Asaki said:
DavidMerrick said:
Harmy's 2.0 of RotJ Despecialized is going to look amazing with this stuff.
I think the footage will look amazing all by itself, no need to mix it with the official BluRays.
Well that goes without saying. It'll be interesting to see what people do to these new scans. Dark Jedi, You Too and Mattman Omega got a startling amount of mileage out of the GOUT. Just think of what could come of others tinkering with this.
Well whatever happens, this is totally impressive and is appreciated.
DavidMerrick said:
Asaki said:
DavidMerrick said:
Harmy's 2.0 of RotJ Despecialized is going to look amazing with this stuff.
I think the footage will look amazing all by itself, no need to mix it with the official BluRays.
Well that goes without saying. It'll be interesting to see what people do to these new scans. Dark Jedi, You Too and Mattman Omega got a startling amount of mileage out of the GOUT. Just think of what could come of others tinkering with this.
I just don't understand how mixing it with BluRay footage would make it look better. I mean aside from the fact that, for now, splicing in a couple of scenes into the BluRay can be done much more quickly than the time it takes to release the entire 35mm preservation.
This signature uses Markdown syntax, which makes it easy to add formatting like italics, bold, and lists:
Asaki said:
DavidMerrick said:
Asaki said:
DavidMerrick said:
Harmy's 2.0 of RotJ Despecialized is going to look amazing with this stuff.
I think the footage will look amazing all by itself, no need to mix it with the official BluRays.
Well that goes without saying. It'll be interesting to see what people do to these new scans. Dark Jedi, You Too and Mattman Omega got a startling amount of mileage out of the GOUT. Just think of what could come of others tinkering with this.
I just don't understand how mixing it with BluRay footage would make it look better. I mean aside from the fact that, for now, splicing in a couple of scenes into the BluRay can be done much more quickly than the time it takes to release the entire 35mm preservation.
Because no matter what you do, the Blurays will always have a finer level of detail, because their source is closer to the original camera negative than any theatrical print.
timdiggerm said:
...Because no matter what you do, the Blurays will always have a finer level of detail, because their source is closer to the original camera negative than any theatrical print.
That's true, but (as recently discussed in poita's thread: http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Anyone-want-a-4K-film-scanner-for-1000/topic/15651/page/4/) the blu rays were sourced from a 1080p scan, so the detail is limited somewhat by the resolution of the scan, right?
Asaki said:
I just don't understand how mixing it with BluRay footage would make it look better.
It's not entirely about looks (although the comments above about the Blu-ray being based on earlier-generation sources are true). Even if this thing gets released and it looks better than every other video source out there, it's very unlikely to be GOUT-synced, so alternate audio tracks, etc will not work out-of-the-box with it. Having someone GOUT-sync this video would be worth it, even if no other video sources were used.
Well, yes, if you could scan the o-neg at 4K, you'd almost definitely get better detail than the official BD even if you then downscaled to 1080p; the problem is that the best source that is likely ever to be available to us is a theatrical 35mm print, which most likely doesn't even resolve 1080 lines to begin with - the best you can hope for is to get about the same level of resolution as the official BDs (and that would be pretty amazing to be honest) with hopefully better balance and more shadow and brightness detail, so doing this at 4K seems a bit pointless to me, unless you were doing something like Mike V. and combining detail from multiple prints.
This is why I think having more than one copy is a good idea even if you have LPP.
For one burned in dirt removal. If there is dirt on one frame of one
print but not on the other that dirt should be removed. as the dirt is print specific. If dirt is on both prints its more likely something that was on all prints and you may want to leave it. Also I said this before.
Some one may make a program that can put 2 frames together and cancel out grain not on both prints and leave grain on both prints, as will as putting the details missing from 1 or the other print.
This would be possible but immensely difficult as far as I know, because the two frames would have to be aligned perfectly, otherwise you'd be loosing detail, rather than gaining it.
Harmy said:
... the problem is that the best source that is likely ever to be available to us is a theatrical 35mm print, which most likely doesn't even resolve 1080 lines to begin with - the best you can hope for is to get about the same level of resolution as the official BDs
I'm confused about this. The detail lost in the generational losses between the negative and the theatrical prints mean that a theatrical print scanned at 4k or higher would be equivalent in detail to the negative scanned at 1080p?
Brooks said:
I'm confused about this. The detail lost in the generational losses between the negative and the theatrical prints mean that a theatrical print scanned at 4k or higher would be equivalent in detail to the negative scanned at 1080p?
There are a lot of factors, but it could often be less than 1080p. For example, if the film uses a lot of opticals or composites... the Mos Eisley flyby is never gonna have 1080 lines of detail.
Brooks said:
Harmy said:
... the problem is that the best source that is likely ever to be available to us is a theatrical 35mm print, which most likely doesn't even resolve 1080 lines to begin with - the best you can hope for is to get about the same level of resolution as the official BDs
I'm confused about this. The detail lost in the generational losses between the negative and the theatrical prints mean that a theatrical print scanned at 4k or higher would be equivalent in detail to the negative scanned at 1080p?
Well, it's more like: the detail lost in the generational losses between the negative and the theatrical prints means that a theatrical print scanned at 4k or higher would be equivalent in detail to the print itself, which is more than likely less than the negative scanned at 1080p.
