logo Sign In

Karyudo

User Group
Members
Join date
23-Oct-2004
Last activity
12-Jan-2025
Posts
805

Post History

Post
#112056
Topic
Info Wanted: OT Preservation projects - Non-English soundtrack / audio versions?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/112056/action/topic#112056
Time
That says, "Bouka tobira shimero!" which means "Close the blast door!"

Actually, 'bouka' is like something along the lines of fire prevention, 'tobira' is door, and 'shimero' is the imperative / command form of 'shimeru' -- to close.

From my favourite J<->E dictionary site:
??????? (n) fire prevention; fire fighting; fire proof; (P)
?????? (n) door; opening; (P)
???????? (v1,vt) to close; to shut; (P)

Aw, damn. Looks like this forum doesn't support Japanese encoding. Too bad.
Post
#111991
Topic
Rotoscoping help
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/111991/action/topic#111991
Time
There's a Photoshop action that's available someplace that's designed for rotoscoping SW elements like lightsabers and lasers. I forget what it's called, but it's out there, and freely available. Maybe Google ["star wars" (lightsaber OR laser OR "fan film") photoshop action]?

OK, I just tried that, and it got me this on the first page of results: http://www.alienryderflex.com/rotoscope/actions_tutorial.html
Post
#111896
Topic
Non-DVD transfers?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/111896/action/topic#111896
Time
Originally posted by: MaximRecoil
It is impossible to end up with more information than you started with (i.e. your source).


That's not true -- but it's also not what you mean. Of course it is possible to end up with more information than you started with. That's pretty much the whole idea. What I know you're saying is that it's impossible to end up with more useful or accurate information than you started with, and you do have a point there. I still disagree, but only in specific instances. I would agree with you that it is very easy to end up with several million more pixels of junk. However, it doesn't have to be so.

Imagine a very low-sampling frequency rendering of a sine wave. Something that looks like it came from an Atari 2600 game, for example. Say that's the original data. Now, imagine that you take a look at that rendering. It would be pretty clear by looking at it that it's supposed to represent a sine wave, even though it's blocky as all hell. From the 'original data' -- i.e., the blocky rendering -- you can still immediately see the frequency and the amplitude. Good enough, but is that the end of the line, quality-wise?

Now, let's say you wanted to make a better version of that sine wave, but you start from the blocky version. It doesn't take that much thought to see it's possible (and maybe even relatively easy) to draw a much smoother curve that fits the data. Same frequency, same amplitude -- better resolution. In fact, you could probably downsample and get the same exact original blocky curve back -- or you could downsample less and still get something smoother and more pleasing than the original. Clearly, in this case, you have ended up with a result that has more information than you started with, and that information is useful and accurate.

I will be the first to admit that a full-frame, 24-bit colour DVD image is not a sine wave. It's zillions of times more complex (1 zillion = 10^a lot), and to teach a computer how to recognize where and how to make changes to improve things isn't easy. Still, the principle is the same as in my simple example. It is possible to make improvements to the original data that will give a result that is better than what you started with. It takes a watchful eye and lots of clock cycles, but it can be done. I think to say otherwise (absolutely, no less) is overly simplistic... and incorrect.

That's my take, anyway.

Post
#111873
Topic
Graphics Editor Tool ????
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/111873/action/topic#111873
Time
I don't quite get why everyone loves Photoshop so much. I have access to it, and it's good and all, but there are several other programs -- like Paint Shop Pro -- that do about 90% or more of what Photoshop does, and some of it better than Photoshop. And Paint Shop Pro (as but one example) is way cheaper.

I also don't quite get why everyone uses raster-based programs to do everything. Personally, I prefer CorelDRAW! (don't laugh) to Illustrator, but both are primarily vector-based and therefore very good at lossless scaling of all the elements that aren't photos. Like text, for example, of which there is typically quite a bit on a DVD cover.

Let me put it this way: I can all but guarantee the people who create real DVD covers for commercial releases don't do all their work in Photoshop. More than likely, they use Illustrator or InDesign or some other vector app. Why don't interested amateurs do the same, I wonder?

By the way, as a bit of an aside, I also don't understand why so many people use JPG for compressing covers that have a lot of small text. That's so wrong! JPG is absolutely sh... crappy at compressing solid colours with sharp edges. For a modest increase in size (on average -- might be larger, but also could be smaller), PNG is completely lossless. There are different file formats for a reason. Please choose amongst them wisely!
Post
#111850
Topic
Non-DVD transfers?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/111850/action/topic#111850
Time
@ MeBeJedi: No. It's 16:9. I have it, of course.

