Sign In

FrankB

User Group
Members
Join date
12-Jan-2017
Last activity
27-Oct-2020
Posts
40

Post History

Post
#1380745
Topic
Info: Back to the Future - without DNR & EE
Time

I don’t agree to this. The new master is worse than the older one. Less details due to too high contrasts. See lights/shadows in picture 2. Many light details are missing.
Colors are slightly more saturated, but to me seem also worse in sense of being less original.

EDIT:
Oops, it seems I stuck on page 40. My comment refers to this post:
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/1363928/action/topic#1363928

Sorry.

Post
#1378771
Topic
Star Trek Deep Space Nine - NTSC DVD Restoration & 1080p HD Enhancement (Emissary Released)
Time

triadne said:
…using the hd versions of TNG alongside the SD versions of that, to help teach the AI how to upscale star trek images better?

Up to now this won’t work, because the A.I. only uses structure-similarity to guess what new details it might create. What you suggest will be the future, but not the near future, I fear. Machine learning will be really convincing, when it will begin to think like humans think: To categorize and associate things in “tree views”, in order to take details from things that really correspondate with the missing details in the version to be upscaled.
Maybe in 20 years your suggestion would not be wrong. 😃

Post
#1375834
Topic
Star Trek Deep Space Nine - NTSC DVD Restoration & 1080p HD Enhancement (Emissary Released)
Time

I just took the time to try something. I always thought the worst picture quality of the pilot is in the scene with Cisco and son. There is no magic that can turn this in something really good, but it is possible to remove most of the rainbowing, aliasing and (bad) grain, in order to get something to experiment with:

Before

After

One could sharpen this a bit, but that wouldn’t do much good. Too many vertical-ringing-kind artefacts, that would be sharpend, too. It’s even possible to remove these (didn’t try yet, just think so), but would surely cost a lot of sharpness, and I doubt if in the end this would be profitable for AI input

Post
#1375828
Topic
Star Trek Deep Space Nine - NTSC DVD Restoration & 1080p HD Enhancement (Emissary Released)
Time

@Animaxx
Wonderful story! A trekkie-family-tradition! And: what an obligation!
I know this kind of feeling very well: The strong wish to take part, help, somehow in something you really love.

Joel Hruska said:
The problem is DS9 itself. There’s a reason I didn’t use Emissary (1x01) to show off my work. Early Deep Space 9 does not respond to upscaling nearly as well as later DS9 does. It’s not as clear. It’s not as sharp. It makes early greenscreen effects look really fake, and the footage can almost look as though it’s being spliced in from VHS. There’s moire on everything, the models are dull, and it scarcely looks like an upgrade. Some of that is baked right into the source and looks bad there (like the early holodeck scene), but gets magnified by the upscaler. But the show looks bad – really bad – on DVD.

Yes, I know that. I recently watched it (about two months ago the first episode). They seem to have improved scanning equipment through the years… Problems are Rainbowing (see Borg-cube), Ringing (I guess not because of not-so-well DVD-encoding, but somehow compressed storage in the past, quite common - see captions after upscaling), rests of aliasing (same reason, some of the past storage compression algorithms did not 100% take respect of interlacing), artefacts of not-so-well encoded film-grain, a. s. o.
Maybe I can find some time next week for this, I see some possibilities.

Post
#1375745
Topic
Star Trek Deep Space Nine - NTSC DVD Restoration & 1080p HD Enhancement (Emissary Released)
Time

Animaxx said:

Another little note here: My old device had a mode (unfortunately I can’t remember the exact name, let’s just call it “Pure SD-Resolution”) which played files in their natural ratio/size, only going to a max of 1080p, which - funny as it sounds - looked better than the 4K upscale my present device does. So the only way around that is to use a separate player, that can play back the older files in original resolution, since the TV always upscales (which is as I have said fine for everything else, just not the older shows).

So the technical evolution of playback devices may “force” fans to take action in order to keep enjoying their shows because they look worse through enhancements they can’t change manually on the devices themselves.

