logo Sign In

Are the PAL GOUT DVDs upscaled from the NTSC masters? — Page 3

Author
Time
Post link
Think about what you are saying.

We went with the NTSC laserdiscs and the X0 only because the PAL laserdisc players are awful. They are very noisy and difficult to get a clean signal from - much like cheap NTSC laserdisc players.
There never was a PAL equivalent of the X0 laserdisc player. If there was I never would have considered the NTSC discs at all.

But with Lucasfilm we are talking master tapes so players etc. don't come into the equation.

As I said the fact that Moth3r's transfers look better in places than the GOUT even though via his (or any) transfer the PAL master tape has been effectively transferred to a laserdisc pressing master disc, then put to laserdisc, then put in a (relatively to the X0) crappy player, then captured on a consumer level cheap capture card, then recompressed to DVD and it *still* comes out better in places than the GOUT which hasn't been through those trials, that is proof that the PAL masters are better than the NTSC masters. Think about it for a minute or three.

Not to poo on Moth3r's transfer in any way at all, he did a great job and has my eternal respect, (and his transfer will have more detail in some scenes than the X0 transfer as well) but the generational losses mean that the PAL master would look considerably better than any 'straight' transfer to PAL via the route one has to take to do it from laserdisc.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Laserman
But with Lucasfilm we are talking master tapes so players etc. don't come into the equation. Howcome something similar may not come into the equation here?Originally posted by: Laserman
As I said the fact that Moth3r's transfers look better in places than the GOUT even though via his (or any) transfer the PAL master tape has been effectively transferred to a laserdisc pressing master disc, then put to laserdisc, then put in a (relatively to the X0) crappy player, then captured on a consumer level cheap capture card, then recompressed to DVD and it *still* comes out better in places than the GOUT which hasn't been through those trials, that is proof that the PAL masters are better than the NTSC masters. Think about it for a minute or three.
You really think so? I don't think his has the edge in quality in most of the screencaps, over the OUT DVD that is...
Some were not blessed with brains.
<blockquote>Originally posted by: BadAssKeith

You are passing up on a great opportunity to makes lots of money,
make Lucas lose a lot of his money
and make him look bad to the entire world
and you could be well known and liked

None of us here like Lucas or Lucasfilm.
I have death wishes on Lucas and Macullum.
we could all probably get 10s of thousands of dollars!
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: boris
Originally posted by: Laserman
But with Lucasfilm we are talking master tapes so players etc. don't come into the equation. How come something similar may not come into the equation here?

Uhh... the master tapes are digital.

You really think [Moth3r's transfers look better in places than the GOUT]?


Yup. Haven't you been following the thread where Arnie.d has posted some comparison screencaps? The PAL LD very clearly has more detail than the GOUT DVD in the scenes he's pointed out, no question.

The GOUT DVD should be substantially better than the NTSC or PAL laserdiscs. The fact that it's even a question worthy of debate shows just how half-assed the GOUT DVD really is. There might be a lot of Lucas apologists who are tickled pink to get this substandard release, but that's a little like saying having one hand chopped off is better than having both chopped off. It might be better, but it's a long, long way from being optimal.




Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Laserman
I've taken a look at the grain on the GOUT for ANH and it is consistent with the film stocks used, so I'd take a punt and say it was present on the master. Damn, I was relying on you to back mverta up on this one!

I really have no knowledge about identifying such things, but I can appreciate that DVDs contain more detail than laserdiscs. However, if you apply a low-pass filter to the DVD image to "soften" it and make it equivalent to the laserdisc (cut off at 5.5 MHz?) then there still seems to be more grain on the DVDs.

Originally posted by: Laserman
This is definately the case with the star destroyer (that the fields are misaligned - the cause of the misalignment is up for debate), and it can be fixed somewhat by selecting out each field and moving one field in relation to the other by a sub-pixel adjustment to get them back in alignment. I actually found your old post on this subject in the X0 thread, and I'm thinking it's probably quite an easy fix in AVISynth (upscaling, shifting then downscaling). Is the offset constant, or does it change?

However, I imagine the fix cannot be applied to the DVDs because the application of the vertical blur has complicated things.

Originally posted by: Laserman
The use of the post 'dirt reduction' master adds insult to injury with the ghosting, smearing and loss of detail.
Have you compared the DC with the PAL laserdiscs in this respect? Is it true that the artefacts are worse on the DC?

