Sign In

Puggo GRANDE - 16mm restoration (Released) — Page 4

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Uncropped would also make the grain less prominant, not to mention the dings in the emulsion side, and the vertical scratches on both sides. Cleaning will help some, too.

 

The Tatooine scenes seem to have a lot of splotchyness, even dark streaks in places. Is that from dirty film, or is it the print? (Dirty negative?) Those scenes also leave me with a greater impression of grain, for some reason.

 

Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:

 

And, although the color spread is not bad, getting a decent white balance is proving to be a challenge because the film has slightly faded in various ways depending on the brightness and hue of the scene.

 

That's kinda hard for me to wrap my head around. I've read it in reference to multiscanning for hdr, too. I guess it has to do with the response curves of CCDs.

 

Shows up in the pesky flesh tones, on the Tantive IV. (Which seem to give everyone problems).

 

I keep reading that the workprinters "save to DV". Is that DV codec? Does it leave room for playing with curves in software? (I had some luck matching color, by adjusting separately, according to brightness level (shadow/medium/highlight), even from dvd-sourced mpeg compression).

 

All in all, a pretty solid transfer!

 

I can pick at the flaws from the film's quality, and the limits of CCDs, but that workprinter (and it's operator) do a heck of a job. And it looks nicer in motion, than the stills.

 

I'm anxious to see the final capture!

One day I found... 10 years had got behind me. Next day was worse.

 

Download  shows from Cable DVR (Updated! Yes, it needs a rewrite, but it's worth slogging through, anyway).

Author
Time

Sorry if this has alrady been suggested/discussed, but woudl there be an advantage at all to scanning the film as-is, and THEN perform the anamorphic adjustment in the computer domain? Might be more accurate and result in a slightly sharper transfer?

 

- 7FN

Author
Time
seventiesfilmnut said:

Sorry if this has alrady been suggested/discussed, but woudl there be an advantage at all to scanning the film as-is, and THEN perform the anamorphic adjustment in the computer domain? Might be more accurate and result in a slightly sharper transfer?

Er, that's what I'm doing...

 

"Close the blast doors!"
Puggo’s website | Rescuing Star Wars

Author
Time

Damn my apologies - that's my fault for dipping in and out of threads and not keeping up.

Walks slowly away trying to keep his cool, then runs! Lol!

:)

Author
Time

Sample video looks pretty good. OK it's not going to match the GOUT DVD, but it looks like it will far surpass the quality of previous fan-made telecines. In that respect, this will be a fantastic reference to have for things like Greedo's subtitles, canyon sunset colouring, etc...

Couple of questions about the sample: Motion was a little jerky; I assume you will be removing the dupe frames to revert back to 24fps? Also, it looks a little over-exposed to me, can you do anything about that during the capture (or would you adjust it in post)? The black level looks about 10% higher than it should be (space is a sort of dark grey instead of black).

Guidelines for post content and general behaviour: read announcement here

Max. allowable image sizes in signatures: reminder here

Author
Time

i'm still watching this clip over and over..

 

for fun, i synched it with the GOUT version.... there's a 6sec differential..

but the weird part is, the fanfare, logo, and crawl are out of sync, but

the actual film, from the stars, the battle, and everything else is perfect..

 

i'll try it with the mono version next...

 

later

-1

[no GOUT in CED?-> GOUT CED]

Author
Time
Moth3r said:

Sample video looks pretty good. OK it's not going to match the GOUT DVD, but it looks like it will far surpass the quality of previous fan-made telecines. In that respect, this will be a fantastic reference to have for things like Greedo's subtitles, canyon sunset colouring, etc...

Couple of questions about the sample: Motion was a little jerky; I assume you will be removing the dupe frames to revert back to 24fps? Also, it looks a little over-exposed to me, can you do anything about that during the capture (or would you adjust it in post)? The black level looks about 10% higher than it should be (space is a sort of dark grey instead of black).

I was planning to go to NTSC, so I'll have to do some sort of pulldown.  If there's an appropriate pulldown flag I can set (as I did in the 8mm version), of course I'd rather do that than use duplicate frames.

