This user has been banned.
thorr said: I am not sure how to post images, but I just did a quick touch up to a frame from the Puggo Grande to illustrate my point, and it came out pretty well.
Upload images to tinypic and then paste in the URL that it gives you, like this:
]
TV's Frink said:
http://www.highdefdigest.com/blog/aliens-teal-orange/
Thoughts?
Finally! Someone has written a blog about something that I have been moaning to friends about for ages. Usually, I receive blank looks when I say that I hate the way so many modern films (and many modern transfers of older films) look the same because everything looks blue-green and orange. I don't mind the blue-green quite so much, but I can't stand the orange.
There are so many films that have been subject to this treatment. Troy is another film that looks nothing like it used to if you watch the director's cut. I am so glad that I have my HD DVD of the theatrical cut.
I have just seen the BD of Aliens, and while it does look this way, the image quality is very high. The DVD looks too pink anyway, so overall I'd go with the BD.
Moth3r's right. There are duplicate frames -- many of them. Some of them are close together: 20 and 21, and 24 and 25, for example. The duplicate seems somehow heavier (blurrier?) than its predecessor, which might explain the shimmering that you see.
The method I posted was just the one I usually try as a first attempt. I have been trying to see if there is a pattern, but so far I cannot work it out. Really, HDTV broadcasts can be a pain, which is why I suggested videohelp: the guys there are far better at working these things out than I am.
Your directory structure, as the name implies, is where the file is located on your computer. Mine would be:
Loadplugin("C:\My Utilities\dgmpgdec157\DGDecode.dll")
Find where you installed DGIndex.
The shimmering you mentioned might well be in the source. I don't know if you can do anything about that. (As I said, videohelp.com might be the best place to ask about that.)
To inverse telecine, you will need the latest version of Avisynth, DGIndex, PGCDemux and I would recommend you try the TIVTC plugin first, which you should place in the plugins directory inside Avisynth. These are all free.
This is probably the easiest procedure to follow, if you haven't inverse telecined a video before.
Loadplugin("Your_Directory_Structure\DGDecode.dll")
Mpeg2Source("Your_Directory_Structure\Your_Video.d2v")
TFM(d2v="Your_Directory_Structure\Your_Video.d2v")
TDecimate()
You can skip loading the plugin if you put DGDecode.dll in your Avisynth plugins directory. Then open your script in HC Enc (0.25 is now out) and encode with pulldown flags.
You can experiment with the various options for TIVTC if you need to, but the default setting usually does a good job.
Posting a sample of the end credits isn't the best thing to do if you want people to see the problems with your video. This isn't HD: it is is 720x480. Did you resize the clip? If so, you shouldn't resize interlaced video unless you really know what you are doing (and even then I wouldn't recommend it.)
@Doug Gorius
This is something that I would suggest you take to videohelp.com and post there.
I don't think ferris has been on the list before. Perhaps Frink can start upating it now that the period of temporary reprieve has apparently ended.
Do you think J T34 reads threads and bans people if he finds anything that they have said that he disagrees with or doesn't like?
The Singapore plant is the best; the plants in Taiwan and India are not as good. I think that Datalifeplus discs have at times been outsourced so I suppose it depends. (Aren't Datelifeplus discs being phased out anyway?)
In my personal experience, discs from Singapore are great, discs from Taiwan are generally fine, and discs from India are awful and are a waste of space. I have had discs from Singapore that have had various kinds of packaging and labelling but have seemed the same in terms of quality. Basically, I would suppose that if the discs are marked "made in Singapore" whatever else is on the packaging/labelling doesn't matter. (I cannot give you a technical answer though.)
zombie84 said: Well, what I said is that he is mistaken in insisting that the previous transfers are how the film should look and the yardstick by which to measure the film.
He didn't. He said that he had seen the films theatrically and thought that the previous transfers were closer in terms of color. You didn't qualify the "you are mistaken" remark at all, and I certainly didn't take it the way you say you meant it.
zombie84 said: This is still a fault. It doesn't matter if the DC is not 100%, it's still a mistake to take it to task for deviating from the previous transfers since the previous transfers were not accurate either, nor are theatrical prints (and ones memory of theatrical prints).
I don't recall anyone taking the DC to task for deviating from previous transfers of the theatrical cut. Some people don't like the fact that the theatrical version is timed in the same way as the DC. I am not one of them, and I generally agree wtih you about the Blu-ray transfers, but I can certainly understand that point of view.
zombie84 said: Well, as I said:
"The DC timing may not be 100% perfect, because no transfer ever can be for an older film simply because the colours will no longer exist in any reliable way, and perhaps the DC is a bit punchier than it should be, but its closer to watching something from the original negative than any previous version of the film, including original prints"
You also said to Imperial Fighter:
I understood what you are saying. But you are mistaken.
