logo Sign In

Karyudo

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

Post History

Post
#109730
Topic
Info Wanted: Digitally Remastered Original Trilogy preservation set?!?! (on ebay)
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/109730/action/topic#109730
Time
Originally posted by: TR47
Asians do not do LD transfers well.


Maybe that's why they're called "Mal-Asians."

Seriously, one's nationality has nothing to do with it -- except that some countries are notoriously lax when it comes to piracy, etc. China is probably number one on that list; I suspect Malaysia isn't too far down. Crooks are crooks, regardless of skin colour.

Post
#109724
Topic
.: The X0 Project Discussion Thread :. (* unfinished project *)
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/109724/action/topic#109724
Time
Originally posted by: Patrick R.
1. I've heard some say the image is better on the Faces LD's and some say the image is better on the Definitive Collection LD's. Are there any comparison shots anywhere of the same frame or frames from each source?

I don't think there are, yet. Keep in mind that both the DC and Faces come from the exact same telecine session, dust and all. So the only differences (if any) are in the disc mastering. There is really little between these two versions.

2. Is the X0 better than the X99 because the X0 has a laser wavelength of 670nm and the X9 has a laser wavelength of 780nm?


That might be one reason. But the X0 and X9 are very close in performance, and both blow away just about every other player out there. If you stick out your arm, you could imagine that your garden-variety Pioneer is about at your elbow, while the X0 and X9 are at the tips of your index and middle fingers. At that point, it really doesn't matter which of the two is 'best.'

Anyway, I think this is an awesome project and I am definitely interested in it. I may even abandon my own project because I don't have the money to buy additional equipment right now.


That was about my feeling exactly! Unless you've got several grand for an X0 or X9, plus another few hundred for decent capture cards and discs, you may as well support a project that already has just that.
Post
#109685
Topic
Idea: original film - get a copy of the original film reels from the Library of Congress?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/109685/action/topic#109685
Time
Here's another take, adopting the perspective of those with film:

Why would one pay several grand for a film, spend what it takes (time, frustration and money) to scan it, and then give it away to somebody who's spent nothing (time, frustration nor money)?

Any of you who figure you're just about done once you've bought film are dreaming. Once you've bought film, all you have is approximately 200,000 small photos on a strip of plastic approximately a mile long. You don't have a telecine or scanner, you don't have a projector, you don't have clearances -- you don't have anything, really. Except an exceedingly empty wallet, and perhaps an irate spouse.

I think if any of you were to do all the (inexpensive but time-consuming) legwork in finding a post house that will definitely transfer film to a decent digital format (e.g. DV or better) using a decent process (e.g. not putting up a bedsheet and videotaping it), you may find some people out there who have film and might be willing to help out. But I suspect the chances of you doing any better than those people who have film already and have actively tried to find a way to transfer it are rather slim indeed.

If you find anything, please post some technical details here...

Post
#109607
Topic
Crop and Resize: prepare for / how to
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/109607/action/topic#109607
Time
Yeah, the DVD player uses TFF and RFF flags in the MPEG-2 stream to be able to take the 24fps and add the pulldown on playback. Because 24 frames/sec are all that exists for original data, and the 30 frames/sec doesn't do any sort of magical tweening, no, 30fps is no smoother. In fact, people who watch a lot of PAL insist they can see the jerkiness of the field doubling when watching film-based stuff on NTSC.
Post
#106937
Topic
Aspect Ratio Adjustment
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/106937/action/topic#106937
Time
I think you might be best off downloading Cody k's fixed version of "this one movie". He's done it right. Check a.b.dvdr or a.b.starwars.

What you're looking at is almost certainly what "this one movie" would look like at the projector, either on film or video, before being properly expanded by a set of anamorphic lenses. Anamorphic lenses are 2:1 (or thereabouts). There is another fix available for "this one movie" that just fiddles with the IFO and early VOB files -- but by definition this won't fix the aspect ratio correctly. The best such a fix can do is get it to 16:9, which isn't right. So I'd avoid the quick fix.

If you want to do it yourself, get DGIndex, AviSynth, VirtualDubMod, and TMPGEnc. DGIndex "this one movie" to generate the appropriate D2V file, write a quick script in AviSynth (you'll need to include LanczosResize, of course, as well as AddBorders), load it all up in VDubMod to see how it looks, then feed it to TMPGEnc for encoding. Should take less than 4 or 5 hours, maybe?

If you're really hardcore (even more hardcore than Cody k), you'd also decimate "this one movie," because every fourth frame is repeated. Check the timecode: the one on the left is frames of video (i.e. the rightmost number runs from 0 to 29) and the TC on the right is frames of film (i.e. runs from 0 to 23). The one on the right "freezes" when frames are duplicated. Get rid of those, and it'll be smaller and nicer than the original...

I'm going to go see "this one movie" in the theatre this weekend, but that's not stopping me from downloading "this one movie" while it's available.
Post
#105888
Topic
Info Wanted: What is the Best Quality OT Fan Preservation Set?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/105888/action/topic#105888
Time
Originally posted by: 88keyz
Wonder what will happen when the new Cowclops/TR47 release hits?


Or anything from the X0 Project?

I think eventually the X0 Project should be included in a poll, but it's sort of unfair to both the poll and any newer transfers if current "vapourware" is included after a whole bunch of votes are cast. People looking for reliable information won't know, for example, that TR47 2.0 and/or the X0 Project weren't available for comparison during the first week? month? of the poll, and could therefore be getting skewed info. They could be mistakenly thinking that an older version is better, just because it's been around to collect votes longer.

