logo Sign In

Why is the GOUT not anamorphic? — Page 2

Author
Time
Post link
totsugeki said:

Actually, resampling by only 33% does damage to the fine details.

Actually, it doesn't.

Guidelines for post content and general behaviour: read announcement here

Max. allowable image sizes in signatures: reminder here

Author
Time
Post link
totsugeki said:

Since they took the video off an old laserdisc master I'm 99% sure the master wasn't anamorphic, so making it anamorphic on the DVD would gain nothing. Actually, resampling by only 33% does damage to the fine details. And I wouldn't use VirtualDub for scaling anyway, since it operates in RGB instead of YUV.

Star Wars deserves a Blade Runner style restoration, but since it didn't get one, I'm glad they didn't mangle the video further by artificially making it anamorphic - I'll take the original master over a faux-anamorphic one any day. Your DVD player or widescreen TV has a button to control aspect ratio - use it.

You can select any colorspace you want in virtualdub.

What do you think your widescreen tv or dvd player does when you use the aspect ratio button? It scales the image on the fly and probably isn't is as good as resizing it on a PC using avisynth (and/or virtualdub).
Fez: I am so excited about Star Whores.
Hyde: Fezzy, man, it's Star Wars.
Author
Time
Post link
Actually, it doesn't.


If you create a bitmap with alternating black and white horizontal lines (i.e. the most possible vertical detail) and resample it to 133% height, you'll have phase reversals all over the place. And if you have a fixed-pixel display, it will get resampled again on playback. I'd much rather have one resampling (from the non-anamorphic master directly to the display's pixel matrix rather than master->anamorphic->display). I'll admit though that the artifacts aren't that noticeable especially with a low-quality source such as the laserdisc master.


Arnie.d said:

You can select any colorspace you want in virtualdub.


Yes, VirtualDub can import and export in plenty of color spaces, but its filters work in RGB. There's a reason for the fast recompress option - it bypasses the filters and thus the color space conversion (useful if you only use VirtualDub for cutting and as an encoding front-end).


What do you think your widescreen tv or dvd player does when you use the aspect ratio button? It scales the image on the fly and probably isn't is as good as resizing it on a PC using avisynth (and/or virtualdub).


It obviously depends on the device, but many have quite advanced scaler chips that do something like NNEDI (a slow, high-quality AviSynth scaler) in real-time. Also, unless you have a CRT, it will get scaled to the display's native resolution in real-time anyway, anamorphic or not. Like I typed earlier, I'd much rather have one conversion from the original master video (master->display) than two (master->anamorphification->display).
Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link
Yes, VirtualDub can import and export in plenty of color spaces, but its filters work in RGB. There's a reason for the fast recompress option - it bypasses the filters and thus the color space conversion (useful if you only use VirtualDub for cutting and as an encoding front-end).

Colorspaces are filterspecific but virtualdub itself can process any colorspace. I can open any avi and compress it with whatever codec and colorspace in virtualdub. Besides I don't use any filter in virtualdub, I only use avisynth and feed it to virtualdub.

It obviously depends on the device, but many have quite advanced scaler chips that do something like NNEDI (a slow, high-quality AviSynth scaler) in real-time. Also, unless you have a CRT, it will get scaled to the display's native resolution in real-time anyway, anamorphic or not. Like I typed earlier, I'd much rather have one conversion from the original master video (master->display) than two (master->anamorphification->display).

I don't. Besides the GOUT looks like shit and needs much more work than just scaling. So why not in the process make it anamorphic.
Also, the PAL version were made from the same NTSC master so it had to be resized (and cropped) anyway. Another chance to make it anamorphic.
Fez: I am so excited about Star Whores.
Hyde: Fezzy, man, it's Star Wars.
Author
Time
Post link
Arnie.d said:

Colorspaces are filterspecific but virtualdub itself can process any colorspace.


It says here http://www.virtualdub.org/filtersdk.html that the filter interface is RGB.


I can open any avi and compress it with whatever codec and colorspace in virtualdub.


Yes, but if you use VirtualDub filters, there is a conversion to RGB, which was the point in my original post about not using VirtualDub for scaling (scaling is done via a filter).


Besides I don't use any filter in virtualdub, I only use avisynth and feed it to virtualdub.


That's what I'd do too. Most(all?) of AviSynth's filters support YUV.


I don't. Besides the GOUT looks like shit and needs much more work than just scaling. So why not in the process make it anamorphic.
Also, the PAL version were made from the same NTSC master so it had to be resized (and cropped) anyway. Another chance to make it anamorphic.


Good point about the PAL version - I'd have made it anamorphic too if all you had to work with was the NTSC master.
Author
Time
Post link
see you auntie said:

Erikstormtrooper said:

I believe Steve Sansweet discussed the issue at a fan conference in 2006 (possibly ComicCon?). There used to be a video of it online somewhere. He basically tried to discredit the criticisms, saying that the transfer on the GOUT was very good, and that only a very small number of people were making a big deal out of really tiny black lines that you could only see if you look real close......



