logo Sign In

Team Negative1 - Return of the Jedi 1983 - 35mm Theatrical Version (unfinished project) — Page 6

Author
Time

Even the rough encodes that I've seen for 25Gig are more than enough for the previews. The standards are there so that people will not have to worry about not able to burn, or re-encode them for viewing on most devices.

Team Negative1

Author
Time

Gogogadget said:


yeah, 50GB discs aren't exactly cheap, and Harmy's despecialized is only 13GB once you strip out the audio tracks and it's still a pleasing encode, so long as you don't starve the encode too much the quality should be fine

i mean, i'm sure you guys know what you're doing haha


Yeah, but 720p and 1080p are two different things, one needs considerably less total space to get the same relative affect on compression rates for 720p. Even on commercial Blu-ray movies, they benefit from the breathing room that 50GB provides. Yes, not everyone can burn dual-layer Blu-rays right now, and a 25GB version would have that covered, but once a 50GB version has been rendered and made available, then it would be out there safely stored in the hands of Star Wars fans where it can always be obtained by other fans one way or another. And as more people get burners that can handle dual-layer disks, they can upgrade to the best possible quality on Blu-ray. So it would be really nice if a 50GB maximum quality Blu-ray version existed, along with the smaller 25GB version. :)

Those new scans look great, love the deep blues of the Super Star Destroyer in space, such rich lush colors! :)

The Star Wars trilogy. There can be only one.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Dunedain said:

Gogogadget said:


yeah, 50GB discs aren't exactly cheap, and Harmy's despecialized is only 13GB once you strip out the audio tracks and it's still a pleasing encode, so long as you don't starve the encode too much the quality should be fine

i mean, i'm sure you guys know what you're doing haha



Yeah, but 720p and 1080p are two different things, one needs considerably less total space to get the same relative affect on compression rates for 720p. Even on commercial Blu-ray movies, they benefit from the breathing room that 50GB provides. Yes, not everyone can burn dual-layer Blu-rays right now, and a 25GB version would have that covered, but once a 50GB version has been rendered and made available, then it would be out there safely stored in the hands of Star Wars fans where it can always be obtained by other fans one way or another. And as more people get burners that can handle dual-layer disks, they can upgrade to the best possible quality on Blu-ray. So it would be really nice if a 50GB maximum quality Blu-ray version existed, along with the smaller 25GB version. :)

Those new scans look great, love the deep blues of the Super Star Destroyer in space, such rich lush colors! :)

 

+1 for a "maximum quality" 50GB version (in addition to a 25GB copy)...if at all possible!  Due to clearly demonstrated limitation of their SOURCE materials, neither Harmy nor TeamBlu's projects would benefit from producing a FULL 1080p version, however, unlike these two projects the entire basis of Team Negative1's effort is producing an amazing preservation sourced from their own ORIGINAL scans of multiple copies of ORIGINAL prints.

While I am certainly NOT expecting 2K resolution (unless Team Negative1 has some extra cool tricks up their sleeves) because their source material is derived from ORIGINAL scans of ORIGINAL prints, wouldn't there much more clearly visible difference in using FULL 1080p resolution and higher bit-rates vs. 720p resolution and/or considerably lower bit rates (to fit onto a 25GB Blu-ray)?

With ALL the effort that is going into this project AND the potential for a visible improvement in opting for a higher resolution/bit rate preservation...it would just make sense to me that 50GB might potentially make for a better "line in the sand"?  (In any event, that's just my $0.02 on the subject.)

 

THANK YOU SO MUCH Team Negative1 for your truly AMAZING restorative work in preserving what is quite arguably the GREATEST trilogy to ever grace the silver screen! :D

 

 

-A.S.

 

p.s. My external dual-layer capable BD burner cost me just over $100 (WITH some added goodies) and BD50 discs run me $3 each (and are 100% guaranteed or they are replaced FREE of charge)...in short, certainly not all THAT expensive.

Author
Time

I agree - 1080p is 2.25x the size (in pixels) of 720p.