@ Jedikev: No. It's 16:9. If that was humour on your part, you forgot your smiley!

@ Laserschwert: Was there a HDTV-broadcast of "Menace"? Does anybody know?

I've never heard of an HD Ep I. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist, but since I've been collecting HD for more than three years, I'd like to think I'm nearly as authoritative on this point as anyone.

Then again, I'd have said there was never any OT HD stuff, either, and now I have some. So maybe it's, "I've never heard of an HD Ep I yet."

There's a thread on another board about upsampling the SW OT to HD that pre-dates this one by several months. I might have to go find it.
Post
#111776
Topic
Non-DVD transfers?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/111776/action/topic#111776
Time
I happen to think you (MaximRecoil) are almost completely wrong.

It is certainly possible to make an LD transfer look far better than the original LD, and you can improve the quality substantially on an upsample. I mean, if you're going to scale, you'd may as well do it at less than real time with competent filters, rather than let some budget TV try to do it on the fly.

I don't know what you're looking at to say otherwise.
Post
#111605
Topic
PAL vs NTSC laserdiscs
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/111605/action/topic#111605
Time
Originally posted by: rnranimal
I can't tell you what the difference is within these formats, but one holds half what the other does and looks better on my player, so there is something going on there.


I don't think CLV 'holds half' what CAV does. I suspect they actually hold the same amount of signal information, just distributed differently. However, like I wrote before, I suspect purely mechanical considerations come into play. The laser spot size is finite for both kinds of discs, so it stands to reason if the data are further spread out (i.e. in CAV) then it will be easier to read accurately.

Imagine you're re-typing a block of text. If that block of text came in two versions, one on two pages, double-spaced, in a large readable font and the other on one page, single-spaced, in 8-point Arial Narrow, which do you think you'd have an easier time re-typing? Same information, different packaging. I don't know for a fact, but I strongly suspect that this is akin to how CAV and CLV differ.

Post
#111548
Topic
PAL vs NTSC laserdiscs
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/111548/action/topic#111548
Time
On burns:

What I'm talking about is not the discolouration at scene/reel changes. That looks more like glue than a burn. The two frames I'm thinking specifically of are in the middle of a scene. PAL is a step up in terms of resolution, but it's far from being a panacea.


On CAV/CLV:

I don't believe the signal is different at all between CAV and CLV. LDs are not digital, so the concept of bitrate is a red herring. I suspect that any improvements seen are improvements made because of purely mechanical reasons: optical gain, crosstalk, flutter, wow -- all that sort of good analogue junk. It will perhaps manifest itself in something more electronic-looking (e.g. a better player will maybe do a better job on CAV than CLV, maybe giving a better picture), but I just don't buy that there is anything fundamentally different about the information recorded on each kind of disc.


On dot crawl:

I have yet to try a SweetSpot card. But I'm already using a card with a Philips SAA-7133 chip, which has a 10-bit ADC and an adaptive 3-line comb filter. I believe that's just about what the SweetSpot card has, too, isn't it? So except for build quality, and maybe some goofing around with the Philips reference design, I don't see how things would improve by leaps and bounds -- at least, not on the capture side.

I am also using a CLD-D925, which is apparently one of the two PAL-spec players that is generally regarded as being the best there ever was. I've looked at the schematics, and as best I can understand (I'm no electrical engineer), the composite signal is separated into Y/C early on, processed with a now-obsolete Sony comb filter, tweaked however Pioneer sees fit, and then recombined. And then I think separated again for the S-video, but memory fades. So even at the pointy end, things are thoroughly sub-optimal. Too bad there's no such animal as a PAL-spec X0 player. I'm hoping there's something out there that might come close, but that's but one item on my list of things to do.

To answer Moth3r's direct question, I'd love to get a 2950 and a SS card together, and see what transpires. Problem is, all this stuff takes gobs of time, and costs money. I don't know how many of you have spouses/significant others, but even just having the money doesn't mean you can spend it without repercussions... Still, my wife's cool enough to have tolerated all my fiddling thus far, so I'm not ruling out being able to get all the parts in one place at one time, and see once and for all whether things can be improved substantially from what I'm looking at now.

This is fun stuff, ain't it?