I'll try to get the coloring [sic] as close as possible to what was probably originally on the film, but it is still likely to have some imperfections in that regard.

Yes I can lower the exposure during capture. The contrast isn't all that great on the film... I was basing my aperature setting more on the whites than the blacks - raising/lowering until the whites were white while still retaining detail. That seemed to bring out more color.  Although the 8mm Puggo had a few crushed whites, I don't think this one did.  I also don't want to lose the stars.  It might be that simply upping the contrast a little bit in post would help, or perhaps upping the contrast while fiddling with the contrast center.  I have to admit to tending to capture a tad bright - I probably should strive to be careful about that.

Were previous fan-made telecines taken off of 35mm, 16mm, or 8mm films?

I'll send the gates off the Texas tomorrow.

Oh, and I forgot to mention, the film is preceded by an SE trailer.  I'll probably grab that too while I'm at it... although I'm guessing it will be of far less interest.

"Close the blast doors!"
Puggo’s website | Rescuing Star Wars

Author
Time
negative1 said:

for fun, i synched it with the GOUT version.... there's a 6sec differential..

but the weird part is, the fanfare, logo, and crawl are out of sync, but

the actual film, from the stars, the battle, and everything else is perfect.

I found it harder than I was expecting to sync the sound.  (Remember, the sound came from one 16mm print, and the video from another.)  It leads me to believe there are some minor differences in the frames between the two prints.  Since one is the mono mix and the other is a mono version of the 35mm mix, I suppose sync issues are not all that surprising.  But I doubt I'll have the patience to compare the two prints frame-by-frame.

I fudged a bit on the fanfare and logo, but the crawl should have been close.  There was something strange going on ... it's possible that there is a chunk of film missing before the crawl - that is where the film is the most ragged.

"Close the blast doors!"
Puggo’s website | Rescuing Star Wars

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Do you Think this was a Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope Print, and they just Spliced on the plain star wars crawl?

Is the countdown Leader missing?  i have no idea where there would be missing film except at a reel change.  Do you think some of it was ate up in your friends projector?

I mean the fox fanfare and cinemascope extension by alfred newman before the star wars theme is intact right? As well as the Lucasfilm and Fox Logos.

Well also the formatting on the crawls between the a new hope and regular star wars versions are different, many that created s sync problem?

“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
skyjedi2005 said:

Do you Think this was a Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope Print, and they just Spliced on the plain star wars crawl?

Is the countdown Leader missing?  i have no idea where there would be missing film except at a reel change.  Do you think some of it was ate up in your friends projector?

I mean the fox fanfare and cinemascope extension by alfred newman before the star wars theme is intact right? As well as the Lucasfilm and Fox Logos.

Well also the formatting on the crawls between the a new hope and regular star wars versions are different, many that created s sync problem?

I don't THINK an original crawl was spliced onto the front, but now that you mention it, I'll go back and see if there are splices, and if so specifically where. To me, things look pretty consistent throughout.  I think films from such vastly different eras (ANH vs original) would look obviously different in terms of their color, contrast, etc. after so much time has passed.

There is a countdown leader which I didn't include on the video I posted.

Everything you mention appears intact - but to be sure I will include the entire front end of the film on my next capture.

Someone asked about the splotchiness in the desert scenes.  I noticed that too, and don't know what it is.  I hope it's dirt, but I fear it's uneven fading.

It was Columbus Day today and the post office was closed.  The gates are packaged, and going out tomorrow morning.  It should make a huge difference, even should reduce the grain a little bit.

I should add that "Jaxxon" is actually not a friend - I've never met "him" (or "her") before other than through etherspace.  And the films are owned by Jaxxon's friend.  So I haven't the foggiest idea what these films have been through in their life and travels.  Eventually, Jaxxon may materialize and share more details.  For now, Jaxxon is simply, a legendary figure, from a long time ago and far, far away... sort of like Puggo...

"Close the blast doors!"
Puggo’s website | Rescuing Star Wars

Author
Time

Puggo, thanks for the clip.  I watched it, and its amazing!!!  It was such a special feeling to see Star Wars in this form.  I really look forward to all you hard work.  thank you.

