- Time
- Post link
.: The X0 Project Discussion Thread :. (* unfinished project *) — Page 14
This topic has been locked by a moderator.
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: Patrick R.
dot crawl
dot crawl
I've read that a few times. What is dot crawl?
- Time
- Post link
- Time
- Post link
and i totally agree...i cant wait till the releases based off this project come out...they are gonna be simply amazing.
-Darth Simon
"Anakin, You're father I am" - Yoda
"No. No. That's not true! That's impossible!" - Anakin
0100111001101001011011100110101001100001
*touchy people disclaimer*
some or all of the above comments are partially exaggerated to convey a point, none of the comments are meant as personal attacks on anyone mentioned or reference in the above post
- Time
- Post link
. How terrible it is. I don't have the capture files anymore since they took up so much hard drive space. The other weaknesses of my old project besides the quality is that I split each film up onto two DVD's and there are no extras like the commentary. I put all of the DC extras onto a separate DVD. That is why I'm going to redo the whole thing. I will still put all of the extras minus the commentary on its own DVD. I will have to learn how to put the commentary track on the movie discs like Dr. Gonzo did.Dot crawl is little dots that are visible in the picture. They really stand out in the reds. If you look at this
link , you can see an example. Look closely at the planet in the top picture and you can see the dots all through it. It is caused by the comb filter in my Pioneer CLD-703 not being as good as the one in my ADVC-100 capture device. When I did some test captures using composite, there was no dot crawl.
Patrick
- Time
- Post link
<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: Sadly, I believe the prequels are beyond repair.
<span class=“Bold”>JediRandy: They’re certainly beyond any repair you’re capable of making.</span></span>
<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: You aren’t one of us.
<span class=“Bold”>Go-Mer-Tonic: I can’t say I find that very disappointing.</span></span>
<span class=“Italics”>JediRandy: I won’t suck as much as a fan edit.</span>
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: THX
"c0rrection"
"c0rrection"
Missed 0ne!
I can't believe THX did that all by hand. I'd have used search and replace. Perhaps instead I'd just have typed things that didn't have any 'o's (like I did here).
- Time
- Post link
Also is there a reason this one has no DVD comparison?
Dr. M
- Time
- Post link
- Time
- Post link
As far as framing goes, the final images will have all the information that is on the laserdisc, some of the images on our site or captures shown here will vary greatly in framing, zoom level and so on.
This is because I am at this stage literally doing a braindump of experiments as I go along, these aren't final images by any stretch of the imagination.
Sometimes you might just get a small part of an image if that is what I am working on at the time.
That is also why the images are from Jedi this week, it is what happens to be on my drive at the moment. (I only have room for one film at a time).
So you will see square pictures, 16:9 pictures, chunks of pictures, full frame pictures and all sorts of things along the way. There is no official DVD compare shots from me, except in the tutorials for the purpose of education - someone else threw up the dvd image last time. (I don't have the NTSC DVDs, only the Australian PAL set.)
On the subject of missing information one thing to keep in mind is if you are watching DVDs on a TV, (unless you have adjusted you set to show a full frame) you will only be seeing the "safe frame" area, and will be missing a large amount of picture off the left and right of the screen.
At one stage I considered the idea of moving the entire picture into the safe frame of the screen, but the loss in resolution makes it an unpalatable option.
As for anamorphic, I am defiantely going to do some animorphic tests once the archiving of the letterboxed laserdiscs is bedded down.
I understand that sometimes it is better to have resized the source to animorphic as well as is possible - as some displays mess up a letterbox source.
- Time
- Post link
What’s the internal temperature of a TaunTaun? Luke warm.
- Time
- Post link
To be perfectly bluntly honest, I think all you people who think letterbox-only (i.e. no resizing) is the way to go are on crack.
I still fail to understand how you can not see that having more of the frame available for the picture, and filling that up with carefully-crafted information derived from the raw data by someone looking at each scene and tweaking accordingly is preferable to having your TV scale it up like it scales everything else. I spend quite a lot of time on Doom9, where people are scaling up DVD to HD resolutions, and there is no question whatsoever that the end result is preferable to letting either your DVD player or your TV do the scaling. And these are people who capture anything and everything and convert to and from every format under the sun. There are guys there who know more about video than most of us will ever hope to know -- the sorts of hardcore video-processing nerds who can likely rattle off the mathematical relationship between YUY2 and RGB without consulting any references. I tell ya: if those guys figure upsampling in less-than-realtime beats the hell out of letting the player/TV do it, then I figure there's not much point in arguing.
