Thanks. I couldn’t get it to work but then I found stab.avs, which has the same thing at its core and importing that as a function and changing the dymax and dxmax values inside to 50 (dealing with a pretty shaky HD video) seems to have done the trick.
Thanks, that fixed the error but the stabilization doesn’t seem to work - I see the preview now but it’s just as shaky as before 😦
Harmy said:>
Just a side question - I was looking in the technical section for a thread about image stabilization in avisynth (with some sort of scene detection, so it can be used on whole sequences) and couldn’t find one, even though I’m sure there must be a few, so I didn’t want to go starting a new one - could someone help?Why not Google it? I’m sure Doom9 forums have tons of advice per usual.
I did and can’t get what I found to work. HELP! 😦
http://originaltrilogy.com/topic/Avisynth-gate-weave-stabilization/id/47843#901131
OK, so let me preface this by saying I know very little about avisynth and am hopeless with programming, so I always need simple step by step instructions when attempting something like this.
So, here is the script I’m using, which works just fine:
AviSource(“P:\video.avi”)
converttoYV12()
LoadPlugin(“plugins/removedirt.dll”)
Import(“plugins/03_RemoveDirtMC.avs”)
dirt_strenght=20
RemoveDirtMC(dirt_strenght)ConvertToRGB24
return last
Now, I found this stabilization script from GForce:
temp=orig.TemporalSoften(7,255,255,25,2)
rep=Repair(temp,orig,mode=16).TemporalSoften(1,255,255,25,2)
source=Interleave(rep,orig,rep)
mdata=DePanEstimate(source, range=1, trust=0, dxmax=1, dymax=1)
DePan(source, data=mdata, offset=1)
SelectEvery(3,2)
How do I incorporate it into the above script, so that it stabilizes before it removes dirt?
When I simply pasted it after converttoYV12() I got an error saying:
I don’t know what “orig” means.
005’s galleries show:
Star Wars: 381 changes
Empire: 347 changes
Jedi: 186 changes
How much cleanup is minor cleanup? Because compared to all other Jedi prints I’ve seen, this is super clean! Especially in that it is devoid of scratches, which is very unusual.
OK, WP links sent - I still have to put together a few things, like making the Despecialized credits at the end, synchronizing the commentaries and making NFOs, so that gives you guys about a week to report any issues you find.
I used the 5.1 AC3. Uploading now at 80MB/s, so it should be upladed before I finish this post and I’ll start sending PMs.
I already noticed two issues:
the shot at 1:39:38 looks pretty bad and I’ve already improved it, though the quality will simply never be as high as the recomped SE shot.
The entire Yub-Nub sequence is a bit blurry and aliased but that was due to an error I made exporting it, so I already fixed that too.
That’s awesome to hear that even the new generation of fans can appreciate the original version and can see how out of place the CGI looks in a 70s movie without even knowing much about the different versions and stuff! Thanks for sharing 😃
It’s still rendering, then I’ll have to encode it and mux it with audio and then I’ll send the PMs with links and what to look for later today.
Just a side question - I was looking in the technical section for a thread about image stabilization in avisynth (with some sort of scene detection, so it can be used on whole sequences) and couldn’t find one, even though I’m sure there must be a few, so I didn’t want to go starting a new one - could someone help?
Probably not, because it’d be a lot of fuss for me, because I’d have to recut the BD to fit.
Yeah, I guess. I will render it today over night - it will be a comparison of the previous workprint, this new version and GOUT.
OK, so I have v2.0 cut assembled and I have the audio tracks from hairy_hen but I’d still like a few volunteers to check out a final workprint before I do the final release. Any takers?
Did you watch the sample they posted? I think that should answer your question. As long as they manage to make it at least as clean as the v1.0 version that is, because even after the initial cleanup, it’s still pretty rough.
Yeah but what about the digital versions, like iTunes and such? They and the BD are all encodes from the same masters with digital artifacts on top, which will be unique to each encode - just like the LD captures are all captures of the same master with analog artifacts on top, which are unique to each capture, no?