I didn't notice the effects on first watch of my ANH transfer, but since spotting it in TESB and reading some posts on here I now see it all the time (and immediatley noticed it on the DVD).

I put in my 1989 NTSC laserdisc last night (the one with the fixed "shrinking ratio") - I've had it a while and never viewed it - and it didn't look half bad! Got me wondering whether using a modern, motion-compensated noise reduction filter on this would produce a nicer looking transfer than the THX discs. Also seems to have more detail in dark areas, although this might be the result of a typical overbright video transfer.


Originally posted by: Laserman
So I haven't sighted the NTSC version yet, but the PAL version was obviously an upscale, and if you wanted to have a PAL anamorphic version for your own personal viewing pleasure it makes more sense to get the NTSC version ...
From the stills I've seen, the NTSC version is a touch sharper than the PAL (hardly noticeable, though). It also has black fringes down the sides, for some reason the PAL version doesn't.


Guidelines for post content and general behaviour: read announcement here

Max. allowable image sizes in signatures: reminder here

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Laserman
1) They have used the pressing master instead of the telecine master.

2) They have used the NTSC pressing master.

3) They have used the post 'noise/dirt reduction' master. Laserman, thanks for your insight on this. Do you have any knowledge that the pressing master was used, or is this intelligent speculation? I assumed that, because of the presence of DVNR, these must have come from a pressing master, and speculated in another thread about why they didn't use the telecine master (especially as it was D1, rather than D2). My best guess was that whoever makes the decisions didn't want to let go of the color correction that might have been done between tape stages. Someone else posted that they thought the DVNR was applied during telecine, which is possible, if dumb. Do you know anything about this?Originally posted by: Moth3r
I put in my 1989 NTSC laserdisc last night (the one with the fixed "shrinking ratio") - I've had it a while and never viewed it - and it didn't look half bad! Got me wondering whether using a modern, motion-compensated noise reduction filter on this would produce a nicer looking transfer than the THX discs. Also seems to have more detail in dark areas, although this might be the result of a typical overbright video transfer.
Laserman, again, given that these do not suffer from DVNR, and seem to have better color, especially in the Special Collection, what is your assessment of this possibility? Presumably you have seen the X0 capture of the SC?
Author
Time
Post link
This is from the 1996 (Lucasfilm) THX site.


The Making of a THX Laser Disc

The THX Laser Disc Program began in 1993 to improve the quality and consistency of laser discs. The motivating force behind the program was the fact that on a properly calibrated Home THX Audio System a tremendous amount of variation in the quality of laser discs was noticed.

Tom Holman, along with Principal Video Engineer Dave Schnuelle, began investigating all of the many steps in the laser disc mastering and manufacturing process. They developed monitoring techniques and quality assurance principles to solve the many problems they found along the way. One technology that was developed was the THX Video Test Signal. The patented THX Video Test Signal is inserted into a video signal's vertical interval (the space leftover between each video field). This allows a computer to continuously monitor the black level, white level, chroma level, chroma noise, phase, frequency response, etc. of the video signal. This ensures that no video signal degradation occurs during duplication.

Here is a brief description of all of the steps that go into making a THX laser disc. Remember that a THX Laser Disc does not use any special surround sound format. THX Laser Discs have soundtracks recorded in Mono, Stereo, Dolby Surround, and/or Dolby Digital.

The first step is to calibrate the video monitor and the audio playback system. THX engineers use a Photo Research Spectra-Radiometer to carefully calibrate the black level, white level, greyscale, and color balance of the video monitor being used in the transfer. The Spectra-Radiometer measures the wavelengths of the light coming from the video screen and can display the actual spectrum on a computer. This gives the engineer valuable information on color and greyscale as well as on the actual purity of the phosphors being used in the monitor. The purpose of this calibration is to ensure that decisions made by the filmmaker on the color of the transfer are done under correct and repeatable conditions. The Photo Research device is calibrated regularly to National Bureau of Standards specifications.

The second step is to calibrate the dubbing machines. The frequency response, phase, azimuth, and level of each channel (2 channels for Dolby Stereo transfers, 6 channels for Dolby Digital) are checked to ensure accurate playback of the soundtrack master tape.