On projects:

I'm not sure I'm ready to start my own thread. For now, you can imagine a swan: looks pretty calm and boring on the surface, but underneath the legs and feet are pumping away! Lots of behind-the-scenes work going on in which I'm heavily involved. If/when I start to get serious about letting the general public know what I'm up to, I assure you that people here on OT.com will be the first to know. For now, I like the freedom of being able to read, lurk, make the occasional comment or observation, and not have to feel too much pressure to keep saying, "I'm still here! And still working!"
Post
#111428
Topic
PAL vs NTSC laserdiscs
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/111428/action/topic#111428
Time
Yeah, that frame sucks. But we haven't seen that same frame from the X0. Might be different; I'm not sure.

I have the DC, Faces, and Japanese Collector's Set. Making some comparison shots is on my lengthy list of things to do...

The PAL transfer has burns on some frames -- you remember that from the theatre?? Nah, me neither.

So far, I like PAL better except for two biggish problems:

1. crap in the picture that will need to be rotoscoped; and
2. dot crawl, even from a CLD-D925.
Post
#111323
Topic
Info Wanted: OT Preservation projects - Non-English soundtrack / audio versions?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/111323/action/topic#111323
Time
Originally posted by: MeBeJedi
Are the subtitles in the picture, or under it?


I would be very, very surprised if a Japanese release had subs in the picture.

Sadly, this almost-reverential attitude to the inviolable nature of the original presentation is changing with HD -- I've heard it's now a stipulation of the studios that the Japanese subs are in the picture, since a lot of cool movies (Alien, Blade Runner) were broadcast in HD in Japan well before they were broadcast in North America (if at all?) and it wouldn't do for high-quality HD boots to make it over without something to screw up the picture a bit...
Post
#111277
Topic
PAL vs NTSC laserdiscs
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/111277/action/topic#111277
Time
Originally posted by: rnranimal
[the German set] should provide the ultimate transfer, if done properly.

You'll have to define 'properly'. I don't think anyone's gotten further than I have (even though I haven't released jack), and even I am not convinced PAL will be better. It is just incredibly difficult to find a PAL player that will rival the best NTSC-only players. No such animal seems to exist, in fact. I haven't given up (I have a line on a prototype player that may just do the trick), but once again there is a huge gap between the theory of saying "PAL is better," and actually getting better results.

I don't know that any transfer from the NTSC set could [measure up], it just doesn't seem good enough. The PAL set has much more detail and is without the bad jaggies. Not to mention not having to mess with reversing telecine or the 7.5 IRE NTSC black level boost.


The X0 transfer will be the best NTSC can offer. You'll have to see then if it stacks up. The PAL set has somewhat more detail, and includes a fair amount more dust and crap. If you get the Japanese Collector's Set, the black level is at the NTSC-J standard 0 IRE.

Post
#111200
Topic
Info &amp; Help: looking for... other ld-rips to dvd movies ex. blade runner int cut, songs of the south, frighteners dir cut - and much much more...
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/111200/action/topic#111200
Time
Originally posted by: Citizen
A christmas or two ago SotS was shown on UK tv, I don't recall anyone complaining about any cuts so I presume it was put out without any edits.


I have no direct experience with that, but I highly doubt it was without cuts. Would a broadcaster put the Tar Babies segment on TV? I'd be pretty surprised if they did. Not offended, mind you, but surprised.
Post
#111176
Topic
Info Wanted: OT Preservation projects - Non-English soundtrack / audio versions?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/111176/action/topic#111176
Time
Originally posted by: SilverWook
[...]SW with Vader speaking in Japanese. So it's curious a Japanese dub track has never appeared on any of the imported LD's.


Not really, I don't think. In Japan, most movies are subbed for theatrical release. The exception being animated films for kids (think Shrek, for example) which get both dubbed and subbed releases. Usually playing at the same theatre, but at different times of the day -- early showings are dubbed, and later showings are subbed.

There are sometimes both dubbed and subbed VHS releases, too, but the subbed versions are way more popular (as they should be). Not sure how most DVDs are these days.

On TV, films are usually dubbed on one audio channel, and the original language soundtrack on the other channel.

All these situations sort of point to dubs being the lowest common denominator sort of thing (i.e. for the young and/or dumb), whereas subs are preferred by film buffs, audio- and videophiles. LD was always a sort of elitist format, so it sort of stands to reason that LDs are subbed.

It could be that some of the earlier releases on LD have Japanese-language audio, but I know the four best releases (the Collector's Set, the DC, 1997 SE and 2000 SE re-release) are all English-language only with subs.

On a sort of related tangent, I wish Disney would stop messing with Miyazaki movies by adding crappy Hollywood dubbing. I want to see Howl's Moving Castle with the original voice talent, not some Hollywood has-beens and never-weres!