ThrowgnCpr’s edits on Fanedit.org

Author
Time

Yeah, I'm really loving this clip too. It's great to see Star Wars look like an actual film again. Keep up the great work, Puggo!

I used to be very active on this forum. I’m not really anymore. Hi everybody. You’re all awesome. Keep up the good work.

Author
Time

Puggo , thanks for posting the clip. It's awesome!

Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:
skyjedi2005 said:

Do you Think this was a Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope Print, and they just Spliced on the plain star wars crawl?

I don't THINK an original crawl was spliced onto the front, but now that you mention it, I'll go back and see if there are splices, and if so specifically where. To me, things look pretty consistent throughout.  I think films from such vastly different eras (ANH vs original) would look obviously different in terms of their color, contrast, etc. after so much time has passed.

Did anyone else notice that the starfields seem to abruptly "change" during the pan-down to Tatooine. Is this maybe a splice point?

You know of the rebellion against the Empire?

Author
Time

GOUT reassessment...

I just recently got a widescreen plasma TV (a 58" Samsung).  Previously, I had only viewed the GOUT on a 4:3 TV.  This morning, for the first time, I tried watching the GOUT on the new plasma... and for the first time I appreciate just to what extent the GOUT truly is - to quote Luke - a piece of junk.  WOW.  They actually rendered it unwatchable on a modern display.  Now I'm beginning to realize why some posters are hoping that the Puggo Grande might turn out more watchable -- I'm beginning to wonder if it just might.  Amazing.

"Close the blast doors!"
Puggo’s website | Rescuing Star Wars

Author
Time
Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:

Were previous fan-made telecines taken off of 35mm, 16mm, or 8mm films?

I'm pretty sure the widescreen version that I uploaded was originally from a 35mm print; however, it was from a unknown generation VHS copy duped onto DVD via a standalone recorder, so there had been a lot of quality lost before it reahed me.

I had a little play with your sample in VirtualDub using the levels filter. Lowering the black level does improve the image IMO (I'll post screenshots at some point). Also noticed, interestingly, the image gets marginally brighter towards the right hand side of the image. Could that be a slight misalignment of the camera?

Regarding the camera, is that the optimal focus you can get? It looks a little blurred, just wondered if that could be improved, or if it's a limitation of the workprinter method.

And what are you doing spending money on a swanky new plasma display? You need to be getting a new HDV cam for this project... ;-)

Guidelines for post content and general behaviour: read announcement here

Max. allowable image sizes in signatures: reminder here

Author
Time
Moth3r said:

Also noticed, interestingly, the image gets marginally brighter towards the right hand side of the image. Could that be a slight misalignment of the camera?

Regarding the camera, is that the optimal focus you can get? It looks a little blurred, just wondered if that could be improved, or if it's a limitation of the workprinter method.

And what are you doing spending money on a swanky new plasma display? You need to be getting a new HDV cam for this project... ;-)

The slight brightness towards the right side of the image is a byproduct of the WorkPrinter.  I was waiting for someone to notice that.  It's more pronounced in the 8mm WorkPrinter, and I did my best to correct it in post for the Puggo 8mm edition (it corrected well except for the very beginning).  Roger claims that the upgrade to an LED bulb corrects the problem in the 8mm device, but I'm skeptical (he also claims it was never a problem in the 16mm devices, but it clearly is).  Luckily, it's minor enough in the 16mm that I'm confident it will be easily compensated in post, and will then be undetectable.  Very good eyes you have.

As far as the focus, that's either the film or my ability to focus the camera.  I'll just have to try my best for the final capture.  I expect it to improve slightly when the larger gate allows me to shrink the image.  I've also found that the 16mm captures tend to look sharper when played through a television, so I'm a bit reluctant to do any sharpening.

Unfortunately, the telecine capture software would not be able to run fast enough for HD, so rather than spend the money on a camera, I spent it on a REALLY nice monitor :)

"Close the blast doors!"
Puggo’s website | Rescuing Star Wars

Author
Time
 (Edited)

puggo, just out of curiousity,

how fast does it run?

are you able to modify the rate?

later

-1

[no GOUT in CED?-> GOUT CED]

Author
Time
negative1 said:

puggo, just out of curiousity,

how fast does it run?

are you able to modify the rate?