This certainly has to do with bad deinterlacing… You are right: Especially NTSC-DVDs can be watched best, when you set HDMI to 576i. That may be the mode your player used.

I just looked into the upscaled pilot. Well, I don’t want to be negative, but it’s not for me. And I still think, there is not REALLY much done about new details. Everything Topaz did, seem to me to be also possible with slight sharpenings (if you know how) and simple resizing.

But: This can be the future, and everything new needs pioneers who just do it, become better and better, inspire even better techniques, a. s. o.

Maybe it’s also about youth and age. I watched my first Star Trek episodes in Germany in 1972, so I think I can also wait a few years longer to see something really revolutionary.
But keep on to move forward, where no man has gone before!

Post
#1375730
Topic
Star Trek Deep Space Nine - NTSC DVD Restoration & 1080p HD Enhancement (Emissary Released)
Time

Animaxx said:

Thanks for all your input. But I must ask: Does the 25 FPS bother you on my version? If so, I would consider doing the slowdown to 23,976 FPS, but I did watch my pilot-version and did not notice any decline in audio quality despite me doing modifications.

No bothering at all. But
-23.976 (24, but THIS difference isn’t noticeable…) is the original speed.
-Resampling audio is never lossless, but quite lossless, if you change speed AND naturally pitch together with it. Manipulations of pitch are always lossy. Meanwhile there are really good algorithms, but it’s never the same.

Bothering? No. But you want the best possible quality, don’t you?

Post
#1375669
Topic
Star Trek Deep Space Nine - NTSC DVD Restoration & 1080p HD Enhancement (Emissary Released)
Time

Joel Hruska said:
Then you can pitch-shift the audio down by 4% or get yourself the NTSC discs.

4% isn’t enough. This would fit if you slowed down to exactly 24fps. You have to resample with 104.271%
We use these numbers (the opposite for speedup is 95.904%) that often, that I know it by heart.

Post
#1375484
Topic
Star Trek Deep Space Nine - NTSC DVD Restoration & 1080p HD Enhancement (Emissary Released)
Time

RwAoNrDdOsM said:

The newer masters for the DVDs were carefully IVTCed (and the 29.97 portions brought to 23.976 in I-don’t -know-what-way), and then sped up to 25fps.

Are you sure they did this?
From what I found it was suggested that they used a method called DEFT to convert it to 25 fps. It does produce some combing artifacts but it works 99% of the time and that’s why I haven’t touched the PAL discs since then.

The portions with originally film, 23.976fps, seem clean progressive, and just sped up. That’s why the German sound for the DVDs had to be sped up too, while in the nineties they had done another type of conversion without speeding it up. Often done at that time, but not suitable for modern Flat tvs. This was a mixture of keeping the original interlace structure plus blendings - sometimes quite well reversable with avisynths SRestore.

The portions with originally 29.97fps (cgi, and, as Joel pointed out, even more scenes) have to be converted in another way: To get them from nearly 30 to 25 it is not possible just to slow down, that would be much too highly noticable, for sound and also picture. Also decimating is not possible, because there are no double fields to remove, and the result will be very jerky. So this is done with motion flow algorithms, f. e. with hardware or software alchemist (which can also DEFT, as I just read, but I don’t know anything more about this special technique).
In this special case they had to bring it first to 23.976fps, so that the whole episode in the end could be sped up alltogether to 25fps for PAL.
This is all a bit speculation, because up to now I haven’t seen any of the NTSC DVDs to be sure, but it should have been made like this - I can’t think of any other reason, why the German sound was sped up for the DVDs. And this was used typically.

So you can simply take the PAL discs, slow it down to 23.976, and you have the best possible conversion already done to
-one unique framerate
-progressive (if the original 29.97fps sections ARE progressive, I just assume this - if not, deinterlace first)
Everything you need for upscaling.