[ Scanning stuff since 2015 ]

Author
Time

Dunedain said:

Gogogadget said:


yeah, 50GB discs aren't exactly cheap, and Harmy's despecialized is only 13GB once you strip out the audio tracks and it's still a pleasing encode, so long as you don't starve the encode too much the quality should be fine

i mean, i'm sure you guys know what you're doing haha



Yeah, but 720p and 1080p are two different things, one needs considerably less total space to get the same relative affect on compression rates for 720p. Even on commercial Blu-ray movies, they benefit from the breathing room that 50GB provides. Yes, not everyone can burn dual-layer Blu-rays right now, and a 25GB version would have that covered, but once a 50GB version has been rendered and made available, then it would be out there safely stored in the hands of Star Wars fans where it can always be obtained by other fans one way or another. And as more people get burners that can handle dual-layer disks, they can upgrade to the best possible quality on Blu-ray. So it would be really nice if a 50GB maximum quality Blu-ray version existed, along with the smaller 25GB version. :)

Those new scans look great, love the deep blues of the Super Star Destroyer in space, such rich lush colors! :)

 The difference between 720p and 1080p didn't even cross my mind once.

Author
Time

BD25s are only 720p?

This signature uses Markdown syntax, which makes it easy to add formatting like italics, bold, and lists:

Author
Time

Asaki said:

BD25s are only 720p?

No, all store-bought BD25 films will be 1080p (or 1080i, depending on the content)

Author
Time

We stated in our first post that our videos will be 1080p, in digital format. And that will be easy to preserve on burnable discs.

Team Negative1

Author
Time

Gogogadget said:



Dunedain said:


Gogogadget said:

yeah, 50GB discs aren't exactly cheap, and Harmy's despecialized is only 13GB once you strip out the audio tracks and it's still a pleasing encode, so long as you don't starve the encode too much the quality should be fine

i mean, i'm sure you guys know what you're doing haha




Yeah, but 720p and 1080p are two different things, one needs considerably less total space to get the same relative affect on compression rates for 720p. Even on commercial Blu-ray movies, they benefit from the breathing room that 50GB provides. Yes, not everyone can burn dual-layer Blu-rays right now, and a 25GB version would have that covered, but once a 50GB version has been rendered and made available, then it would be out there safely stored in the hands of Star Wars fans where it can always be obtained by other fans one way or another. And as more people get burners that can handle dual-layer disks, they can upgrade to the best possible quality on Blu-ray. So it would be really nice if a 50GB maximum quality Blu-ray version existed, along with the smaller 25GB version. :)

Those new scans look great, love the deep blues of the Super Star Destroyer in space, such rich lush colors! :)


 The difference between 720p and 1080p didn't even cross my mind once.


Yeah, the comment was in regards to Harmy's restoration project video that you referenced, which, iirc, is in 720p (and as RU.08 pointed out, is actually a lot less than 1080p), 25 gig is fine for that resolution. But for a project of this magnitude, with real 35mm film sources no less, it would be great to have a full quality option that maxes out what Blu-ray can do and have it safely archived in the hands of Star Wars fans. :)

The Star Wars trilogy. There can be only one.

Author
Time

We will try to get some larger sample clips to show if there is any difference in different bitrates to estimate what you will be looking at.

We think a lot of variables will come into play, depending on the scene, on whether a larger encode has a noticeable picture quality variation.

Team Negative1

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Team Negative1-

THANK YOU SO MUCH for your clear dedication to developing and producing an uncompromising quality project such as you have undertaken!  Even if the powers that be at Disney and 20th Century were to get behind a quality RETAIL high-def release of the unaltered trilogy, I think they would be quite hard pressed to top the work that your team is doing now! ;)

SO.

Very.

Much.

Appreciated!

 

-A.S.

Author
Time

Dunedain said:
Yeah, the comment was in regards to Harmy's restoration project video that you referenced, which, iirc, is in 720p...

 Oh, I see.

If I remember correctly, Harmy's Despecialized is in 720p because he did some tests with the official BluRay footage, and couldn't notice much difference in quality (suggesting that the master video for the BDs is, in fact, 720p).

This signature uses Markdown syntax, which makes it easy to add formatting like italics, bold, and lists:

Author
Time

The Bluray master is 1080p in number of pixels, but somewhat closer to 720p in actual visible detail.  Therefore, downscaling it to 720p results in little to no loss of detail in presentation.

Note however that the Bluray is still significantly sharper than these 35mm print scans, due to generation loss.