If someone could supply a link to this or point me in the right direction I'd appreciate it.


Ask, and you shall receive.

An MP3 of the discussion by Sansweet at CoimicCon on 7/26/06:
http://media.collider.com/collider_audio/Star%20Wars%20ComicCon/star_wars_comiccon_06_collider.com.mp3

Collider.com's report on the event:
http://www.collider.com/entertainment/news/archive_detail.asp/aid/2544/tcid/1

The digital Bits' discussion of Sansweet's comments:
http://www.thedigitalbits.com/mytwocentsa124.html#mups2


You know of the rebellion against the Empire?

Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link
Yes, but if you use VirtualDub filters, there is a conversion to RGB, which was the point in my original post about not using VirtualDub for scaling (scaling is done via a filter).

You are right about your original point.
But if I have an avi in yv12 format and I open it in virtualdub and save it as an uncompressed yuy2 avi does virtualdub convert it from yv12 -> rgb -> yuy2? Or does it depend on using full processing mode or fast recompress? And what about direct stream copy, I assume it will stay in the colorspace of the original without being converted to rgb in between?
I'm using virtualdubmpeg btw but I don't think that makes any difference for this.
Fez: I am so excited about Star Whores.
Hyde: Fezzy, man, it's Star Wars.
Author
Time
Post link
Despite all the issues left and right, I honestly can't tell what has done more damage to the OOT: getting replaced by the SE or the release of the GOUT. No matter which is worse, the OOT is still being treated like a second-class citizen in film.
Author
Time
Post link
Well, the SE killed the OOT.

Then the GOUT dug up the OOT's rotting body and put it on display.

You know of the rebellion against the Empire?

Author
Time
Post link
totsugeki said:

....... Your DVD player or widescreen TV has a button to control aspect ratio - use it.


But the subtitles still display in the black space thus being cut off. I think I'll still watch it my way thanks.

And thanks Erikstormtrooper for the links, I'll check them out now.

"Well here's a big bag of rock salt" - Patton Oswalt

Author
Time
Post link
see you auntie said:

totsugeki said:

....... Your DVD player or widescreen TV has a button to control aspect ratio - use it.


But the subtitles still display in the black space thus being cut off.
I guess it depends on the gear you have. On my Macbook, the subtitles aren't cut off, even when I zoom in to fill the screen on the L and R.

Also, my sister's RCA DVD player re-positions the subtitles when you zoom in.

Author
Time
Post link
Yeah, but don't forget about the picture quality if you zoom in- it will definitely look like a video streamed off the internet
Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link
I got my Macbook a few days ago, and the GOUT SW dvd was the first one I played on it. I was actually surprised at how decent it looked, considering.

But I guess it's a different situation on a much larger screen.

Author
Time
Post link
It looks fine on a mac!? Why didn't anybody tell me this earlier?
Author
Time
Post link
I find the 2004 versions unwatchable because of the botched color. I wouldn't mind the 97 versions. The fact that the Gout actually trumps (color and contrast) over a supposedly dvd state of the art restoration should be the most embarassing. The '04 versions look bad on any display.
I've never seen any of the laserdiscs (don't have a player) but I had the anamorphic cowclops v. 2 set. (what kind of a name is cowclops, anyway?) The gout looks much better. Far less digital compression, which makes the '93 video image and all its flaws much clearer.
Could someone explain the blurring to me? Depending on the amount of motion, wouldn't the interlacing completely vary from shot to shot?

Take back the trilogy. Execute Order '77

http://www.youtube.com/user/Knightmessenger

Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link
generalfrevious said:

It looks fine on a mac!? Why didn't anybody tell me this earlier?
I guess "fine" is a relative term, but it definitely doesn't look like streaming web video.

Knightmessenger said:


Could someone explain the blurring to me?
Do you mean the blurring from the DVNR?

Author
Time
Post link
Knightmessenger said:

I find the 2004 versions unwatchable because of the botched color. I wouldn't mind the 97 versions. The fact that the Gout actually trumps (color and contrast) over a supposedly dvd state of the art restoration should be the most embarassing. The '04 versions look bad on any display.
I've never seen any of the laserdiscs (don't have a player) but I had the anamorphic cowclops v. 2 set. (what kind of a name is cowclops, anyway?) The gout looks much better. Far less digital compression, which makes the '93 video image and all its flaws much clearer.
Could someone explain the blurring to me? Depending on the amount of motion, wouldn't the interlacing completely vary from shot to shot?

Do you mean the blurring of the GOUT or CC2?

What do you mean by interlacing vary from shot to shot?
Fez: I am so excited about Star Whores.
Hyde: Fezzy, man, it's Star Wars.
Author
Time
Post link
I don't mean the dvnr, I mean the image blur done only for the dvd release. Whatever people keep saying about why the laserdiscs have slightly more vertical detail. Wasn't it to inverse telecine? So the interlacing created from making an NTSC 29.97 fps video that on the '93 master tapes and laserdiscs, wouldn't that vary in each shot like with any interlaced video?