Post
#1375107
Topic
Star Trek Deep Space Nine - NTSC DVD Restoration & 1080p HD Enhancement (Emissary Released)
Time

Animaxx said:
Strangely enough, the tv broadcasts and dvd versions are higher pitched around germany than the original vhs tapes, which had lower pitch.

Interesting, I didn’t know that. That means:
By the time the series was brought to Germany it was often practised technique to convert from NTSC to PAL in a mix of blending and keeping the original interlacing, especially with such mix-content of pulldowned and native 29.97 material.
So they seem to have dubbed it in its original length. This is what is also on the VHS cassettes.
The newer masters for the DVDs were carefully IVTCed (and the 29.97 portions brought to 23.976 in I-don’t -know-what-way), and then sped up to 25fps. Then they sped up the sound without correcting the pitch to its lower original. So you are damned right when you pitch down - even better would have been to slow down to 23.976 and then simply resample the German dub down, pitch would be corrected automatically and everything fine!

As for the speed down to 23,976 FPS: That would cause motion stutter again, which I was happy to have avoided with PAL at 25 FPS.

That’s an error. Slowing down does not at all cause any stutter, if you do it right - that means the very simplest way. Try it with avisynth with, as I said:
new=assumefps(old,24000,1001)
This will just change the SPEED, no t one frame will be added or dropped.

Post
#1375063
Topic
Star Trek Deep Space Nine - NTSC DVD Restoration & 1080p HD Enhancement (Emissary Released)
Time

Animaxx said:

Guys, I have done it. The 4K-pilot is finished. It was rendered at 15 Mbps in 4:3 format at a display size of 2846x2160p (4:3).

First: Congratulations!

I also used the original NTSC audio and adapted to the PAL-running time while maintaining the original pitch; also, I have pitch corrected the german audio so the PAL-Speedup has been taken care of (no more high pitched voices).

Critics: (as always…)

  1. For the German sound there is no pitch to correct if you leave it at 25fps. Or do I misunderstand? It is originally made for 25fps, and your result is also 25fps. Why correct?
  2. As I said before: You should simply slow down Video to 23.976, and the English audio will fit.
  3. IF you do so, THEN the German audio you would have to slow down, too, and in this case you should pitch correct it about 1/4 to 1/2 tone up.

By the way: These pitch corrections always produce a quality loss, even with the best algorithms, be aware of that fact.

Post
#1374958
Topic
Star Trek Deep Space Nine - NTSC DVD Restoration & 1080p HD Enhancement (Emissary Released)
Time

FrankB said:
Bringing everything to 120 (119.88)fps is not good, too. Ok, you can take the smooth, ready IVTCed 23.976 and “enlarge” it with a ratio 4:1, that is, repeat each frame 5 times. For the 29.97 portions, also smooth, repeat each frame 4 times. Everything 100% smooth, ok, BUT: The speed ratio of both won’t be correct, the latter ones (29.97) will play 4/5 slower than the others.

Just did it again… myself a victim of the mentioned fallacies… 😉
After combining the different portions to 120fps as mentioned above, everything will of course play in exactly the same and correct speed. So 120 would really be an option, if done right.

Post
#1374942
Topic
Star Trek Deep Space Nine - NTSC DVD Restoration & 1080p HD Enhancement (Emissary Released)
Time

Joel Hruska said:
I will get you some samples made today. Do you have a Microsoft OneDrive account or do you prefer Google Drive?

Thank you, but please try to keep it SMALL. I live on the flattest country 😉

A person who paints paintings is not the same as the person who restores them, but you cannot restore art if you do not understand something of the artist.

No question. You have to know a lot and if you do your best, it’s not easier than to create something like a tv-series, where they also do their best.

The creativity in restoration comes in choosing which techniques to apply, and maybe in finding / inventing new techniques that handle something better than a previous solution did.

Yes, you are right, this is a creative, sometimes VERY creative process, too.