The WorkPrinter grabs frames at about 8 frames per second.  The software then assembles them into an .avi file.  The speed of the motion in the .avi file then, of course, depends on the original frame rate of the film.  Pulldown can then be done either in software, to whatever rate you desire, or via a pulldown flag on the DVD. By visual inspection, these films appeared to be 18-20 fps.  If I remember right, I did a software pulldown to 20fps on the clip I posted.

"Close the blast doors!"
Puggo’s website | Rescuing Star Wars

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Standard definition DVD is fine enough for those us who don't have a 16:9 HDTV.  I have a Standard definition tv set properly calibrated and the gout still looks like shit on it.  Believe it or not anamorphic transfers look better on a 4:3 tv as well than letterbox transfers because they yield a sharper image.

480i anamorphic is of course better than a 380i  4:3 letterbox laserdisc transfer master tape D2. Especially since the dvnr smearing is so awful that was used to try and cover up things apparent on the pre thx releases which funny enough look more consistant, though they apparently color corrected them on the THX release.

Does anyone know the resolution and picture information lost when converting a 2:35:1 Large Negative area cinemacope film to 4:3 letterbox interlaced video?

I remember somebody once said like 25% where a 4:3 pan and scan loses 40%.

“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

Will whomever posted my 16mm clip on YouTube please take it down?  It's not that I necessarily have anything against it being there, but I wasn't asked, and so I never had a chance to ask the owner of the film if he minded.  So please, remove it. Thanks.

This project is proceeding with the grace, generosity, and a bit of trepidation on the part of the owner of the film, and I hope that members of this group can respect that and use some appropriate discretion.  I would not want to have to terminate the project.

"Close the blast doors!"
Puggo’s website | Rescuing Star Wars

Author
Time
 (Edited)
Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:

GOUT reassessment...

I just recently got a widescreen plasma TV (a 58" Samsung).  Previously, I had only viewed the GOUT on a 4:3 TV.  This morning, for the first time, I tried watching the GOUT on the new plasma... and for the first time I appreciate just to what extent the GOUT truly is - to quote Luke - a piece of junk.  WOW.  They actually rendered it unwatchable on a modern display.  Now I'm beginning to realize why some posters are hoping that the Puggo Grande might turn out more watchable -- I'm beginning to wonder if it just might.  Amazing.

Crap- I hate hearing that. :-( I haven't had the "pleasure" of watching it on a large plasma or LCD screen yet.

Am I correct in assuming that SW looks worse than the other 2?

Author
Time

The GOUT looked bad on a twenty inch set back in 93! (Especially SW) I honestly thought the laserdiscs were defective in some way until I did an A/B with the older releases.

originaltrilogy.com Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time
 (Edited)

all you guys really need to check out :

===========================

GOUT stabilization thread

 

http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/GOUT-image-stabilization/topic/9038/

 

(i put it at the end of every post i have as my signature)

 

there's a lot of progress with that script, and check out the results,

they're very good..

 

check out the image comparisons

(this is for v2.03):

========================

http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/GOUT-image-stabilization/post/330527/#post330527

 

pictures for v3.09

=============================

http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/GOUT-image-stabilization/post/333782/#post333782

 

the upscaling is being worked on too, and its making progress also..

 

you really need to see the video to get the full

impact...

 

later

-1

 

 

 

 

[no GOUT in CED?-> GOUT CED]

Author
Time
 (Edited)

So i went back and compared the 16mm sample with the finished puggo super 8mm and the 16mm is much nicer.  Though for some reasons the light levels are off don't know if this is the XP workprinter causing that and just severe fading. 

Also the cropped sample does not to appear to be anamorphic or even play back at the right ntsc speed it almost sounds a bit sped up in some players.  Is this audio pitch shifting?

I wish someday that someone can Do the Cineavision widescreen digest on super8mm, or the Rare scope version of part 2 of star wars released by Ken Films.  I bet you both of those releases though are not true anamorphic widescreen probably flat prints that have letterboxing.

You know what would be really neat to see is the super8mm Marketing Films Raiders of the Lost ark digest.

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