Once the system is calibrated, THX engineers monitor the transfer and answer any technical questions that arise. The transfer of picture and sound are done at the same time to ensure correct synchronization. All decisions about content, colorimetry, etc. are made by the film company, and many times the director, producer, or cinematographer is present. THX engineers are present in an advisory capacity only. Much of the look of a movie transfer is the responsibility of the telecine artist and the studio advisor.

Upon completion of the transfer (usually to a D-1 digital video tape), THX Laser Disc engineers step in to begin supervising the duplication process. The D-1 master tape is digitally transferred to a digital D-2 video tape. At this stage, the patented THX Laser Disc test signal is inserted into the video vertical interval.

On a parallel path to the video transfer, the 2 channel analog print master is transferred to digital audio. If the laser disc contains a Dolby Digital soundtrack, Dolby engineers work along with THX engineers to transfer the 6 track print master and convert it into the 5.1 channel Dolby Digital serial bitstream. One more Digital D-2 video copy is made and it is at this stage the soundtrack is married to the video print. The FM analog tracks are copied, the digital 2 track Dolby Stereo soundtrack is copied, and (if used) the Dolby Digital bitstream is transferred as well.

It is from this final digital D-2 master tape that the laser disc master is made. Since a laser disc contains an analog video signal, the digital video of the D-2 master tape must be converted to analog at this point. Once the laser disc master is made, THX engineers inspect a sample from each stamper to ensure that the quality of the original transfer is maintained. A test disc must go through a computerized test process using the patented THX Video Test Signal. It must also go through a review by a THX Laser Disc QC technician. To ensure the highest quality possible, every transfer and sample disc is looked at and listened to. THX Laser Disc QC technicians have the power to reject entire pressings of laser discs, and they have used that power on occasion.

The goal of the THX Laser Disc Program is to ensure that the look and sound of a movie is preserved through the complicated picture and sound transfer processes. You may notice some picture and sound differences between THX Laser Disc titles, but those differences were decided upon by the movie makers themselves.

The technologies developed by the THX Laser Disc Program become increasingly important when you look at the future of home video. THX engineers are currently working with many digital video formats, including DVD, to ensure that the filmmaker's intentions are preserved for the future.



Although there's no mention of DVNR, it is my impression that the DVNR took place during the Telecine and it was controlled by Telecine artist (or colourist). The DVNR was probably used like any other adjustment i.e. like the settings for colour or black level. I believe the DVNR was an 'automatic' process that had only one setting for Luma and one for Chroma with a scale 0-10, and I would suspect it was set to handle the worst parts of the print and then probably not changed during the transfer, and that's why some (many) parts were clearly over-filtered.

Anyway IMO also the D1 Telecine master would be DVNR filtered and after the D1 there were no more video tweaks applied.

The printing master would be the final D2 tape. The lack of dotcrawl in the GOUT suggest a non-composite source like D1.

Author
Time
Post link
Moth3r, like I said, I'm taking a punt on the film grain issue, but to me it looks like oversharpening. It could have been added later, but it looks consistent with the laserdiscs, and I can't see why they would bother to grain it up to that extent on purpose. It seems like a lot of work for no obvious reason.
You can't really then soften away the grain as the sharpening process has caused the grain to be emphasised over the top of existing detail.

THX, I have no hard evidence that the pressing master was used, but it certainly looks like it. I have seen parts of a LD master tape that is higher quality than the GOUT, so unless they deliberatley dumbed it down then they have used the D2 pressing master. A good D2 master doesn't really suffer from dot crawl, and dot crawl is easily fixed where it does occur, I'd put money on the GOUT coming from D2. (but I don't know of course - could be wrong).

I'd be surprised if the DVNR was done during the telecine process, there is usually a rough grade done during the process, but I was sure I'd read that there was a separate more extensive colour correction done to Faces/DC release, which would point to a master existing other than the one used.

THX, as to why they would do this - who knows. Could be they wanted to keep the colour correction done, but I am getting a sneaky feeling it was more a case of the D2 masters were handy, and it was quick cheap and easy to do it this way. My more cynical thoughts are that it would ensure that the GOUT continued to look very inferior to the 2004 DVDs, helping to make people see the 2004 release as the 'best' and vindicating all of the usual arguments (that the 1977 release was really pretty awful and only the re-release and additions to the film have made it truly great).
The cheap, easy and not worried about high quality statement is probably just me feeling cynical, but the failure to be bothered to release a *real* PAL version (when a master is available) and not going anamorphic tends to make me feel that way. The money and time argument just doesn't wash, there have been some very crappy films get at least an anamorphic release.