Take back the trilogy. Execute Order '77

http://www.youtube.com/user/Knightmessenger

Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link
Knightmessenger said:

I don't mean the dvnr, I mean the image blur done only for the dvd release. Whatever people keep saying about why the laserdiscs have slightly more vertical detail. Wasn't it to inverse telecine? So the interlacing created from making an NTSC 29.97 fps video that on the '93 master tapes and laserdiscs, wouldn't that vary in each shot like with any interlaced video?

Interlace is different from telecine. A telecined movie was originally 24 frames/sec. The frames are split into fields and some field are repeated to go from 24 -> 30 fps (23.976 -> 29.97). So if you properly undo this you get the original 24 fps (23.976) so no blur will occur. A video that's interlaced like a home movie shot with a camcorder cannot be IVTCed. It can only be deinterlaced. It was shot at 29.97 fps so the "source" never was 24 fps. The fields that make up one frame aren't shot at the same time. What I mean is the camcorder records at 59.94 fields per second. So if you deinterlace a fast moving scene (so you put together two fields that are shot after eachother) the frame is a bit blurred.
I would never try do deinterlace/IVTC a home movie shot with a camcorder. In my opinion the interlaced video always looks better and more smooth. If you captured home movie and you want to crop/resize you can unfold the fields using avisynth, apply the filter and refold them.

The GOUT master was probably oversharpened (which probaly created the jaggies) to look better when played as a Laserdisc. And to mask the jaggies for the dvd release they probably applied a vblur.
Fez: I am so excited about Star Whores.
Hyde: Fezzy, man, it's Star Wars.
Author
Time
Post link
I remember reading on wiki that when 24fps movies are transferred to NTSC dvd, they're usually laid on the disc at 23.976. So does the dvd player then apply the pulldown on-the-fly in order to make it 29.97 and then send it off to the tv?

The reason I ask is that I'm wondering what the big deal about progressive scan dvd players are. Is the big deal about the fact that they're able to, um, not apply the pulldown and just send it off to the (presumably HD) tv? How does it all work?
Author
Time
Post link
Fang Zei said:

I remember reading on wiki that when 24fps movies are transferred to NTSC dvd, they're usually laid on the disc at 23.976. So does the dvd player then apply the pulldown on-the-fly in order to make it 29.97 and then send it off to the tv?

Normally, yes. The video stream contains pulldown flags so the dvd player "knows" what fields to duplicate. But a dvd can also be 29.97 fps hard encoded.

The reason I ask is that I'm wondering what the big deal about progressive scan dvd players are. Is the big deal about the fact that they're able to, um, not apply the pulldown and just send it off to the (presumably HD) tv? How does it all work?

From what I understand that's the idea. But I don't really know much about HD TVs. I hope someone else can answer this.
Fez: I am so excited about Star Whores.
Hyde: Fezzy, man, it's Star Wars.
Author
Time
Post link
Arnie.d said:


Interlace is different from telecine.

The GOUT master was probably oversharpened (which probably created the jaggies) to look better when played as a Laserdisc. And to mask the jaggies for the dvd release they probably applied a vblur.


So there were jaggies on the '93 master and laserdiscs? By oversharpened, do you mean edge enhancement? I don't remember seeing them, not even in X0 caps. What exactly would I see? And these jaggies are different from the ones that you get with an interlaced picture?

Take back the trilogy. Execute Order '77

http://www.youtube.com/user/Knightmessenger

Author
Time
Post link
Knightmessenger said:

Arnie.d said:


Interlace is different from telecine.

The GOUT master was probably oversharpened (which probably created the jaggies) to look better when played as a Laserdisc. And to mask the jaggies for the dvd release they probably applied a vblur.


So there were jaggies on the '93 master and laserdiscs? By oversharpened, do you mean edge enhancement? I don't remember seeing them, not even in X0 caps. What exactly would I see? And these jaggies are different from the ones that you get with an interlaced picture?
If by "jaggies" you mean the aliasing, then yes it's on the Faces and DC laserdiscs, too. The aliasing is sort of a breaking up of horizontal lines (layman's explanation) ;-)

FWIW, not too long ago Zion mentioned something in one of the threads about the Gout and the DC laserdiscs (as played on the X0 machine), being about equivalent in terms of picture quality.

Author
Time
Post link
I would think the reason you'd get roughly equivalent picture quality on either the DC laserdisc or the GOUT is the following:

DC laserdisc

pro: It's analog, and therefore uncompressed

con: it's analog, you need a top of the line player to make sure the laser is reading the track as accurately as it can.

GOUT

pro: it's digital, so the laser either reads it or it doesn't.

con: it's digital, so it's a compressed mpeg.
Author
Time
Post link
Fang Zei said:

I would think the reason you'd get roughly equivalent picture quality on either the DC laserdisc or the GOUT is the following:

DC laserdisc

pro: It's analog, and therefore uncompressed

con: it's analog, you need a top of the line player to make sure the laser is reading the track as accurately as it can.

GOUT

pro: it's digital, so the laser either reads it or it doesn't.

con: it's digital, so it's a compressed mpeg.
Makes sense.