_,,,^..^,,,_ said:
Look at this screenshot comparison between the UH 2D Vs 3D: in particular, Arnold's hair and the tree on the center-right... any explanation?
Definitely a result of the 3D conversion.
Since you have to cut out elements of a 2D frame in an attempt to make them look 3D soft outlines like thin strands of hair and blurred edges will be removed since they're quite difficult to cut out perfectly without spending a lot of time on them.
Crazy proposal... IF the UHE could be considered "half good", it is possible to take the good scenes, add grain (from actual film, possibly from a stock similar to the original)to them, and use the other scenes from the old MPEG2... or it will be a total mess?!?
Sadly my projects are lost due to an HDD crash… 😦 | [Fundamental Collection] thread | blog.spoRv.com | fan preservation forum: fanres.com
For me the old PREDATOR release is the only release worth owning. Yes, there are some problems here and there due to it being an MPEG2 transfer. But jeepers creepers the other release is a tragic crime against humanity.
Somewhere, out there, there are low fade Super 8 and 16mm prints of this unmasked. The Super 8 is by Derann and I've heard it's stunning. A candidate for preserving?
100%
Matt_Stevens said:
...a tragic crime against humanity.
I LOVE this kind of phrases! (^^,)
OK, here you are the test I made: took the worst offender screenshot from UHE, the same frame from the MPEG2, then I ColourMatch'ed the UHE with the MPEG2 as color reference, a blur, a grain plate and voilà: almost watchable wax face!
(click images for larger versions)
UHE:
CM'ed+blur+grain:
MPEG2:
(screenshot taken from dvdactive)
Sadly my projects are lost due to an HDD crash… 😦 | [Fundamental Collection] thread | blog.spoRv.com | fan preservation forum: fanres.com
...or, with heavy 8mm grain (click for larger image):
Sadly my projects are lost due to an HDD crash… 😦 | [Fundamental Collection] thread | blog.spoRv.com | fan preservation forum: fanres.com
is there a halfway between the two grain plates?
the first one looks good but the damage caused by the excessive DNR is still visible
the second one is a bit too much IMHO
Join the dark side… and get a free cookie!
Yes, 8mm grain is DEFINITELY too much... I'm looking for 16mm grain, that should be in between them.
This is a test grain that should be in the middle (click for bigger version):
still need to test all these grain plates on video, rather than image.
Sadly my projects are lost due to an HDD crash… 😦 | [Fundamental Collection] thread | blog.spoRv.com | fan preservation forum: fanres.com
That looks pretty good. Meshes well with Aliens.
It reminded me Aliens, too!
Sadly my projects are lost due to an HDD crash… 😦 | [Fundamental Collection] thread | blog.spoRv.com | fan preservation forum: fanres.com
_,,,^..^,,,_ said:
Yes, 8mm grain is DEFINITELY too much... I'm looking for 16mm grain, that should be in between them.
This is a test grain that should be in the middle (click for bigger version):
still need to test all these grain plates on video, rather than image.
This one certainly looks the best of the three grain plates in terms of hiding the DNR without going overboard IMHO. The question is how it compares to the mpeg-2 release when its in motion, i've always been quite happy with the mpeg-2 release, certainly its much better than that other DNRed release that shall not be named...
I'm curious, too... what I will need are two clips from the same shot, one from the MPEG2 BD, the other from UHE BD; 30sec clips will suffice, but they should be untouched, not re-encoded or recompressed.
Sadly my projects are lost due to an HDD crash… 😦 | [Fundamental Collection] thread | blog.spoRv.com | fan preservation forum: fanres.com
_,,,^..^,,,_ said:
I'm curious, too... what I will need are two clips from the same shot, one from the MPEG2 BD, the other from UHE BD; 30sec clips will suffice, but they should be untouched, not re-encoded or recompressed.
I should be able to provide the first clip because I own the mpeg-2 blu-ray but the second could be trickier, i'll see if one of my friends or family own that release.
GREAT!
Sadly my projects are lost due to an HDD crash… 😦 | [Fundamental Collection] thread | blog.spoRv.com | fan preservation forum: fanres.com
I can only see the last pic you posted.
that's looking much better
by all accounts (and please correct me if i'm wrong) but the UHE was a fresh scan but then digitally manipulated afterwards
Join the dark side… and get a free cookie!
Nope they are all the same master
Yes, as you can see UHE has more details, but also a lot of DNR... obviously, it will be impossible to recover the lost grain, but adding a grain plate taken from actual film improves the perceived details and hyde some (but not all) problems caused by DNR... but, as this was the worst offender frame, I think the rest of the movie should be improved a little more than this, and, even it will be not perfect, it *could* be a little bit better than the old MPEG2...
This is the reason why I'd like to receive two clips from both versions; to test grain plate on UHE, and to see if final result could be better than the MPEG2.
Sadly my projects are lost due to an HDD crash… 😦 | [Fundamental Collection] thread | blog.spoRv.com | fan preservation forum: fanres.com
Adding fake grain is adding fake noise. It's not detail. The detail has been lost forever. I don't see why so many people are okay with placing fake grain onto DNR'd transfers. Just my opinion so no offense, but I'll take the old MPEG2 transfer any day of the week.
All that can replace it is a new transfer.
Agree 100%, and again, I LOVE that "...a tragic crime against humanity"... could I steal this?
Attention: a grain plate is NOT equal to fake grain... it is REAL grain from real film!
Said so, of course using a grain plate DO NOT add details; but it's just a trick for our brain to let him *think* it... I must admit that, even if I know it's only a trick, and as I did the tests myself, I didn't think my brain actually could be tricked as well as other's, but it was... (^^,)
Probably the MPEG2 is better than a DNR'ed+grain plate'ed UHE version; still, I'd like to test it anyway.
And yes, the only way to have a perfect version is a new rescan, but will it be done?!?
Sadly my projects are lost due to an HDD crash… 😦 | [Fundamental Collection] thread | blog.spoRv.com | fan preservation forum: fanres.com
The MPEG is the only way I will watch this film until a 4k master pops up
dvdmike said:
The MPEG is the only way I will watch this film until a 4k master pops up
Second for a 4K remaster.
I have not the two versions - only the old DVD and laserdisc - but many wrote that the UHE is not *extremely* bad - not as Patton, for example - so I'd like to make a test, because I'm too curious to compare the results... (^^,)
Obviously that, even if a grain plate will make slightly improvements over the overscrubbed UHE, a new 4K scan will blow it out of the water...
Sadly my projects are lost due to an HDD crash… 😦 | [Fundamental Collection] thread | blog.spoRv.com | fan preservation forum: fanres.com
_,,,^..^,,,_ said:
Yes, as you can see UHE has more details, but also a lot of DNR... obviously, it will be impossible to recover the lost grain, but adding a grain plate taken from actual film improves the perceived details and hyde some (but not all) problems caused by DNR... but, as this was the worst offender frame, I think the rest of the movie should be improved a little more than this, and, even it will be not perfect, it *could* be a little bit better than the old MPEG2...
This is the reason why I'd like to receive two clips from both versions; to test grain plate on UHE, and to see if final result could be better than the MPEG2.
Okay, I've finally managed to get hold of a copy of the UHE. I've taken a clip from the UHE and exactly the same clip from the mpeg-2 release. The UHE release really does look awful, in motion it looks a lot worse that the screencaps suggest.
I'm sending you a PM with links to the two clips so you can do your tests, it'll be interesting to see how the grained UHE compares to the mpeg-2 release.