I am preparing some clips to show you final output of the method. I want to make sure I am clear about what I expect you to see:

1). Recovery of the same progressive frames as in the 23.976 fps Rio Grande version.
2). Interpolated frames that provide the smoothness required to make the 59.94 version move smoothly in places where the 23.976 fps version fails to recover ideal motion.

Ok, ok, thanks, but: This is a possible way to go, BUT:
If you go to 59.94fks, then:

  1. you get smoothest motion in the parts, that were 29,97fps originally
  2. you get somehow smooth motion but with slightly variing speed for all the parts that were pulldowned from 23.976 (originally 24)fps.

The parts with 2. are MUCH larger than 1.
So it’s the only way to go to do FIRST the best you can do for these large parts, and that means:
Decimate.
If you do this right, you get 100% smooth, progressive frames 1:1 of the original film material.

THEN you can think about what to do with the original 29.97 parts. You have to slow them down to 23.976
This is only possible with motion flow. If you decimate somehow you get big jerky junk. As I said above: We did this with Alchemist, that did a quite good job, not perfect though. In Avisynth there are also several ways, one is a larger script called “framereatconverter”, another, that is used by the first, is using MVTools.
There are also AI possibilities, f. e. Resolve, which makes use of GPU / CUDA - but I am not very good in this.
I tried it several months ago, but was not very pleased with the results.

Bringing everything to 120 (119.88)fps is not good, too. Ok, you can take the smooth, ready IVTCed 23.976 and “enlarge” it with a ratio 4:1, that is, repeat each frame 5 times. For the 29.97 portions, also smooth, repeat each frame 4 times. Everything 100% smooth, ok, BUT: The speed ratio of both won’t be correct, the latter ones (29.97) will play 4/5 slower than the others.

The 60 fps motion of Orinoco is smoother than the 119.88 fps conversions that I’ve tested (I tested 119.88 as a way to equalize the 23.976 fps and 29.97 fps content). The motion is less irregular. There are still absolutely interpolated frames being used to smooth out the presentation and I won’t claim there aren’t, but the subtle, hitching jerking that I spent so many months trying to repair has vanished. I’ve messed around with changing the frame rate from 23.976 to 29.97, 47.952, 59.94, even 71.9128 (a little) and 119.88 (a lot).

These experiments are not new to me. I did similar things some years ago, and I fear, everyone who has to work with these things had to do so once. I also can remember how frustrating this can be - and how many fallacies you make…

The encode method I call Orinoco is the best 59.94 conversion method I have found.

I believe you, and also that the method is intelligent! But the results cannot be “correct”… That is
-progressive AND
-smooth AND
-always have the same speed
Just because you can’t divide 60 through 24… 😉

I’d prefer not to use it. It takes a very long time to upscale 59.94 content. But it does solve problems in the places where Rio Grande leaves bad motion – and it does so without causing visible frame rate stutter. Are the interpolated frames still there? Absolutely. Do I want them there? No. I’m just willing to tolerate them if I have to.

As I said, you have to decimate for the pulldowned sections and then take care of the real 29.97 material in a different way.

Post
#1374882
Topic
Star Trek Deep Space Nine - NTSC DVD Restoration & 1080p HD Enhancement (Emissary Released)
Time

This is not a creative art, as one could think sometimes. It’s just preservation of something others created, and which is worth to be preserved the best possible way. The result counts, that’s all!
The real big thing is to create something like Star Trek, compared to this, we are all small, but it’s always fun and very rewarding to somehow do something good for this worthy content, I think Joel feels it similar.

Post
#1374876
Topic
Star Trek Deep Space Nine - NTSC DVD Restoration & 1080p HD Enhancement (Emissary Released)
Time

Joel Hruska said:
Seriously, Frank. In no way am I trying to either imply you are unhelpful or crap on your expertise.

