Sign In

GOUT image stabilization — Page 30

Author
Time
Mielr said:

dark_jedi says that the 'gold trim' problem in SW has reappeared with the latest tweak (is this V. 5 or 6? I've totally lost track. LOL.) Is there a simple way to fix this without affecting other scenes (like you did on ESB)?

No, no simple fix. They are really very different issues. The ESB problem was caused by something I was doing, the SW "gold trim" thing is in the source. The latest version of the script corrects all the artifacts that the motion compensation caused. Unfortunately, there are a lot of things that the motion compensation helped (like the 'gold trim'), but in repairing the motion compensation, a lot of the problems with the source come back.

I haven't figured out a way to have it both ways, so I'm erring on the side of "do no harm".

-G

 

Author
Time
g-force said:

But, that'll look more like V.6 anyway. If you want to fix V.4, just replace the entire "global motion" stage with the new one.

-G

 

Yea I figured it out and have already been running tests,but thanks anyway for the response.

Author
Time

DJ

What versions did you use for the last DVDs? 

What versions are you using now for the next set?

I'm having trouble keeping this straight. 

Author
Time

I used version 4 on my last set,and to me it looked good on my 65" HDTV being upconverted,I did not like the way the latest v6.64 looked on my setup,v4 looked better to me,maybe not to others,but it did to me,I do not stare at still frames and judge all my work on them alone,yes they do show a lot,but I am all about the motion video,I want to see it how I am going to be watching it.

The version I am using when I redo the set will still be version 4 again,but with subtitle changes and added the ESB fix into it,if g-force shows something different than v6.64 before I start my 2nd set of version 4 then I will certainly test it out,but for right now I am going ahead with what I have.

hopefully that cleared it up for you.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

 

Thanks, DJ. That straightens it out.

dark_jedi said: I did not like the way the latest v6.64 looked on my setup

What was it that you didn't care for? (EDIT: Never mind - I just saw on the previous page that you thought they looked "blurry"). 

Author
Time

I don't think there will be any updates any time soon. The ringing appears to be different for different scenes. I can get rid of it on one scene, but then on another scene a completely different set of convolution coefficients are required. (the ringing and halos vary in that they appear at different distances from objects in different scenes)

Some of this work may have been well suited for your JSC capture DJ. :(

-G

Author
Time
zee944 said:
g-force said:I've also found out how to repair a TON of detail by collecting pixels from the same object in different frames. The results are a little preliminary (like as of before work this morning) but the results so far are breathtaking (I literally couldn't believe my eyes!).

What did you find out? Please share :)

 

You haven't replied. Is it intentional?

Author
Time
zee944 said:
zee944 said:
g-force said:I've also found out how to repair a TON of detail by collecting pixels from the same object in different frames. The results are a little preliminary (like as of before work this morning) but the results so far are breathtaking (I literally couldn't believe my eyes!).

What did you find out? Please share :)

 

You haven't replied. Is it intentional?

It was maybe a little intentional. Old stuff really, and not to dissimilar to the current discussion about sharpness and detail.

At the time I was playing around with an the idea (not mine) of sharpening, but limiting the amount by the min and the max of the last and next mo-comped frames. Looks pretty good most of the time, but really aweful in some cases. Turns out that there are other ways of limiting the sharpening that get close, but don't cause as many problems.

Filters are really like drugs in that way. This one makes one ailment better, but has symptoms that are worse than the original problem.

-G

Author
Time

I´ve tried your script this week and must say the result is very impressive.

But there is one thing that bothers me: Is there no filter which adresses the aliasing. The broken lines on the blokade runner or 3CPO´s neck and sometimes R2D2´s head. I´ve the impression the aliasing ist better already but there are still some scenes wich look pretty bad.

 

Author
Time

I tripped across a nice little filter tonight: FFT3DGPU.  It's pretty much fft3dfilter, but rewritten to off-load the work to your 3D video card.

Even on my too old system I found a pleasant bump to the speed on a project I was working on.

The only drawbacks are not everybody has a 3d card made in the past few years, and not all fft3dfilter features are incorporated yet.

Still: http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=89941

Dr. M

Author
Time
 (Edited)

I have completed a new version of the cleaned up GOUT. This represents a noticeable improvement over all previous attempts in anti-aliasing, detail retention, de-ringing and image stability. I won't be posting the updated script until all movies are complete and checked, but ANH is encoded.

-G

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Looks great g-force!
But don't take my word for it--head over to ****** and see for yourself

However, in practice you must take into account the “fuckwit factor”. Just talk to Darth Mallwalker…
-Moth3r

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Darth Mallwalker said:

Looks great g-force!
But don't take my word for it--head over to ****** and see for yourself

 Thanks, DM!

-G

Author
Time

Thanks G-force.  Is 6.64 on page 1 the new script?

 

 

Author
Time

gltaylor74 said:

Thanks G-force.  Is 6.64 on page 1 the new script?

