Doctor M

Any progress on this by anyone or is everyone waiting for someone else?

That's a new one to me, bjwanlund.

I don't have an old source to check on that.

Videolan Player maybe?

TheSkeletonMan939 said:

Doctor M said:

I maintain the first two movies are the best and most faithful to the books.

 Ditto. But moreover I feel that they're better films than the rest. Films 4, 5, 7, and 8 are extremely unfocused and are barely understandable without having read the books beforehand.

The first two films remain my favorite in terms of atmosphere, pacing, coloring, editing, and story.

You nailed it completely.  I rewatched the whole series recently and it's been a really long time since I've read the books (8 years?).

I realized I've forgotten some of the important plot points from the books that make the movies make sense.

I'm currently re-reading the books, but about done with ever seeing the movies again.  (And I've fan-edited 4 of them.)

What troubles me the most is if you've seen the scripts and heard the interviews, you know there is a LOT more footage out there that fills in the plot holes.

If the Lord of the Rings/Hobbit movies have taught us anything, it's that there is a bottomless desire for people to see every scrap of film cut into a movie and re-buy.  I don't know why WB would leave that money on the table.

I'll wait for those cuts... or the reboot.

(Sorry, I now return you to your regularly scheduled thread.)

If you want the first 2 Harry Potters to be more like the later ones, just desaturate the color, darken the picture until noon day sun looks like a day for night shot, cut anything plot related out and just string the action scenes together.
Done.

I maintain the first two movies are the best and most faithful to the books.

My $.02.  You are of course free to edit away.

The problem is the color and levels are already destroyed.  There's only so much you can do without the pre-color-corrected shots.

Thanks, TServo2049.

Quick question to you guys, was the VHS tape originally uncensored as well?

My research suggests it has all of what has been restored here except Betty Boop's Boops.  (And the 'For A Good Time' graffiti has never been found anywhere(?))

@Spaced Ranger- I haven't watched a physical laserdisc myself in years.  Most of what I know is from discussions here and on other forums.

I have tried to include laserdisc info when I know it, and lddb.com is a good place just to find out about different versions that were released.

@SilverWook - Was Darby cropped to widescreen or was there actually more image?

This is the first I've heard of the dubbed soundtrack.  Was it used on the DVD?

Edit: Wikipedia says the 'easier to understand' dub was used for DVD releases.  I'm thinking the TV version is some fluke.

DouglasJ said:

Feallan said:

Myspleen?

 I've never managed to get an invite. One day I'll get this.

 3 posts here in 2 years?  I'm not surprised.

You know, I'm starting to wondering if a project I'm working on is in this format.

I assumed it was a standard blended fields PAL video, but the run time is still shortened.

How do you identify this type of video?  It still has blended fields, doesn't it?

Edit: Never mind, figured it out.  For others who want to know the difference, apply bob to your video:

2:2:2:...:3 (aka 12:1 and 24:1) will show 11 clean fields in duplicates and then a field in triplicate.  No blending.

Blended fields have slightly more than half of its fields blended (double image).  Srestore is your best bet for this.

As far as the project I'm working on?  I think Imdb has the runtime wrong.

Space Hunter M said:

Has anybody ever dealt with 2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:3 pulldown PAL transfers before? I've tried several basic ChangeFPS settings to decimate the redundant frames back to 23.976/film speed, but I always end up with skipped/duplicated frames. Any suggestions would be helpful.

I'm not completely familiar with it, but is all you're looking for is a way to drop one duplicate frame out of 25?  Is the source interlaced?

They may wisely be waiting to see what Disney does.  Force Awakens is in 9 months, it wouldn't be unreasonable to hear about a new DVD release in 6 months.

Still, I can't argue with the variety of preserved audio tracks here that Disney will never do.

Bumpin' some oldness, but has anyone tried to take on recoloring the new Top Gun transfer to match the old colors (doesn't even need to be 3D)... or is everyone just sticking with the 3 time released 2D-BD version.

Disney has preserved it.  I'm aware that they did a digital transfer to keep the film from being lost.  They just have no plans to release it to home video.

Of course that sounds like the sort of thing ripe to be leaked.

You are quite correct, titanic.  For comparison here is the Platinum DVD of the same frame.  That is meant to be a reflection or inside detail.

Also a screenie for giggles, don't expect more.

I dunno what window line you are referring to, titanic, there are many lines that are ghost images.

But now that you mention it the vertical seam on the back of her dress loses its top and bottom edge and the knot in her apron becomes a bit less distinct.  Unfortunately those details are pretty hard to make out before the filtering and in motion are probably invisible.

Do you plan to attempt your own clean up, titanic, or do you figure to watch it completely unfiltered?

The problem is there is just not much clean detail in the original disc.  I'm mostly shocked by the ghosting.

It may look over-filtered, but it is just a distillation of what little good image there is.  I can find no detail that is actually being removed.

It'll make a good reference in the future for anyone wanting to try to re-color-time a newer release.

I'll say that I don't need the unfiltered release.  I don't know about anyone else.

_,,,^..^,,,_ said:

No downscaling; this is the raw laserdisc capture, just cropped; of course, as it's cropped, the aspect ratio is not right.

Happy to know you like the filtered version; it took me a lot to reach a good overall balance - not perfect, but good enough and way better than the unfiltered version, IMHO.

 Huh? Then the filtered side is the filters without the upscale.

My concern was a lot of aliasing (stair stepping on straight lines.)  If you had taken the final version and downscaled it, I could see how that could happen.  Now I'm concerned about how the complete version looks.

As far as the the aspect ratio, I wasn't going by measurements, I just thought everything looked a bit squashed.  Like Laserdisc 1 in this comparison: http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/86496

Wow.  I'm sold on the filtered version.

I do want to ask though if the aliasing is a result of down scaling(?) for the sample.  I also have the feeling the aspect ratio is a bit wider than it should be.  Again, since it isn't your final HD I'm assuming that's from reducing the size.

Do we have any source (e.g. film) that gives away which if these is the closest to accurate?

The problem with doing a preservation project of these movies is we see the studio is perfectly willing to revise the look with each release and they re-release it frequently.

We could easily see a better new transfer next year in UHD or something.

Any chance of just a clip comparison between filter and unfiltered?  I know that's a bit much to ask, but I suspect side by side it might prove the unfiltered to be inferior and unnecessary.

Wow, that is some serious differences between transfers.   The 2005 DVD is garbage!