Never mind, so didn’t I with yours. Maybe my English is not that good, and you feel wrong subtle “vibrations”, not meant. It is not really easy to help, if someone of high intelligence like you is in the job for months, already did hundreds of experiments a. s. o.
But in spite of this you - sorry - seem not to really understand what really happens with the original 24fps-film when being pulldowned.
Ok, you see RELATIVE smooth motion in your 60fps result, because you use interpolated frames, but this artificially extended motion cannot be really smooth, it’s sometimes faster, sometimes slower. This can’t be called “stutter”, ok, but it is not the original smooth motion, where one frame of the original celluloid-film is one frame (or at least a multiple of one for EACH frame) in the end result. This is simply not possible, if you have 24fps film and 60fps end result.
Pulldown is done by doubling several fields (several ways to do so, doesn’t matter here). These have to be decimated to get back the clean progressive, original content, which is necessary to fill the AI upscaler, and to get really smooth and good results.
Your interpolated frames are not really good anyway concerning picture quality, but make also motion slower and faster.
Just the portions where you might have native 29.97fps, (interlaced or not, not important because you deinterlace), will work, because there you have simply doubled frames, when going to 60 (59.94)fps. This is smooth, ok.
I don’t think, it’s the way to go, to keep any double frames, and even worse to add interpolated frames to make it a bit(!) smoother. So your decision to get to 23.976 was the only way to go.

Again: If you like to see a IVTC-by-hand-script, send me some portions of the NTSC-DVDs. Also the opening credits are interesting for me - is this field-shifted? Interlaced? Pulldowned AND field-shifted?

Post
#1374796
Topic
Star Trek Deep Space Nine - NTSC DVD Restoration & 1080p HD Enhancement (Emissary Released)
Time

Joel Hruska said:
Alright. Now I see it. If that’s what you call a major anti-aliasing problem, I strongly suggest you never watch the NTSC credits. I cannot upload them to YouTube in SD because the YT algorithm utterly destroys SD content, so I have to give you screenshots – but take a look.

Looks like shifted fields. Can you upload the credits, or a few seconds of it, without conversion somewhere?
I do not understand where the problem realy lies?

Look at the degree of aliasing in those images, and I think you’ll understand why I’m experimenting with TR2=4 or TR2=5. TR2=3 creates a ripple across the front of the station that TR2=4 (at least) helps fix.

Seems not the right way to handle this, but let me see it first - maybe I will have to admit it IS that horrible. But hard to believe.

The reason to write an article telling people how to deal with PAL is so that PAL people know how to best convert the show. I am not advocating for some kind of code of honor. I want to produce the best overall version of Deep Space Nine. But the goal is to provide a “Best-in-class” improvement method to everyone, which means I’m also interested in the best way to handle PAL.

Not much difference to NTSC. After you made NTSC sources progressive and the anti-aliased possible rest of aliasing which came from reordering fields it should be pretty much the same procedure plus a slowdown at the very end.

Doom9 is correct that IVTC is complicated. The only way to perform it perfectly, as far as I know, is to hand-comb every scene and manually tune the frame order method via a TFM OVR file.

It is even better not to write a file for TFM, but to IVTC completely by hand. Not very complicated, I do this all the time, if the pattern doesn’t change too often. With the amount of episodes it is quite a job, though, but writing files for TFM also… If you like, I can post a typical script for by-hand-IVTC.

However – it turns out that the following actually works pretty damn well:

TFM()
TDecimate()

Would be easy then, but if you do so with native 29.97(i or p) content there will be missing frames and skipping (is that the right word?) all the time.

I have also developed a secondary method of creating a 60 fps method of the show that matches the quality of what I’ve shown you.

No good idea, because it doesn’t remove stuttering from telecine-double-fields. That is the whole problem with content like this. Progressive 30, 60 will stutter with originally film=24fps. How could this be avoided? There have to be double frames, at least fields, or can you divide 60 through 24?

Still searching for a way to automate it perfectly (the commands above are automatic, but not perfect).

Don’t exactly know, what’s your goal. But simply the first necessary, to IVTC, is not perfectly automatically possible. That’s why we do it by hand if ever possible.