Moth3r, yep you could try to fix the few horrible jaggy frames by doing that in AVISynth, the offset will be random, but it is usually only a frame or two in a given scene that has the problem.

Boris, if you can't extrapolate that because the PAL THX laserdiscs have a ton more detail (and raw lines of resolution) than the NTSC laserdiscs,(and that even a *capture and re-encode* of the PAL laserdisc outperforms the NTSC gout in some scenes) then that the PAL master would have more detail than the NTSC master, then nothing else I can say will change your mind.

No-one except Lucasfilm knows what they did on this release and why - we can all make informed guesses, but the end result is that the PAL release is an awful upscale with VBlur and that both the PAL and the NTSC version are letterboxed and full of sub-par DVNR and excessive grain, sharpening and halos.

To say it is disappointing is an understatement.



Author
Time
Post link
I guess this is the quote from George that put me in my current cynical frame of mind.

"It's just the original versions, as they were. We didn't do anything to it at all. But we're not sure how many people want that. Now we'll find out whether they really wanted the original or whether they wanted the improved versions. It'll all come out in the end."


Hmmm....





I guess I can see how truly horrible the OUT really was now by looking at these GOUT DVDs.

I've seen the error of my ways and have realised I really wanted the improved versions all along.
Author
Time
Post link
ahum, ....... may as well put in my tuppence worth, everyone else has.

OUT on DVD. for reference I bought the PAL region 4 Australian version.

neg's

grain (harder to clean on my computer, not impossible, just harder.)


positives.

its the original version.

now on my Sony Bravia LCD screen, the upscaler must be pretty good, because when I zoom the image, I don't get any crappy artifacting. its shameful that lucasfilm did not use a PAL master for a PAL region but considering I've only ever seen NTSC versions of the LD pressings on my TV, the jaggies don't distract too much because I expected them to be there.

sangnom will cure that when I make it anamorphic and sharpen it up a bit for myself.

5/10

could have been soooo much better but this might be the only chance to own OUT on DVD so it'll have to do.
When a woman says yes, she means no - when she says maybe, she means no.

http://www.auky37.dsl.pipex.com/falconlogo_web.jpg
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Karyudo
Uhh... the master tapes are digital. So what? Not all digital master tapes are equal.
Originally posted by: Laserman
Boris, if you can't extrapolate that because the PAL THX laserdiscs have a ton more detail (and raw lines of resolution) than the NTSC laserdiscs,(and that even a *capture and re-encode* of the PAL laserdisc outperforms the NTSC gout in some scenes) then that the PAL master would have more detail than the NTSC master, then nothing else I can say will change your mind.
There was obviously a reason they didn't use the PAL tapes. The reason could simply be that they couldn't be bothered to use them... but then the difference in cost and effort would be minimal at best if this was the situation. Remember, they both have to be encoded anyway... I would be surprised if the PAL master tape looked as good as the NTSC one. It may well have had more detail - but I'll bet a dollar it had more flaws. They didn't care about PAL in 1993, and if they went to the effort in 1993 to make a PAL master tape rather then do a PAL-to-NTSC conversion like every other video release, then I have a hard time getting my head around the idea that they wouldn't do this in 2006 if it would have been better.

You can believe that the PAL master tape is much better quality if you like. Either way is speculation, we don't know for certain. Just because it has a tad more detail doesn't prove your argument, and there's certainly not enough evidence to prove otherwise. I don't believe that the PAL tape was inferior. I don't know, I don't pretend to know and I am happy to believe that it's possible the PAL tape was inferior... and it's possible it wasn't.Originally posted by: Moth3r
However, if you apply a low-pass filter to the DVD image to "soften" it and make it equivalent to the laserdisc (cut off at 5.5 MHz?) then there still seems to be more grain on the DVDs.
I really don't think you can compare that blur. The Laserdisc blur would be true "un-focus", and technically not a blur.
Some were not blessed with brains.
<blockquote>Originally posted by: BadAssKeith

You are passing up on a great opportunity to makes lots of money,
make Lucas lose a lot of his money
and make him look bad to the entire world
and you could be well known and liked

None of us here like Lucas or Lucasfilm.
I have death wishes on Lucas and Macullum.
we could all probably get 10s of thousands of dollars!
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: boris
Originally posted by: Karyudo
Uhh... the master tapes are digital. So what? Not all digital master tapes are equal.