The inescapable logic here is that 720p is entirely adequate as a final distribution format for this project as well, and that anything higher would simply result in larger file sizes without actual increase in quality.  Obviously, all the work would be done at much higher resolution than this to maintain quality throughout the restoration process, but as the final step of making an actual product for distribution, it is doubtful that converting to 720p will result in any significant loss of visible information.  The benefit of manageable file sizes for download certainly also points to this as an attractive option.

To make an analogy with audio, we typically record music at 24-bit resolution and mix at 32-bit floating point so that the digital processing is done with maximum accuracy.  But for final distribution, reducing to 16-bit as the very last step allows for the earlier quality to be retained with minimal loss of perceived detail (with the caveat that proper dither must be applied in order for the conversion to be audibly transparent).

Author
Time

The resolution loss is significant though.

Although the BD is sharper than the prints in some areas, the extra resolution on the prints reveals some details not visible on the BD, and that simpy cannot be visible @ 720P (i.e. horizontalish stripes that would end up less than one pixel in height @720P end up becoming a block of colour instead of the stripes that are visible on film)

I'm forever finding fine detail on the print that would be completely lost at 720P, it probably isn't a big deal, but personally I am sticking with UHD resolution so that it isn't lost. I'm a pedantic bugger though.

Donations welcome: paypal.me/poit
bitcoin:13QDjXjt7w7BFiQc4Q7wpRGPtYKYchnm8x
Help get The Original Trilogy preserved!

Author
Time

I'm curious. Obviously your ROTJ project is far from finished. Do you think that Harmy is going to use the Lapi Nek (sorry if i spelled it wrong), Beakless Rancor and Yub Nub sequences from a workprint of it similar to how he used footage from your SW/ANH project for the speeder scene?

Nobody sang The Bunny Song in years…

Author
Time

That would be a question better asked of Harmy, I'd imagine. However, I can safely say that he doesn't seem to be married to any one source--if a better one comes along, he'll switch to it in a heartbeat, unless it has some sort of other major issue. 35mm scans are way better than the GOUT, regardless of, well, practically anything you can imagine, and the Jedi prints in general look to be in very good shape.

Project Threepio (Star Wars OOT subtitles)

Author
Time

it would have been a bigger bump :P.

Nontheless, I probably will reply to his ROTJ thread...

tomorrow. *yawns*

Nobody sang The Bunny Song in years…

Author
Time

poita said:

 I'm a pedantic bugger though.

Thank goodness for that! We needed more pedantic with the official bluray release. Not enough pedantic! ;)

Author
Time

poita said:

I'm forever finding fine detail on the print that would be completely lost at 720P, it probably isn't a big deal, but personally I am sticking with UHD resolution so that it isn't lost. I'm a pedantic bugger though.

BTW, is there any reason at all to go with more than 4K when scanning 35mm prints/negative?

Fanrestore - Fan Restoration Forum: https://fanrestore.com

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Well there's always the thing where downscaling usually creates much less artifacts than upscaling even if no extra detail is visible. (at least in my experience)

@Feallan

Author
Time

Higher-resolution-than-necessary scans help with image stabilization.  i.e. you can't shift an image half a pixel, so you either don't align it quite right, or you end up blurring it a bit.  With too many pixels, you can shift the image just the right amount.

Also, there's a big difference between 35mm negatives and prints. 35mm negatives can actually have 4k worth of detail on them in some circumstances, prints are variable but can occasionally exceed 2k.

Project Threepio (Star Wars OOT subtitles)

Author
Time
 (Edited)

jero32 said:

Well there's always the thing where downscaling usually creates much less artifacts than upscaling even if no extra detail is visible. (at least in my experience)

@Feallan

 If I've caught this JEDIT correctly, it made me laugh.

JEDIT: Er, I laughed either way, just not sure if what I laughed at actually happened.

Author
Time

TV's Frink said:

jero32 said:

Well there's always the thing where downscaling usually creates much less artifacts than upscaling even if no extra detail is visible. (at least in my experience)

@Feallan

 If I've caught this JEDIT correctly, it made me laugh.

JEDIT: Er, I laughed either way, just not sure if what I laughed at actually happened.

 I added the @feallan

Author
Time
 (Edited)

We are previewing another print of Jedi now. We have a comparison of the first reel so far. The scan is not as blue tinted as the previous one. There might also be less gate weave on this one. Not sure about the extent of the damage on it. Will have more details once we check out the entire print.

Team Negative1