Info: Are the GOUT DVDs blurred?

Author: Arnie.d
Date: 24-Jul-2007, 4:32 PM

Author: Arnie.d
Time: 24-Jul-2007 4:32 PM (Edited)
Post link

I know we already talked alot about the quality of the september 2006 DVD release. Some people claimed grain was added and stuff like that. Maybe I missed something in the discussion but I don’t understand the lack of detail. If the september 2006 DVD is a straight LD master to DVD transfer then why are we missing detail like this?
2004:

GOUT:

Cowclops v2:

Dr. Gonzo:

Farsight:

Isomix:

Look:

If we compare the GOUT to every other LD to DVD transfer we can see this detail (even in the very blurry “Look” transfer) but not in the GOUT. What the hell did they do to the mastertape footage and how did they transfer it to DVD?

Fez: I am so excited about Star Whores.
Hyde: Fezzy, man, it's Star Wars.

Author: vbangle
Time: 24-Jul-2007 4:43 PM
Post link

What LD rip is your top image from? Looks like to me you used the official 2004 DVD on the top?

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

Author: Arnie.d
Time: 24-Jul-2007 5:07 PM
Post link

Originally posted by: vbangle
What LD rip is your top image from? Looks like to me you used the official 2004 DVD on the top?

Yes it is. I linked to the screenshots page so you can see al the LD shots. I'll update the first post.

Fez: I am so excited about Star Whores.
Hyde: Fezzy, man, it's Star Wars.

Author: Zion
Time: 24-Jul-2007 5:15 PM
Post link

Here is the direct link to that shot. I need to fix the urls.

My Projects:
[Holiday Special Hybrid DVD v2]
[X0 Project]
[Backstroke of the West DVD]
[ROTS Theatrical DVD]

Author: Moth3r
Time: 24-Jul-2007 5:21 PM
Post link

I believe a vertical blur was applied to mask the jaggies that were caused by field misalignment on IVTC.

Guidelines for post content and general behaviour: read announcement here

Max. allowable image sizes in signatures: reminder here

Author: Arnie.d
Time: 24-Jul-2007 5:50 PM
Post link

Originally posted by: Zion
Here is the direct link to that shot. I need to fix the urls.
Thanks

Originally posted by: Moth3r
I believe a vertical blur was applied to mask the jaggies that were caused by field misalignment on IVTC.

So if they properly IVTCed it and didn't blur it it could have been pretty good?

Fez: I am so excited about Star Whores.
Hyde: Fezzy, man, it's Star Wars.

Author: blitter
Time: 24-Jul-2007 7:34 PM
Post link

Originally posted by: Arnie.d

So if they properly IVTCed it and didn't blur it it could have been pretty good?

They could have done a lot of things with it and it could have been pretty good.

Author: Arnie.d
Time: 25-Jul-2007 6:32 AM
Post link

Like using 35mm sources?

I have one more question. Why is the NTSC version considered to be of better quality? I can't see any difference between the PAL and NTSC screenshot.

Fez: I am so excited about Star Whores.
Hyde: Fezzy, man, it's Star Wars.

Author: Moth3r
Time: 25-Jul-2007 6:54 AM
Post link

The NTSC version is marginally sharper, but it's only really noticeable if you look very closely and swap between the two.

Guidelines for post content and general behaviour: read announcement here

Max. allowable image sizes in signatures: reminder here

Author: Arnie.d
Time: 25-Jul-2007 7:04 AM
Post link

Ah OK, thanks

Fez: I am so excited about Star Whores.
Hyde: Fezzy, man, it's Star Wars.

Author: Red5
Time: 25-Jul-2007 3:58 PM
Post link

The "PAL" version is also slightly more cropped, I think LFL resized the NTSC GOUT from 720x272 to something like 732x330 and then cropped it at 720x326 for the "PAL" version, I've no idea why they didn't just resize to 720x324.

The vertical detail is also slightly more intact on the NTSC and is clearly the best (less bad) choice if you want to resize to fake anamorphic as the "PAL" already been blurred and resized once. But for direct view without using a fancy scaler the "PAL" version might actually be the better (less awful) choice for PAL viewers.

I guess LFL used a rather primitive adaptive blur filter that mistook some (much) of the vertical detail for jaggies, but as LFL decided to use an 13 year old transfer to begin with why not also use a primitive blur filter on it, it seems to fit.