That's not the point. Your original argument was to wonder why Laserman wouldn't take quality of equipment into consideration when talking about masters (like he did with LDs). The answer is because master tapes are digital -- that is, for a given digital master tape (cf. LD), the digital deck used to play it (cf. LD player) shouldn't make any difference at all (cf. analog LD where the design and build quality of the player has a direct effect on the quality of output).

You can believe that the PAL master tape is much better quality if you like. Either way is speculation, we don't know for certain.


You post as if nobody has ever seen a mythical PAL LD from which to make comparisons. It's certainly clear that you have never seen a PAL LD, because anyone who has viewed a PAL copy of the same 1995 THX release can tell you that it is definitely different from the NTSC version. And it is better in most areas. You're right that it has its flaws -- most notably more dust and crap in the picture -- but it does have more resolution, more detail, and no ghosting.

By the way, this is not "speculation"; it is fact. Why don't you accept that? You expect everyone to buy your theory that the crawl on the GOUT discs is original based on a few frames with one spot of dust and a hair or video flaw, but you don't accept all of the posted evidence for the PAL LD release being different and better than NTSC? That's just being deliberately obtuse, and bordering on trolling.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Karyudo That's just being deliberately obtuse, and bordering on trolling.


Ditto

I love everybody. Lets all smoke some reefer and chill. Hug and kisses for everybody.

Author
Time
Post link
boris, give it a rest, seriously. You are not a troll, IMHO, and you do contribute to this forum (nice catch on the crawl). I've stayed out a lot of threads where you demonstrated either a lack of technical knowledge or a lack of ability to express it clearly, because others were doing fine setting you straight and I didn't want to pile on the misery. But I don't like to see Laserman's time wasted with this stuff. He is our most knowledgeable poster, IMHO, and I don't like seeing any of his limited number of posts wasted on correcting you. No offence is intended, and I welcome your contributions to other threads.
Originally posted by: boris
I really don't think you can compare that blur. The Laserdisc blur would be true "un-focus", and technically not a blur.
No comment.
Author
Time
Post link

Originally posted by: Laserman


Admittedly not my area of expertise - but for the record, the original theatrical presentation was a fairly "high grain" affair. I recall reading more than once that they opted to "grain up" much of the live action footage so as to better match that of the composited opticals. If you look at any of the 70mm scans, this is fairly evident.Texthttp://img228.imageshack.us/my.php?image=anhgalacticempire028251600bt6.jpg
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Karyudo
... anyone who has viewed a PAL copy of the same 1995 THX release can tell you that it is definitely different from the NTSC version. And it is better in most areas. You're right that it has its flaws -- most notably more dust and crap in the picture -- but it does have more resolution, more detail, and no ghosting.
Apart from the burn marks and the line dropouts, I'd say that the PAL laserdisc actually has less dirt and fewer scratches than the DC, but it does have the same level of DVNR artefacts (ghosting).

Guidelines for post content and general behaviour: read announcement here

Max. allowable image sizes in signatures: reminder here

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Moth3r
Originally posted by: Karyudo
... anyone who has viewed a PAL copy of the same 1995 THX release can tell you that it is definitely different from the NTSC version. And it is better in most areas. You're right that it has its flaws -- most notably more dust and crap in the picture -- but it does have more resolution, more detail, and no ghosting.
Apart from the burn marks and the line dropouts, I'd say that the PAL laserdisc actually has less dirt and fewer scratches than the DC, but it does have the same level of DVNR artefacts (ghosting).

The fact that the burn marks 'slipped through' the DVNR on the PAL LDs but was filtered out on the DC, and that the starfields are more intact on the PAL, could be an indication that less DVNR was used. The PAL LDs does at least not suffer from stormtroopers with 4 eyes link.

I think the dropouts is a pressing problem and it varies from disc to disc.

But even if the PAL masters are not 'perfect' they would certainly be much better than any NTSC upscale. The PAL masters were not only used for VHS/LD releases, there were also a couple of D2 (or D3) broadcast masters made in 1995 (incidentally these also had the same burn marks).
And if the PAL masters were good enough for German, Swedish and Danish TV broadcasts they are most certainly also good enough for a bonus disc DVD transfer.