To support this point I already posted this somewhere before:
The fine detail in Ben's coat could be missing due to compression of course, but the detail in the lines around his eyes and in his beard, not so much.
Brooks said:
Harmy said:
... the problem is that the best source that is likely ever to be available to us is a theatrical 35mm print, which most likely doesn't even resolve 1080 lines to begin with - the best you can hope for is to get about the same level of resolution as the official BDs
I'm confused about this. The detail lost in the generational losses between the negative and the theatrical prints mean that a theatrical print scanned at 4k or higher would be equivalent in detail to the negative scanned at 1080p?
Imagine taking a CD and making an mp3. Then take the mp3 and convert it to a large 24 bit 96khtz wav file. Is the wav file better than the original CD? In terms of numbers yeah, but no amount of processing is going to bring back the detail lost in the initial CD to mp3 conversion.
What’s the internal temperature of a TaunTaun? Luke warm.
Harmy said:
The fine detail in Ben's coat could be missing due to compression of course, but the detail in the lines around his eyes and in his beard, not so much.
Wow that is a dramatic difference! So the theatrical prints we watched as kids really aren't up to the standards of modern hd viewing I guess?
Mavimao said:
Imagine taking a CD and making an mp3. Then take the mp3 and convert it to a large 24 bit 96khtz wav file. Is the wav file better than the original CD? In terms of numbers yeah, but no amount of processing is going to bring back the detail lost in the initial CD to mp3 conversion.
That makes a lot of sense, but you're missing the step of the 1080p scan of the negative, which would be like lowering the sample rate of the original cd and then comparing it to the upsampled mp3. But I understand your point, well said!
Harmy: Don't forget that -1's scans are missing a lot of detail due to their use of a camera with a Bayer Filter.
It'll still look excellent, I'm sure, but don't use this material as a reference for what kind of resolution can be obtained from a release print.
It's my understanding that poita's professional 4K scanner, even when its output is downscaled to 2K, can resolve much much better than equipment that uses a Bayer Filter.
No offense to -1's project is intended, of course. I believe they're doing great work and I can't wait to see what they release.
A picture is worth a thousand words. Post 102 is worth more.
I’m late to the party, but I think this is the best song. Enjoy!
—Teams Jetrell Fo 1, Jetrell Fo 2, and Jetrell Fo 3
Yeah, I'm not saying you couldn't get a bit more detail out of the print but I think that from that picture, you can see that some of the detail probably just isn't there on the print.
AntcuFaalb said:
Harmy: Don't forget that -1's scans are missing a lot of detail due to their use of a camera with a Bayer Filter.
I believe it was stated on -1's private blog that they made the capture on a higher resolution and downconverted on the fly before cleanup.
Harmy said:
This would be possible but immensely difficult as far as I know, because the two frames would have to be aligned perfectly, otherwise you'd be loosing detail, rather than gaining it.
Well in the wizard of oz restoration
They put 3 frames together.
I know they had the negatives but it can be dun.
I think those were 3 strip separations.
I didn't say it couldn't, just that to do it right is very difficult.
Also, here's a better example of what I was saying before:
It is a 4K scan of a very good LPP 35mm theatrical print (that I'm told was done on a professional scanner, not a home built one - and it seems like it, since you can see the grain structure of the print well defined) compared to a 4K upscale of the BD - while at first sight, the print seems better, because the BD bears unmistakable signs of the upscaling, when you look closely, the BD actually resolves more detail on the skin.
And now imagine what kind of detail level could be achieved if they did a proper 4K scan of the original negative, when even a poor 1080p scan of the o-neg, that doesn't actually resolve much beyond 720p, can show more detail than a 4K scan of a projection print.
Harmy said:
And now imagine what kind of detail level could be achieved if they did a proper 4K scan of the original negative, when even a poor 1080p scan of the o-neg, that doesn't actually resolve much beyond 720p, can show more detail than a 4K scan of a projection print.
I imagine that Mark Hamill's blackheads will finally be visible to us.
We want you to be aware that we have no plans—now or in the future—to restore the earlier versions.
Sincerely, Lynne Hale publicity@lucasfilm.com
Harmy said:
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!
TV's Frink said:
Harmy said:
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!
DRAMATIZATION: MAY NOT HAVE HAPPENED
Harmy said:
And now imagine what kind of detail level could be achieved if they did a proper 4K scan of the original negative, when even a poor 1080p scan of the o-neg, that doesn't actually resolve much beyond 720p, can show more detail than a 4K scan of a projection print.
I wish that could still be done. This was taken from a recent article about the rediscovery of Black Angel, the short film originally shown before ESB:
Tanaka: I remember when we were working on the Star Wars restoration, that was a different process. I think we optically recreated interpositives. But in order to do this, it went through some kind of warm chemical bath cleansing. The weird thing about Star Wars was that it was made up of different film stocks, so it went through this bath and they didn’t know what would come out on the other end...
Parker: You mean if it would survive or not? ‘George we might destroy your entire film, but it’s... we think it’s going to be OK.’
Tanaka: There’s a space battle shot and a close-up on Hans Solo, and the original negative is coming out of this cleaning solution and it’s just acetate.
Parker: It’s all clear. Oh no, did the bath dissolve it?
Tanaka: Yeah, it dissolved it, depending on the film stock.
='(
