Feallan

Looks great, thanks!

That's really impressive. Hope more old movies get this treatment.

Fixed your links:

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/138930

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/138929

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/138932

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/138933

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/138934

All Uloz links are online, I just downloaded parts 36 and 37.

Send me a PM, I'll upload them somewhere else for you.

skoal said:

Feallan said:

...

Perceptual quality. Give me a break.

...

...

Hint: you're an asshole

...

Also, for video compression it's all about perceptional quality and if you think otherwise, then there isn't much to say to ignorance.

 So do you have anything to back your claims? If all frames look waxy, the moving picture does too, don't you think?

skoal said:

Feallan said:

skoal said:

Feallan said:

x265 is nowhere near finished, it outputs worse picture quality than x264 at the same bitrate.

I think HEVC is pretty good and while what you're saying may be correct or true to you or possibly even absolutely true in a general or specific technical sense, until I see you have good reason to say what you're saying, I say it's subjective and I disagree.

 

Original frame from Blu ray: http://abload.de/img/761_original_rcued.png

x264 5000 kbps encode: http://abload.de/img/761_05000_x264p2o6x.png

x265 5000 kbps encode: http://abload.de/img/761_05000_ybrad.png

Look at the table. All the grain is gone completely.

Note that I didn't make these images, found it on google. Some settings may have been set incorrectly, but there's a reason x265 encodes are very rarely showing up on torrents.

When I basically said, it's all subjective unless you have something to back-it up, I didn't mean grabbing random images encoded with who knows which settings and which encoder (version). Give me a break. Seriously?

Also, while many on here and else where disagree, showing 2 frames and pointing out grain doesn't mean much. Yes, grain can be good, artificial grain put back in after denoising takes it out can be good, but with video compression it's about perceptual quality and we're not looking at individual frames (in exactly the same way) when we're watching the actual moving picture.

I don't like your tone. Yes, I am serious. The sample shots are from April 2015, writing library x265 1.5+452-45bac4cace5e:[Windows], 2 pass encoding, other settings here:

wpp / ctu=64 / min-cu-size=8 / max-tu-size=32 / tu-intra-depth=2 / tu-inter-depth=2 / me=3 / subme=3 / merange=57 / rect / amp / max-merge=3 / temporal-mvp / no-early-skip / rdpenalty=0 / no-tskip / no-tskip-fast / strong-intra-smoothing / no-lossless / no-cu-lossless / no-constrained-intra / no-fast-intra / open-gop / no-temporal-layers / interlace=0 / keyint=250 / min-keyint=23 / scenecut=40 / rc-lookahead=30 / lookahead-slices=0 / bframes=8 / bframe-bias=0 / b-adapt=2 / ref=3 / weightp / weightb / aq-mode=1 / aq-strength=0.30 / cbqpoffs=0 / crqpoffs=0 / rd=6 / psy-rd=0.50 / rdoq-level=1 / psy-rdoq=30.00 / signhide / deblock=-2:-2 / sao / no-sao-non-deblock / b-pyramid / cutree / rc=2 / pass / bitrate=5000 / qcomp=0.80 / qpmin=0 / qpmax=51 / qpstep=4 / cplxblur=20.0 / qblur=0.5 / ipratio=1.10 / pbratio=1.10

I have actually given you something to back up my claims, while you've only been able to say that you prefer x265, and that's about it. That encoder is objectively worse at preserving original image's look. There are loads of video comparisons between x265 and x264 on the internet. If you want them, google them yourself this time.

How can you even argue with me? 5000kbps is pretty low bitrate, but you should expect your encode to at least somewhat resemble the original. x265 one looks like it's completely DVNR'd. Detail loss is the reason no good release group even considers x265 encodes.

Perceptual quality. Give me a break.

While I would use HEVC, it was only a suggestion to look into it, dunno why so many jumped down my throat, just ridiculous.

Read your posts again and you'll have an answer.

Hint: you're an asshole

skoal said:

Feallan said:

x265 is nowhere near finished, it outputs worse picture quality than x264 at the same bitrate.

I think HEVC is pretty good and while what you're saying may be correct or true to you or possibly even absolutely true in a general or specific technical sense, until I see you have good reason to say what you're saying, I say it's subjective and I disagree.

Original frame from Blu ray: http://abload.de/img/761_original_rcued.png

x264 5000 kbps encode: http://abload.de/img/761_05000_x264p2o6x.png

x265 5000 kbps encode: http://abload.de/img/761_05000_ybrad.png

Look at the table. All the grain is gone completely.

Note that I didn't make these images, found it on google. Some settings may have been set incorrectly, but there's a reason x265 encodes are very rarely showing up on torrents.

x265 is nowhere near finished, it outputs worse picture quality than x264 at the same bitrate.

If it's HD, it already has a lot of value. :)

I hate this shifting aspect ratio fad, I'd definitely be interested in watching your version.

Check your spleen

Get better soon!

AntcuFaalb said:

Wazzles said:

What the fuck is going on in this thread?

?

 !

jaksic said:

I'll see if i can upload screen shots for it

 Is it that bootleg sourced from a film scan?

Myspleen would love it. :D

I never want to see Thai text again.

poita said:

DrDre said:

Looks great poita! Do you plan to do the trilogy in one go or will you be releasing them one at a time?

You might have seen in the 'other preservations' threads that Fantasia, Alice in Wonderland, The Matrix, Lady and the Tramp and Star Trek III have all been scanned

 Btw, what happened to your Jurassic Park scan?

I don't think we should post download links on OT.com.

But anyone can PM me

WeTransfer clip pls

You know what if you promise you won't hit and run, I'll give you a spleen invite.

drfsupercenter said:

Does it have the uncut Pastoral Symphony segment?

 Yes. There was a preview of it on old AMPS board.

thedude187 said:

Does anyone still have access to these?  I'm trying to find copies of the old depth commentaries.

 It's been uploaded to Myspleen today.

poita said:

 If you want to see a full resolution file, then here is a (compressed) example.

http://i.imgur.com/S7xD0aa.jpg

Looks amazing, thank you. :)

poita said:

RU.08 said:

Poita, how's the 35mm version going?

Half Res: (3984x1791)

http://i.imgur.com/WCqVvw8.jpg

 Wait. ~4K is only half res? :O

Tobar said:

I think it would be best to just upload high quality grindhouse-esque versions of the films and let the community work on the clean up as a whole.

That's not a good option, because it would either mean uploading/downloading terabytes of data or cleaning up a compressed material.

"Grindhouse" releases of the other two movies would be awesome though.

Interested as well.

marin888 said:
But how is possible that 2min+ is missing from reels what Poita have?
I mean it's unpossible that he forgot to scan it... someone cut them out from reels?

This section was most likely damaged beyond repair, or entirely missing from the print. It's old, and has probably been handled by a lot of people.

Wazzles said:

AntcuFaalb said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

Molly said:

I was very fortunate, I suppose, to have seen SotS as a kid in '87. :P

I managed to find a copy online to watch a couple months ago. The quality wasn't HD or anything, but it was serviceable. I honestly found it a beautiful movie; those who call it racist are either overtly-sensitive members of the PC police or haven't even seen the movie in the first place.

Damn straight. We don't need no stinkin' SJWs!

 epic

 brave