value is that, over time, their color doesn't hardly fade at all, compared to the other crap filmstock used in the seventies and early eighties, so in many cases, they're the best we've got.

Project Threepio (Star Wars OOT subtitles)

Author
Time
 (Edited)

zee944 said:

Kingherb said:

Despecialized 2.5 of Star Wars was based on the Tech IB colors, that looked excellent on my screen.

I can't decide whether you're arguing or agreeing with me.

I was just trying to say i like the Tech IB colors and how they looked in despecialized, i do not know if Harmy had the same refrences as used for shots here but he did a good job in any case. 

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Kingherb said:

zee944 said:

Kingherb said:

Despecialized 2.5 of Star Wars was based on the Tech IB colors, that looked excellent on my screen.

I can't decide whether you're arguing or agreeing with me.

I was just trying to say i like the Tech IB colors and how they looked in despecialized, i do not know if Harmy had the same refrences as used for shots here but he did a good job in any case. 

 So I think the answer is 'agreeing' more or less. The first claim (and I think one that most of us are on board with in the last few posts) is that while the color of the print is good, the contrast and brightness aren't necessarily usable as-is. And the color is exactly what Harmy mimicked in 2.5. This, along with Harmy's judgement on the contrast, is what you've said you like. But the latter doesn't really represent the print.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

To give you an idea here's a comparison for frame 8228 between the bluray, Harmy's Despecialized Edition 2.5, and the bluray matched to the Technicolor IB print scans I have.

Moved to the color matching thread...

Author
Time

My opinion:

1. Tech IB print has colors that differ from the prints on opening day. They are all there, with little fading, but that doesn't mean they are the same as what was show at most theaters.

2. The scan that Harmy worked from had colors that didn't quite match the Tech IB.

3. Harmy merely approximated the colors of the scans he had. Sometimes to varying degrees of success.

So, that's 3 levels of wrong.

I think you're better off looking at something like the JSC, but again, that was fucked with as well.

Anyone looking to get the "correct" colors is on a fools errand. They no longer exist. There is no reference that I know of that is representative of them. Their fire has gone out of the universe. :)

-G

Author
Time
 (Edited)

I don't want to be impolite, but aren't we getting off topic and this should rather go in the dedicated thread as previously mentioned? Although its name has changed, I think this fits better than here.

There might also be more people who can bring in their opinion.

Darth Id on ‘Why “Ben”?’:

And while we’re at it, we need to figure out why they kept calling Mark Hamill’s character “Luke Skywalker,” since it’s my subjective opinion that his name is actually Schnarzle Shnuzzle.  It just doesn’t make sense!

Damn you George Lucas for never explaining why they all keep calling Schnarzle “Luke”!

Damn You!!!

Author
Time

Intruder said:

I don't want to be impolite, but aren't we getting off topic and this should rather go in the dedicated thread as previously mentioned? Although its name has changed, I think this fits better than here.

There might also be more people who can bring in their opinion.

 Agreed

Author
Time

Looks awesome! But, can we get a couple screenshot comparisons of V11 and V15? Would help to determine how much of an improvement it is.

Thanks!