See, I’ve been telling you guys for years and couldn’t prove it 😃
Well sure, although the IB prints all had the same print master, so by averaging them, you can at best arrive at the detail of the master, not the negative, but I guess if you throw in a couple of Eastmans, you can get something even closer to the o-neg, though again, those still have IP and IN grain in them but if the prints came from different IPs, I guess in theory the info from the o-neg could be there, but I think you’d need a lot of prints for that, but that is a discussion for another thread.
But what I’m suggesting here with the 2004 version is more similar to the LD capture averaging - these are digital encodes that all come from the same common source, only with a layer of artifacts on top, so there would be no frame by frame image registration needed, or color matching or anything - just stack them on top of each other and average them.
I was writing a post about how the 2004/2011 transfer and how it could be surpassed in detail by a modern transfer from the same sources and how on top of that, we only have a compressed version of it at our disposal and an idea struck me:
People who do LaserDisc transfers often do several captures and then average those captures to gain as clear an image as possible, free from artifacts not present in the source but introduced randomly during the capture - now if one were to take all the available versions of the 2004 transfer (the various HDTV captures, the Blu-Ray, the digital versions from various providers) and average them in the same manner, could one get closer to the uncompressed master that way? It obviously wouldn’t work for the shots that have been changed between the 2004 and 2011 versions but those could be replaced with an average of only the HDTV sources.
Now, I’m not necessarily proposing this be done, and I’m definitely not saying I would do it, because I don’t have the know-how nor do I have access to all those sources; I’m just asking if it could be done and if there would be any merit to doing it.
Once Harmy has finished the final 3.0 1080p versions he said he plans on Facebook, we’ll have the definitive versions of these movies. I doubt even an official release could top it.
Well, I disagree - Despecialized will still use the 2011 Blu-Ray as its main source and there are all manner of things wrong with that transfer, some are fixable but many are not. You can fix the colors to a certain degree but there are certain idiosyncrasies of that transfer’s colors that are simply there to stay, plus with the BD, we only have a compressed 8bit 4:2:0 version of the transfer, which makes its fixability even more limited. But there’s more - there was copious amount of DNR used on the transfer and then a thick layer of artificial grain has been added on top, which means there’s tons of detail lost and I can see other tell-tale signs of DNR, like a specific sort of warping and bits of frozen grain moving along with object. There’s still more fine detail in the 2004 transfer than any exhibition print thanks to it coming from the o-neg, so even with all those flaws there’s still merit to using it, but with a proper 4K transfer of the o-neg or even an IP, there could be way more detail still, so a properly done new restoration using the best source materials available from the LFL archives should far surpass anything that can be done using the 2011 Blu-Ray or exhibition prints.
And yeah, Mike’s version would probably be pretty close but it’s still sourced from exhibition prints alone.
More information = facial pores, really. Maybe some edges are softer, but otherwise it’s just pores for days.
For me seeing the facial pores and textures has always been the most important and impressive things about HD.
When I get a movie and am trying to assess the quality/resolution, I always look for a medium close-up shot and look at how well-defined the skin-pores are.
Yeah, no GOUT for any of the v3.0 versions!
Incredible how ‘right’ this looks!
https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/vwsrizfkea02nqqgzjxy.jpg
I stumbled across this image in some article and it shows nicely how much more real the '97 CGI looks with some generational loss and 35mm colors. I think if TN1 do a 35mm transfer of the '97SE, like they said they eventually would, it could be a great resource for anyone wanting to do any kind of semi-specialized edition.
I agree- this actually matches the aesthetic of the original effects, something that the home video releases are sorely lacking. Harmy, could you post the article this is from?
http://io9.gizmodo.com/the-essential-difference-between-star-wars-and-star-tre-1754297235
But it’s completely unrelated.
https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/vwsrizfkea02nqqgzjxy.jpg
I stumbled across this image in some article and it shows nicely how much more real the '97 CGI looks with some generational loss and 35mm colors. I think if TN1 do a 35mm transfer of the '97SE, like they said they eventually would, it could be a great resource for anyone wanting to do any kind of semi-specialized edition.
Don’t worry about it 😃
Dropbox link would be great 😃 Thanks.