Besides, pretty soon every DVD is going to be anamorphic (about 99% already are) -- so why would you want some oddball that isn't??
- Time
- Post link
What I meant by "resizing" was taking the image and making it smaller so it fits inside these "safezones" which is a really bad thing to do since not only do you lose resolution but it leaves this annoying black square around your image.
Anamorphic...letterbox...I'm personally not taking sides on this debate which has been talked about way too much as it is on this forum site already.
What’s the internal temperature of a TaunTaun? Luke warm.
- Time
- Post link
But on the anamorphic side of things, I have to say...
Harsh but true Karyudo!
The point most people miss when discussing anamorphic vs letterbox is this.
If you have a widescreen TV or HDTV then your TV or DVD player has to try and zoom and rescale the letterbox image *in real time* using its internal electronics.
This leaves you at the mercy of whatever quick and dirty resizing algorithm your particular brand of TV/player uses.
The idea of us taking a letterboxed original and scaling it up to anamorphic is that we can do it using much better (and much slower) algorithms than your widescreen TV does. We don't need it to be realtime, so we can use the best processes available to do the scaling, even if they take an ice age to render.
There is no extra 'real' information in the resultant anamorphic transfer of course, but it will look a hell of a lot better on a widescreen TV, as it is no longer doing the zoom/upscale process with its 'on the fly' inbuilt scaler.
Obviously if you have a standard definition 4:3 display (i.e. an old telly) then a straight letterbox transfer is going to be the optimal solution for you.
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: Mavimao
What I meant by "resizing" was taking the image and making it smaller so it fits inside these "safezones" which is a really bad thing to do since not only do you lose resolution but it leaves this annoying black square around your image.
What I meant by "resizing" was taking the image and making it smaller so it fits inside these "safezones" which is a really bad thing to do since not only do you lose resolution but it leaves this annoying black square around your image.
So what you're saying is that you're not looking at the same posts as I am! Well, at least not the same meaning of "resizing" in those posts.
I totally agree that fitting the material into the "title safe" or "action safe" zones isn't the way to go. That problem of overscan/cropping is really only a factor on conventional CRT sets, isn't it? So the direction everything's heading (be it LCD, DLP, LCoS, plasma, etc.) should eventually obviate having to mess with the source in order to 'fake out' the display device.
As a bit of an aside, I went into my cheapo 27" TV's setup menu, and was able to get it to do the anamorphic squeeze trick. Sweet... However, apparently my model won't allow horizontal resizing the way it allows vertical resizing. Bummer. That means I'm still looking at a picture missing several percent of the left and right sides of the picture, due to overscan.
When I buy a projector, though, I'm anticipating none of this will be a problem...
- Time
- Post link
- Time
- Post link
- Time
- Post link
But, the DVD is obviously red-pushed to a drastic extent.
Wow very much so...thats quite a sunburn Leia has developed for the '04 release.
Thanks for putting the '04 capture up though...keeps things in perspective; like sunburn.
<a href="http://www.bynkii.com/archives/2005/05/i_hates_lucas_i.html" title="www.bynkii.com/archives/2005/05/i_hates_lucas_i.html" target="_blank">.Truth.</a><br /><br />"Mmm....starcruiser crash!"
- Time
- Post link
But this is just the capture, no tweaking as yet, and while the DVD is way too saturated and way to red, the raw X0 capture will benefit from a colour grade, as it is off towards green on the original laserdisc. We can't put detail in that just isn't on the laserdisc, but we can get it looking better than the original laserdisc.
For example a quick sharpen, and a slight move away from green gives you a totally different feel to the picture:
Now it is over sharpened, and the colour is way off to the red end, a simple push in another direction and it will look completely different again, so you see what I mean - the raw capture is no indication of what the final result may be like.
I will have to take a look at the original film in this case to see where the colour really should be, and how sharp the image should be, as there are no obvious neutral points in the scene.
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: Hurin
Okay. Just like the last test shot, I've gone ahead and added the DVD frame for comparison's sake. Sadly, I don't think this one goes as well for the X0 as the last one. This one gives a larger edge to the DVD version than the last one where clarity is concerned. But, the DVD is obviously red-pushed to a drastic extent. [/IMG]
Okay. Just like the last test shot, I've gone ahead and added the DVD frame for comparison's sake. Sadly, I don't think this one goes as well for the X0 as the last one. This one gives a larger edge to the DVD version than the last one where clarity is concerned. But, the DVD is obviously red-pushed to a drastic extent. [/IMG]
Leia's hair (ponytail) looks more detailed in the laserdisc version.
