I am attempting to sync the Scofield audio to Puggo Grande and I must say my respect for all of you who have done this kind of work has gone up tremendously
Someone kindly directed me to this "Scofield," I'll give it a whack this weekend.
Rad.
So what would you prefer? A blurry direct view of the action, or a very accurate estimation of the action by a group of transistors?
The chemical version is just as much an estimation as the digital one, and not necessarily as accurate, but beyond that:
We are watching this stuff on "a group of transistors."
We're talking about the end result being digital playback here.
Starting digital and staying digital is less lossy than photographic reductions of film that are *then* captured digitally. Arguing that chemical interpretation is more accurate than digital interpretation is very romantic sounding, but 1) it's not relevant when the end result is digital and 2) It's not necessarily true.
For the record, I'm a lover of analog things too.
What's the latest?
I thought that a 4k scan was just over what a 35mm film frame had on it?
Maybe you need 5or 6 k for 70mm?
If that's true, then you'd need 8K for 70mm.
Success!
Vimeo has download links so I checked out the big version, and all the frames look progressive and IVTC'd.
I'm still shocked at the great color, too. This is really cool!
Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:
. CAV is supposed to be slightly higher quality, right? If the above is all correct, then what would be better, a digital rip of a CLV, or an analog capture of a CAV ?
CAV was only better quality in picture.
Digital LD will usually win out in sound quality (as long as it's not time compressed, and the '89 shouldn't be), but for Puggo Strikes back, the analog one might be a nice middle-ground.
I respectfully disagree with Russ here. Someone's audience-recorded in-theater soundtrack would just make an alternate, more-challenging soundtrack to get through for me. A curiosity, yes, but not a better watching experience.
While watching Puggo Grande, however, I have often thought a clearer, less warbly alternate mix it would make the experience a touch more pleasant.
I'd vote for an early digital LD audio capture.
Brooks said:
Is the ivtc really a dramatic improvement? :(
In my opinion, IVTC is the most important step in improving these if you are going to watch them on anything other than an old NTSC TV.
bkev said:
Joke's on you folks. She sang on The Continuing Story of Bungalow Bill! :P
All dumb punchlines aside I have to agree that this is well put.
I LOL'd at work. :)
Yes, assuming the number of frames is the same as GOUT, and assuming the projector plays the film/audio at exactly the same speed as the GOUT audio was recorded, things should theoretically match up.
I don't think I'm exaggerating when I say this is like the countdown to Christmas when you're 8 years old.
All of Dark Jedi's are GOUT based, right?
Are there any X9 captures of JSC available?
--hehe ooookay, this is 6 months late, I thought I read "june 31, 2012 --
Hi Jonna- it may be worse even than you realize - the HD masters were the ones captured for the 2004 DVD release, and as you can imagine, 7 years of improved HD capture technology has moved things along quite a bit. Still, some of the blu-ray stuff looks good and the sound isn't bad. :)
Anyway, welcome. You will find some temporary relief in the form of Harmy's 720P de-specialized editions (there is rumored to be an update to those soon) and my favorite, Puggo Grande (which is not to everyone's taste, of course). Have fun connecting with other Star Wars Purists/Obsessives!
Optical effects are several generations removed from the original so that seems like a factor.
Looking at Dark Jedi's LD conversion, this dark stuff is static so I don't think it's grain, I think it's that the Tatooine shots used nylon hose (leggings) over the lens to give it a
diffuse, otherworldly look.
However, Harmy's 720P version doesn't have it, so it may have been cleaned up/lightened for the later hi-def/SE editions?
SWEET!
And as always, I'm very excited that this is happening. Thanks for your hard work and for your clarification!
I'm sorry but I'm confused: few posts ago you stated that you were doing captures at 4megapixels per frame, right? That's 2K resolution, not 4K.
pittrek said:
Fortunately enough Jedi doesn't have so many changes like the other 2 movies
Except the entire first act and the ending? I would argue that Jedi has the most changes (Super Mario plants in the Vag..er, Sarlaac pit, muppet singing a new song, fluorescent girls, Boba Fett overkill, new music at the end, incorporation of Hayden Christensen). None of these are as bad as the new stuff in Empire to me, but there was a lot done to Jedi...
Didn't mean to de-rail here, sorry.
There was an announcement that Vizio 20:9 TVs were coming in 2012, A big one early on and a smaller 50" or 55" coming during the 2nd half of the year (nowish?)
I still haven't even seen a Philips or the bigger Vizio that was supposedly already released in the US.
First, and I should have started with this: I think the non-interlaced parts of your trailer, which I assume are tiny pieces of your capture (the color-corrected/non-interlaced part of Luke and Leia swinging by grappling hook/rope?) looks really wonderful. I am very excited about this project.
negative1 said
:there's no point in shooting at higher megapixels, because the
disk space, and rendering time, along with resizing and scaling
make it much harder. also the difference when you render down
to 1080p isn't really that noticeable.
I agree that bit depth is a bigger factor than pixel resolution in this process.
RE: Capturing at 1080p vs downscaling to 1080P - maybe this is true using the method you are using currently? Usually, video downscaled from 4k captures looks signifcantly better.
The only thing I would do differently here, with all of the time involved, as well as this expensive/rare film and equipment, would be to capture it in as high-res a format as possible -at least film-grain resolution- to have the highest quality material to start with. Isn't that kind of the point of capturing the 35mm print in the first place?
Yeah, I'm a mac guy and have never bit the bullet to buy a pc (or make a pc boot drive for my mac), so AVISynth is still out of reach.
I am curious about IVTC using After Effects but haven't attempted it at all.
Finally, IIRC correctly, there are a few spots in Star Wars (IV) where the script needs to change, but fewer in ESB. (?)
except for some of the jaggy/interlacey artifacts, this looks FANTASTIC for VHS. Great work, man!
Just to be clear - 4megapixels is kind of the same as a 2K capture, isn't it? That's only as wide as a standard 1080p file. If file size isn't an issue, I would think doing an 8 MP capture would make more sense.
Unless I'm doing the math incorrectly?
Happy 4th of July, Puggo! Thanks for all of your hard work.