Initial evaluation of naive implementation of AniMaxx’s algorithm suggests it’s oversharpening in my case. I like the overall output otherwise. Going to adjust some variables, then toss in the rest and see what it looks like. 😃

I wouldn’t sharpen at all, only a bit unsharpmasking, but that’s another question… 😉

Post
#1374762
Topic
Star Trek Deep Space Nine - NTSC DVD Restoration & 1080p HD Enhancement (Emissary Released)
Time

Joel Hruska said:
I’m experimenting with renoise options at the moment, to see how they impact things. Also, yes, trying to calibrate the proper amount of processing and denoising to do in the front-end before letting an AI program have a go at it. Some AI models include denoising that works effectively but I’d rather not have to use them in the first place.

My opinion: Better choice. Because it will kill details rather than create “new ones”, if you let the AI denoise. Just my experience, there may be other scenarios. Renoising - to say it again - is best if you use the original noise. This is not common practice, by the way. Mostly they use some more or less random algorithms, as you surely know.

It’s not the FX scenes that are automatically in 29.97. In fact, in the first season, at least some episodes are basically 100% film. I don’t know when this stops. In others, like Sacrifice of Angels, most of the battle scenes are 23.976 fps, though there’s one post-credits scene that has preserved incidents of 3:2 pulldown in a 29.97 fps stream. That one threw me for awhile, trying to figure out how that could happen. Baked-in source error is awesome.

So there ARE pulldowned 23.976 and native 29.97 scenes, right? Just this fact makes it A LOT harder to deal with the NTSC sources instead of PAL, if you finally want
-progressive (to use with AI)
-stutter-free
results.
In addition the PAL sources have less aliasing. So two very strong reasons to use PAL as sources.
And are there also scenes where they overlayed both? Am I right with this speculation? We had this in a series I worked at a few years ago, also SciFi, made about the same time as DS9, a bit earlier. The overlayed scenes are definitely not stutter-free, and there is no way to IVTC it 100% correctly.
We handled, by the way, the native 29.97 scenes different from the well IVTCed 23.976-scenes and had to convert it with Alchemist optical flow, which was the best option at that time (today also AI is somehow better in these cases…).

Sorry, but in screenshot 2 there is more aliasing than in 1. Look at the shoulder.

I’m not seeing it. I see one pattern that might be what you are talking about, but doesn’t come across as aliased when the actor is in motion:

The most left part with the light background. A big difference concerning “staircases”.

I don’t see why. I have access to the whole PAL show if I want it, but I also have episodes on-hand from S1 and S6. The PAL quality, as near as I can tell, is virtually identical to NTSC quality with the following differences:

Reasons are above. Of course, your decision.

1). Motion is intrinsically smoother and easier to deal with. NTSC can be brought back to PAL quality in this regard, but it’s taken me more work to do it.

I will have to check this once myself. I only read that IVTC seems complicated at doom9.

2). There’s a very slight color shift, at least in S6. Colors that are slightly more blue in NTSC are slightly more purple in PAL.
3). PAL is stretched slightly and just slightly blurrier by default. Compared this frame-by-frame in NTSC vs. PAL editions of S6.
4). PAL, of course, has the 4% audio shift.

These are of course no significant reasons to take the PAL sources, I agree.

Because I want to create a project for people to do at home with legal source, asking people to buy PAL is pretty tricky.

Come on… I do love this code of honour that people obey here, but the difference between PAL and NTSC sources of the same show is purely technical.

I want to write an article about the best way to deal with PAL

What do you mean by “deal with PAL”? To convert it (back) to NTSC? For me it’s no question, I am in PAL-country, for me the question always is “how to deal with NTSC”…

Post
#1374741
Topic
Star Trek Deep Space Nine - NTSC DVD Restoration & 1080p HD Enhancement (Emissary Released)
Time

They look quite good, especially the last one! And no aliasing at all, or have I overlooked it? But you can only assume how good they really are, because of the low resolution.
One strange effect: Everything in the last shot is sharper, somehow “thinner”, (apparently) more detailled, but the upper line of the tractor beam is somehow jaggy. It seems that AI has no real plan for these kind of “lines”.