It seems to me that that is too strong a statement to make when you concede in the same post that it is impossible to be 100% perfect and therefore 100% sure. I agree with everything you said about the Blu-rays, and I am sure that they are fantastic, but if the color timing does differ I can understand how he feels if he prefers the old transfers, inaccurate though they are in some respects. I just think that one can see both sides -- that's all.
I think that there is room for an intermediate position between Zombie84's and ImperialFighter's. On one hand the old DVD and LD home video releases were often red shifted and washed out. They also frequently had their contrast boosted.
On the other hand, remastered Blu-ray transfers (by which I mean true remasters, not DNR scrubbing of old ones) that attempt to recreate the way that prints originally looked often appear strikingly different in terms of colors, because the old transfers were inaccurate; however, as Zombie84 stated, recreating the original appearance of films is never completely accurate. It is possible that, even with the best intentions, those who restore films sometimes overcompensate in their attempts to restore how films originally looked. The blue-cyan shift that is increasingly seen on many Blu-rays can be excessive, in my opinion.
The tendency of certain directors to revise how their films look also has to be taken into account. I am not prepared to accept that every time a Blu-ray looks different from previous releases it is all down to ENR emulation or an attempt to restore the theatrical look. The Blu-ray-is-always-right attitude is just as extreme as the attitude of those who cannot accept that a look to which they have become accustomed is the only way to present a film.
EDIT: Like dark_jedi, I have not yet opened my set. From screenshots, I agree with msycamore that the Blu-rays look better than the last DVD releases in terms of color. I am concerned about the cropping too though. ImperialFighter, I will try to let you know about the colors on the theatrical cut of Alien after I watch my copy.
ImperialFighter said: Not sure if there's a misunderstanding here, but I'll try again - the 'Theatrical' cut of ALIEN on the 'Quadrilogy' dvd set is identically colour-timed throughout to match the 'darkened'/'stylized' look of the newly colour-timed 'Director's Cut'...compared to the 'Theatrical' cut of ALIEN in it's previous releases.
Whether due to 'branching' or being deliberately done to match the new look of the 'Director's Cut or not, I don't know, but either way, this new colourization is very different to how the 'Theatrical' cut always used to look.
I agree with ImperialFighter. The color timing of the DVD release on the Quadrilogy set (=Fox, CE) is different from the color timing of previous DVD releases. While I actually like it, I understand why ImperialFighter does not. This might be because of the branching, but I have no doubt that the change in color timing is deliberate. Scott tends to do this for remastered versions of his films.
TV's Frink said:
Chewtobacca said:
The current avatar is funnier than the first.
Best.GIF.ever! :-D
The current avatar is funnier than the first.
Come on, Frink! Let's have that avatar back.
Hey, Leonardo, you're starting to look like TV's Frink! As a former sufferer from Frink's Disease myself, I can sympathize. Dont worry though: Frink has the cure. You'll have to be nice to him if you want him to put you out of your flippancy.
Johnny Ringo said:
c'mon... everyone is guilty of going off topic at one time or another.
If that is meant for me, then I agree that I am guilty of this too, but I do try to stay on topic in the project threads.
These Blu-rays provide the ideal opportunity for making new hybrid cuts. I particularly liked the hybrid cut of Alien 3.
I agree with Warbler, Frink. Just try really hard to keep it in off topic. I would hate to see you leave or be banned.
It is a shame that the rules cannot be enforced a little less strictly in the general Star Wars discussion forum because there are always some threads there that are just asking to be Frinked. I do think that the off topic posts in threads devoted to specific projects should be curtailed though.
I agree with Frink. It seems people have been nettled by Crygor64's remarks and felt the need to respond straight away. We really should move this to a separate thread in a more relevant section.
Crygor64 said: If you condemn George for making changes and yet you support Adywan and his "Extra Special Editions" you are a total hypocrite. There's no denying that truth.
If people condemn Lucas just for making changes but wish to make changes of their own, then the charge of hypocrisy would be valid; however, I do not think that many people here do condemn Lucas just for the changes made to the Special Editions. I certainly do not. What people do condemn him for is failing to preserve the original versions in high quality and wishing to erase a part of cinema history.
As I said before, Adywan wants both his versions and the original versions to be available to people, which is completely different from Lucas, who only wants the 2004 Special Editions to be available to people. I cannot see why anyone would deny the logic of this.
Moreover, I have yet to hear Adywan calling for the 2004 Special Editions to be erased from history or deny that Lucas should have made them. He even restored the 1997 Special Edition of ESB that Lucas has not released. In fact, a number of preservations of the 1997 Special Editions have been made by members of this forum, and these have generated a fair amount of interest. This should be enough to show that we are not all Lucas-hating zealots who only like the theatrical versions.
pittrek said: Means a double "fail" for me :-)
Have you seen RLM's reviews? This joke is, I believe, an allusion to one of the reviews. If you had seen the review, you might find the allusion at least mildly diverting.
I agree with Anchorhead. I couldn't care less.