 

 

 No, the new script will be posted once I'm done with all 3. I'm making some minor tweaks for ESB, and I expect the same for ROTJ. Once all are encoded and checked I'll update the script. In the mean time, my encode will be the only way to get this.

-G

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Also something to consider to make the best set of all three movies, I noticed a difference in sharpness when I was playing with the GOUT a long time ago. I think The NTSC version of Star Wars is better than the PAL version and the PAL versions of Empire and Jedi are better than the NTSC version (it could also be the other way around). Anyway, you probably want Star Wars from one region and Empire and Jedi from the other region (ofcourse turn whatever PAL version used into NTSC and use Belbucus audio).

Fez: I am so excited about Star Whores.
Hyde: Fezzy, man, it's Star Wars.
Author
Time
 (Edited)


Arnie.d said:
Also something to consider to make the best set of all three movies, I noticed a difference in sharpness when I was playing with the GOUT a long time ago. I think The NTSC version of Star Wars is better than the PAL version and the PAL versions of Empire and Jedi are better than the NTSC version (it could also be the other way around). Anyway, you probably want Star Wars from one region and Empire and Jedi from the other region (ofcourse turn whatever PAL version used into NTSC and use Belbucus audio).


I thought the PAL versions were made from the same NTSC masters?

Author
Time
 (Edited)

So is there frame weave and jitter in the gout, when i was watching star wars even during the roll up, it was all shaky.  Or is that a part of the 77 original because it had to be filmed that way?

Because i don't remember the shakyness in the definitive laserdisc opening that had the episode IV title.

The four eyed stormtroopers thing has always made me want to throw the dvd and the laserdisc in the trash, just kidding but i hate it.

I also hate the 93 soundmix and find it somewhat dishonest to claim this is the original theatrical version, if that was true the 35mm stereo, monaural and 70mm 6 track would be on the disc or any one of those 3.

I think it is also dishonest to say the non anamorphic transfer is the theatrical presentation since the films were shown in anamorphic widescreen and were shot that way, or that the limited resolution of a laserdisc master somehow resolves all the detail that was even on a print in bad shape like the gout star wars is.

Sorry for  taken your thread off topic, a bit of a rant with my question,lol.

“Always loved Vader’s wordless self sacrifice. Another shitty, clueless, revision like Greedo and young Anakin’s ghost. What a fucking shame.” -Simon Pegg.

Author
Time

I must say that I've lost track here the last few weeks.

G-force, how are your encodings for ESB and ROTJ going?

Please let us know!

Author
Time

I to am curious,I would love to do my own test encodes though,I prefer CCE over any freeware encoder(just my preference).

Once you do make this new script available,if you do that is,can you post screen shots of your encodes?would love to make comparisons.

Thanks

Author
Time

skyjedi2005 said:

So is there frame weave and jitter in the gout, when i was watching star wars even during the roll up, it was all shaky.  Or is that a part of the 77 original because it had to be filmed that way?

Yes, there is frame judder in the GOUT, and on the 93 LD.  It's from the film shaking in the telecine machine when they made the transfer.

skyjedi2005 said:

I think it is also dishonest to say the non anamorphic transfer is the theatrical presentation since the films were shown in anamorphic widescreen and were shot that way, or that the limited resolution of a laserdisc master somehow resolves all the detail that was even on a print in bad shape like the gout star wars is.

DVD anamorphic and film anamorphic are two completely different things.  They share similar concepts, but saying that because a film was shot anamorphic and the DVD isn't anamorphic, that means the DVD isn't the original version, is a load of horseshit.

Anamorphic on film means that an oval lens squishes the light to fit the whole 2.39:1 (or 2.35:1, 2.55:1, and, for 70mm, 2.76:1) frame into the 1.33:1 frame on the negative.  When projected, another oval lens "unsquishes" the image back out to its intended 2.39:1 aspect ratio.  Spherical lenses (that's 1.33:1, 1.44:1 [IMAX], 1.66:1, 1.78:1, 1.85:1, 2:1, 2.2:1 [70mm spherical], and 2.39:1 if shot using the Super 35 format) use a lens that is, well, spherical, and it either A) fills the 1.33:1 frame completely and the top and bottom are matted out later ("soft matte"), or B) the aperture gate (or something similar I, can't recall) mattes out the areas that wouldn't be seen in a theater, so they're never recorded ("hard matte").  The film is projected with a spherical lens as well.

With DVD, you're just making it so you get the fullest resolution (this way less bitrate is wasted on black bars), regardless of whether you're watching on a 4:3 or 16:9 TV.  It has nothing to do with whether the film was shot anamorphically or spherically.  In fact, on Blu-Ray and HDTV, there's no such thing as anamorphic - 1920x1080 and 1280x720 are both natively 16:9 with square pixels, and they're never intended to be seen on anything other than a 16:9 screen (since no one has a high-def 4:3 screen), so anything slimmer or wider than 1.78:1 just gets black bars on it.

So there are plenty of movies that aren't anamorphic that are on DVD, and there are plenty of films that are anamorphic that aren't on Blu-Ray.

a trolling bantha