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: MeBeJedi
I'll have to compare the Faces and Def. Col. versions, as I have both LD sets.
I'll have to compare the Faces and Def. Col. versions, as I have both LD sets.
MeBe,
That would be great as it may take me a while to dig out my VHS and capture the scene.
I am curious about which one is better because I've heard both.
A friend of mine used both sources for their project. They liked the DC better for picture quality, but the Faces set better for IVTC. What they did was use the DC for most of the project and the Faces for the side breaks because the IVTC got messed up on side breaks. Here is what he says, "The problem occurs when the segue between the shots (in telecined video) have BLENDED fields, that is, when there is a frame which is composed of 1/2 field of previous shot and 1/2 field of next shot.
A specific example from ESB is where the shot changes from the Imperial officer aboard the Imperial Stardestroyer Avenger saying, "Alert all commands. Deploy the fleet." Then he walks away. The shot - and the laserdisc side - ends at that point. The next shot - the beginning of the next laserdisc side - is where you see the Falcon attached to the Stardestroyer. Well, in the "uninterrupted" version of the video, which I captured from the CLV discs, the segue between those two shots were actually interlaced together in the telecined video (30fps). Since it was interrupted in the CAV version (because of disc change), they dropped the blended field for the CAV release. Thus 1 frame is lost, and is unrecoverable. This is where IVTC won't be 100% perfect for this conversion of ESB."
This link I found says this, "...yes, the CAV boxed set (NOT the SE boxed set) is the best way to go. I have it and it smears less than the CLD Face LD's."
This link says this, "The Star Wars Definitive Collection CAV laserdiscs look noticeably better than the "faces" CLV set, with superior clarity and less smearing..."
This link says this, "When Image originally released the CLV THX 'faces' versions, they were pressed at Pioneer. A subsequent pressing was done in Japan at Kurari. These are signified with a 'K' prior to the item number on the inner ring of the discs just outside the label. These pressings had a much cleaner transfer than the Pioneer versions." That may be the reason there is a debate about which looks better.
I still may buy the Faces LD's regardless of which one looks better when I get the money because I want smooth IVTC.
Patrick
- Time
- Post link
Smearing is one thing, and can be fixed to some extent, but if you really want as much detail as possible, then the Faces set, at least in this particular example, looks to be the better choice.
<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: Sadly, I believe the prequels are beyond repair.
<span class=“Bold”>JediRandy: They’re certainly beyond any repair you’re capable of making.</span></span>
<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: You aren’t one of us.
<span class=“Bold”>Go-Mer-Tonic: I can’t say I find that very disappointing.</span></span>
<span class=“Italics”>JediRandy: I won’t suck as much as a fan edit.</span>
- Time
- Post link
So, to make the blanket claim that the DC is better than Faces because of smearing may be more a result of the player being used for the comparison than the actual quality of the transfer.
(For the record, I don't see any smearing on either Faces or the DC with my 925.)
- Time
- Post link
Keep the screenshots coming guys! 
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: MeBeJedi
Agreed. One thing we ran across was that a few scenes, such as Luke with the lightsaber in Ben's hut, had a badly split lightsaber - and this was after IVTCing. This was in the Def. Col. as well as the Japanese faces set. This same scene was intact in the US Faces set. One can only imagine how many other frames are like this in the Def. Col., but having gone through ANH frame by frame, I can tell you that the Faces set doesn't suffer this problem..
Agreed. One thing we ran across was that a few scenes, such as Luke with the lightsaber in Ben's hut, had a badly split lightsaber - and this was after IVTCing. This was in the Def. Col. as well as the Japanese faces set. This same scene was intact in the US Faces set. One can only imagine how many other frames are like this in the Def. Col., but having gone through ANH frame by frame, I can tell you that the Faces set doesn't suffer this problem..
Actually, the split saber flaw was fixed in a later pressing of the US DC set (I have it). I don't recall this happening anywhere else on the discs. At one time I had both the DC set and faces set. I bought the DC just for the extras, but quicky found it to be of much better quality (no smearing) on my player. However, my DC set was the very early pressing with all the flaws (missing 7 seconds, split saber, ship ghosting, misspelled subs), so I sold it and hunted for a late pressing with these all fixed. I also sold my faces set as I was 100% happier with the DC set. This is on my player, though, Which smears pretty noticably with CLV discs and not at all with CAV discs.