Alan Partridge

User Group: Members
Join date: 23-Feb-2007
Last activity: 30-May-2007
Posts: 12

Post History

Post: #288521
Topic: 24p- Why, again?
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/288521/action/topic#288521
Time: 30-May-2007 1:02 PM

Could these be chroma errors? The artifacts in your screenshots (although very hard to see on my screen) look similar to the chroma errors you get when using a DVD player that has the chroma bug. It may be down to the original mpeg compression producing the chroma artifacts.

Does your software have any chroma filters that you can use? If so, it may be able to cleanup the chroma channel (although maybe at the expense of a slight loss in chroma detail).

Post: #283024
Topic: .: The XØ Project - Laserdisc on Steroids :. (SEE FIRST POST FOR UPDATES) (* unfinished project *)
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/283024/action/topic#283024
Time: 18-Apr-2007 11:04 AM

Yeah, definitely no point in creating a hybrid! I do prefer the original crawl however, mainly because the music cues synch up correctly. There's a big music cue just as the planet scrolls into view. With the addition of 'A New Hope' the music cue is out of synch and ruins the planet reveal.

I don't think it would be jarring combining the GOUT crawl with the X0 since the GOUT crawl is already much better quality than the rest of the GOUT transfer as it's clearly taken from a higher quality source.

Post: #282264
Topic: .: The XØ Project - Laserdisc on Steroids :. (SEE FIRST POST FOR UPDATES) (* unfinished project *)
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/282264/action/topic#282264
Time: 13-Apr-2007 10:15 PM

Is Boris the guy that's always trying to defend the GOUT? If so, I've no idea why you would deduce that we are the same person, since there is nothing in my posts that defends the GOUT (indeed, I think it's a terrible transfer). I'm not saying the transfer WASN'T inverse telecined, I'm just asking for evidence that it WAS. I can't see any evidence that it was myself (and can't think of any technical reason to do so, other than disc space saving), but then I'm not analysing the MPEG data on a computer, I'm merely going by what I see on my TV screen.

Post: #282243
Topic: .: The XØ Project - Laserdisc on Steroids :. (SEE FIRST POST FOR UPDATES) (* unfinished project *)
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/282243/action/topic#282243
Time: 13-Apr-2007 8:26 PM

Originally posted by: Red5
For the DVD, the video was inverse telecined (IVTCed) to convert to 23.976fps. Unfortunately there were some cadence errors in the master, resulting in some flickering artefacts on R2D2 in the scene with Ben and Luke after the Sandpeople attack. These artefacts are visible when viewing on a computer or a progressive display.

Is there actually any evidence that this is the case? I'm not trying to prove anyone wrong, I'm just interested in how this conclusion was reached. I don't understand why they would bother taking the time to inverse telecine when there is no technical reason to do so. It seems they spent as little as possible on this release, so I'm not sure why they would bother doing this when the results would be the same either way.

I don't see any errors in that scene to indicate cadence errors. I do see lots of jaggies though, presumably from the telecine wobble inherent on the master tape.

Post: #282242
Topic: .: The XØ Project - Laserdisc on Steroids :. (SEE FIRST POST FOR UPDATES) (* unfinished project *)
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/282242/action/topic#282242
Time: 13-Apr-2007 8:19 PM

Ok, if you want to be really pedantic about, I guess 'inherently' is the wrong word to use. Yes, you can encode a progressive frame on a DVD (just like you could encode a progressive frame on a CD if you wanted), but it's meaningless. The fact is, it can't be played back on a DVD player as such because MPEG decoders decode in an interlaced fashion. The only way to get a progressive signal out of a DVD player is if it uses a separate chip to deinterlace AFTER the interlaced video has been decoded

Post: #282217
Topic: .: The XØ Project - Laserdisc on Steroids :. (SEE FIRST POST FOR UPDATES) (* unfinished project *)
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/282217/action/topic#282217
Time: 13-Apr-2007 4:14 PM

Originally posted by: Darth Mallwalker

Originally posted by: Alan Partridge
The source doesn't need to be deinterlaced before transferring to DVD.

But it should be inverse-telecined (IVTC) before transferring to DVD.
Ohterwise you're wasting bit-budget by encoding the same fields twice.
Yes, DVD stores fields not frames, but there's not much point wasting space storing two copies of the same field.
If you store telecined "frames" (two fields from different film frames) on your DVD, it'll look crap needlessly on progressive displays (computer screen, plasma TV, projector, etc.)
Not to mention, color correction routines will work best on progressive frames.

Fortunately, the X0 team members already understand the benefits of IVTC'ing their sources.

I see you edited your post for clarity.

My point still stands though. As long as each field is flagged correctly as belonging to the correct frame, then the deinterlacer will know which fields belong together, regardless of any fields stored as mixed pairs. A 23.976fps telecine and a 29.97fps telecine will have no discernable difference on your display as long as the flags are set correctly in either instance (which unfortunately, is very often not the case)

Post: #282216
Topic: .: The XØ Project - Laserdisc on Steroids :. (SEE FIRST POST FOR UPDATES) (* unfinished project *)
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/282216/action/topic#282216
Time: 13-Apr-2007 4:09 PM

If it was transferred from the laserdisc master tape without being inverse telecined (which I believe is the case, maybe someone knows for sure?), then it will be 29.97fps.

Post: #282210
Topic: .: The XØ Project - Laserdisc on Steroids :. (SEE FIRST POST FOR UPDATES) (* unfinished project *)
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/282210/action/topic#282210
Time: 13-Apr-2007 3:41 PM

That's exactly what happened with the GOUT. I guess that proves that GL isn't in his right mind!

Post: #282205
Topic: .: The XØ Project - Laserdisc on Steroids :. (SEE FIRST POST FOR UPDATES) (* unfinished project *)
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/282205/action/topic#282205
Time: 13-Apr-2007 3:16 PM

As long as the progressive flags are set correctly (which, incidentally, they appear to be on the GOUT transfer), then there is no reason it will 'look crap' on progressive displays.

I do however agree with you. A soft 3:2 encoding is better than a hard 3:2 encoding in terms of space saving.

Post: #282201
Topic: .: The XØ Project - Laserdisc on Steroids :. (SEE FIRST POST FOR UPDATES) (* unfinished project *)
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/282201/action/topic#282201
Time: 13-Apr-2007 2:56 PM

If video is stored on DVD in interlaced format (which it is), then I'd say it's fair to say that DVD is an inherently interlaced medium.

Post: #282196
Topic: .: The XØ Project - Laserdisc on Steroids :. (SEE FIRST POST FOR UPDATES) (* unfinished project *)
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/282196/action/topic#282196
Time: 13-Apr-2007 2:09 PM

Originally posted by: Doctor M Since laserdiscs (and their source) are interlaced material, some hack did a really poor de-interlace giving us artifacts that we ourselves have the sense not to create when we make our own transfers.

The source doesn't need to be deinterlaced before transferring to DVD. DVD is an inherently interlaced medium anyway. I believe the jaggies are the result of the telecine wobble. Since the transfer was captured to an interlaced medium, each field will be captured at a separate instance in time. If the film wobbles between two field captures from the same frame, then the fields won't exactly match up when weaved back together, hence the jaggies.

Post: #273383
Topic: BFI open up archives to public - significant for OOT?
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/273383/action/topic#273383
Time: 23-Feb-2007 4:02 AM

Yo, long time lurker, first time poster.

Just saw this little news article from the BBC and thought it might have some relevance for the OOT.

BFI archives to be free to public

I remember a thread from a while ago where someone contacted the BFI and they confirmed that they have preserved prints of the OOT. This could mean anyone could go along and view them free of charge!