Post
#1374714
Topic
Star Trek Deep Space Nine - NTSC DVD Restoration & 1080p HD Enhancement (Emissary Released)
Time

Joel Hruska said:
FrankB,

Pleasure to meet you. Before we discuss relative processing technique I should probably provide you some samples. For example:

Nice to meet you, too. You are right: Theoretical discussions are always a bit too - theoretical. Your results are astonishing, especially the captions! I am still sceptical against the whole AI-upsizing (why I wrote here in another thread, if you are interested in pure theory I can search for it), but it seems that maybe I am too old meanwhile - maybe a mix of that fact and some true facts…
But it looks great!
Critics and proposal: For my taste a bit too LESS noise. Maybe you should consider to
-denoise in avisynth (as you did), because the AI-denoising may be worse in quality, thus having full control of the denoising
-scale up denoised, which is necessary for the AI in order not to produce too much “new details from noise”
New:
-mix back some of the original noise(!) - which makes it more natural. F. e. just resize the original in avisynth with nnedi3 or so and mix it back with overlay(…, opacity=0.2) or similar. We do this very often, and it’s common practice in studios to re-noise.

The net effect of TR2=4 or TR2=5 is a substantial improvement in the final output.

You are right concerning aliasing. But you have to pay with less detail before AI (I suppose).
I don’t like the QTGMC “input type” > 0, also because in some scenes it works pretty well, and sometimes suddenly there is quite no effect.

I have spent 20-40 hours per week for the past nine months running thousands of encodes of Deep Space Nine. DS9, however, is also my first project.

I wish I had the time for my private projects, too. Hats off to all your efforts, great that there are still people who really pull off something.

QTGMC2 = QTGMC(Preset=“Very Slow”, SourceMatch=3, TR2=5, InputType=2, Lossless=2, MatchEnhance=0.75, Sharpness=0.5, MatchPreset=“Very Slow”, MatchPreset2=“Very Slow”)
QTGMC3 = QTGMC(preset=“Very Slow”, SourceMatch=3, Lossless=2, Sharpness=0.5, MatchEnhance=0.75, InputType=3, TR2=5)

After a lot of experiments some years ago I decided not to use “placebo” and “very slow” any more, because you lose too many details. In this special case (to feed the AI upscaler) it may be good - but as I said before: You should consider to put SOME of the noise back in the end…

Repair(QTGMC2, QTGMC3, 9)

That seems interesting, I never had this idea!

If you want 23.976 fps output, just throw TFM() and Tdecimate() ahead of the QTGMC calls.

But this would ruin the original 29.97i (cgi) sequences? Or aren’t there any? I am sure there must be, I never checked this myself up to now, just picked it up from doom9 postings.

Baseline DVD. From PastPrologue.
Identical screenshot after processing. Zero upscale:

Sorry, but in screenshot 2 there is more aliasing than in 1. Look at the shoulder.
But maybe this is all obsolete with the PAL sources? I am ashamed not to find time for even look at it (apart from watching some epissodes in the late evening, when my brain doesn’t want to think any more…)

If you know a better way to clean up the former into the latter – possibly by preserving more detail on Bashir’s forehead, where my method is losing some of it – I’d love to incorporate it.

We should postpone everything else until you tried the PAL sources, shouldn’t we?
But again: Astonishing!

Post
#1374496
Topic
Star Trek Deep Space Nine - NTSC DVD Restoration & 1080p HD Enhancement (Emissary Released)
Time

Joel Hruska said:
One difference I do know between PAL and NTSC is that PAL doesn’t have the same problems with aliasing that I’m trying to clean up with commands like TR2=5 or TR2=4. Some of the issues I have spent time fixing for NTSC just aren’t in the PAL copy.

If the NTSC sources are THAT bad, that you have to anti-alias by QTGMC-temporal-filtering with a window of 4 or 5, it’s really time for the PAL sources… I would never use this. If QTGMC, then always TR2=0 and StabilizeNoise=false. There are better ways to filter noise.

The native DVD credits for NTSC look terrible compared to PAL.

The PAL opening credits seem to stutter at nearly every episode by the end (wormhole opens), but there are a few episodes where the conversion is stutter-free - I just watched a lot of episodes, but forgot to take a note for the good ones.

Animaxx said:

The audio I will be able to handle (I know how to adjust the original NTSC audio so it fits/syncs with PAL without any pitch issues

You don’t have to change anything with audio (except there were small cut-differences, I don’t know), just slow the picture finally down to its (nearly) original 23.976fps with “assumefps(24000,1001)”.

Post
#1373393
Topic
Star Trek Deep Space Nine - NTSC DVD Restoration & 1080p HD Enhancement (Emissary Released)
Time

Animaxx said:
Nothing ever really produced the desired effect.

Because of the pulldowned sequences that will ALWAYS stutter if not properly decimated. That’s a fact.

I guess I will try the PAL-discs now, since they have a professionally done 25 FPS, which is present uniform and throughout. Perhaps that will work.

I guess I took my mouth a bit too full (can you say this in English?). Yesterday I watched two episodes, and I have to admit there are a few doubles per episode. But only two or three (plus a few always by the end the openig credits), but despite that it really still seems a much better starting point.

But what bugs me most are the release policies by all those multimedia-corporations: I mean when we take a long hard look at how many times certain series were released, re-released, new editions done and then re-re-released again and so on, there was really no time or option to work on them so they could be presented in a standard up-to-date form (like constant framerate)?

Not 100% necessary in the NTSC-world, but costs money. That’s all.

Of course, I am no expert on the subject, but I would reckon’ this could be done automatically these days?

Not in this case. Doing it perfect is really work - and for the c)-scenes still impossible, if you don’t mix (overlay) film and cgis again from the beginning. This would mean HIGH cost. - And THEN they could also scan the film parts again in HD, adapt or improve the cgi-parts and release proper BluRays…

After all, we fans have bought so many releases and special editions, paid for so many streaming options and downloads, there was no money left to do this? Seriously???

They did it with TNG, looked at the results, and decided so. Their reasons must be clear, otherwise they would have produced HD also for DSN and Voyager. Why shouldn’t they?

Post
#1373323
Topic
Star Trek Deep Space Nine - NTSC DVD Restoration & 1080p HD Enhancement (Emissary Released)
Time

You will get the usual stuttering in cases a) and c). You just make two full-frames out of two fields with this, that’s all. Every section that used pulldown (80-90% of an episode) will stutter, because no doubled frame had been decimated. It’s harder to realize with cartoon, because of natural frame doublings, but try it with natural content.
There is no way, really no way, to get this stutter-free without removing (decimating) the doubled fields (after correct TFM, the doubled frames) of pulldown.

And, by the way, for the b)-type (original 29,97 cgi) this is not the best way to handle either. TFM is a field-matcher, and if you use it on really interlaced content there is nothing to match, because each field has been taken (created) at its very own time, no progressive frames to reconstruct, because there are none. So if the origin is really interlaced you will get
-TFM upper field --> result = interlaced, because there was nothing to match --> post processing of TFM realizes this and if not set to 0 deinterlaces (but not with the best possible quality)
-TFM lower field --> the same, maybe there is a switch that uses the other field for post-processing-deinterlacing, I am not sure at the moment, if not you will get twice the same.
So you get two parts where no TFM-field-matching happened, but only p-p-deinterlacing in rather medium quality, because TFM is not made for this situation. The p-p-deinterlacing is made for the few frames that couldn’t have been matched correctly in an a)-situation (pulldowned 23,976-material).
If you want each field’s content in full-size in 59,9 you should simply bob with highest quality (QTGMC again).