I feel like maybe this is a poll that should be re-done every month or two; this existing poll should definitely have a defined "shelf life." Like it should be labelled the 2005-05 poll, with results valid only until some new transfers exist and are ready for inclusion, at which point the poll should be closed and superceded.

Moth3r's transfer being included is cool, though, because that already exists, and it was added the same day the poll opened...


Post
#105371
Topic
Letterboxed Widescreen vs. Anamorphic Widescreen Discussion
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/105371/action/topic#105371
Time
Originally posted by: THX
If it's not cropping you have qualms about with the PAL LD telecines, what is it?

Same things that could make an NTSC transfer poor: dust, video dropouts, sharpness, colour, saturation. That sort of thing. I own both NTSC and PAL transfers, and they're both pretty good. Neither is flawless. I think player choice makes the biggest difference -- the quality of the X0 transfer is just unattainable with the PAL-spec machines generally available.

But working with PAL is nice for at least one reason: no bloody IVTC to worry about!

I thought France had SECAM?


They do. But it's the TV/VCR/LD player/DVD player that is SECAM; the program material on disc is PAL. Don't ask me what the difference is between PAL & SECAM! Obviously it's not that big...

Post
#105363
Topic
Letterboxed Widescreen vs. Anamorphic Widescreen Discussion
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/105363/action/topic#105363
Time
Originally posted by: Doctor M
Karyudo, be nice, I have the "Incredible Shrinking" aspect ratio version of the LDs.
The truth is, you'd never notice it unless you stood up and measured it.
Not to say it makes me happy, but I had them for years before I ever knew.


I've never actually seen them, so I don't really know how bad it is. Still, I think most would agree there is a problem, and that it's not just "operator's choice" of framing. That's all I really meant by the somewhat-harsh "completely botched" comment!
Post
#105357
Topic
Letterboxed Widescreen vs. Anamorphic Widescreen Discussion
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/105357/action/topic#105357
Time
Originally posted by: Trooperman
Do you know which releases correspond to which aspect ratio
Not really. If you check IMDb, I think they'll all say 2.35:1, because that was the OAR of the movie, but if you do the math on a capture, it isn't always right.

... and whether any of the LD or VHS releases contain the original theatre cropping?
Part of my point is that "original theatrical cropping" is a bit nebulous. It can (and does) vary a bit from theatre to theatre. When a movie is transferred to video (telecined or scanned), there's always a little operator preference involved in the exact framing. Unless it's completely botched (like some of the early Back to the Future DVDs, or in the case of the 'incredible shrinking aspect ratio' of some earlier Star Wars releases), you really can't complain. Film is film, and you always lose just a bit when you project or print it.

In the case of the differences in framing between some PAL and NTSC transfers of Star Wars films, I think it really doesn't matter much which framing is used. They're both faithful to the original theatrical presentation.

Post
#105319
Topic
Letterboxed Widescreen vs. Anamorphic Widescreen Discussion
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/105319/action/topic#105319
Time
Originally posted by: THX
thanks for [...] sharing my joke. I live to share jokes, so the pleasure was all mine!

One thing I still don't get: if regions are independent of video standards, and region 2 includes both PAL and NTSC areas, what resolution are region 2 DVDs at? You've pretty much answered your own question, haven't you?
(1) regions are independent of standards; and
(2) R2 has both standards; and
(3) PAL is 720 x 576 and NTSC is 720 x 480.

Therefore it follows that the resolution of any region can be any of the available video standards. So R2 discs can be (at least?) either of PAL, at 720 x 576, or NTSC, at 720 x 480.

In practical terms, though, it's pretty dumb to release an R2 NTSC DVD in Europe, and even dumber to release an R2 PAL DVD in Japan.

Region coding is as independent of video standard as the language of the source material is: chances are good that if the language is French, it's PAL -- but only because most French people live in France, where PAL is the video system. That doesn't stop Quebec from having French-language NTSC DVDs, though.

1) Does this have anything to do with the cropping issue of the PAL LDs vs NTSC LDs as seen at the end of the screenshots feedback thread?
Not in my mind. At least some Star Wars LDs are not actually 2.35:1; they're 2.20:1. And the film all of these things originates from is probably more like 1.2:1 or 1.3:1 (anamorphic), with a certain amount of 'extra' space for cropping/matting. So to my mind, the exact cropping is a bit irrelevant; it's the quality of the actual image (sharpness, contrast, saturation, dust and video dropouts, etc.) that's important.

2) I take it from this that the X0 and X9 players are NTSC only?
That's correct. Those players were created and sold only in the Japanese market, which is highly NTSC-only. There may be PAL players out there that can come reasonably close, but the current best choices (the Pioneer CLD-D925 and CLD-2950) aren't in the X0/X9 league.

Hey, these are good questions (and answers, if I do say so myself)! I may have to put them up on a bit of a FAQ site someplace...


Post
#105297
Topic
Letterboxed Widescreen vs. Anamorphic Widescreen Discussion
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/105297/action/topic#105297
Time
Originally posted by: THX
1) Are region 1 DVDs in NTSC resolution and region 2 in PAL resolution (in which case why the new names)? Most (virtually all?) R1 titles are NTSC, since that's the region code for North America. R2 are split between PAL & NTSC, because a lot of R2 is in Europe (PAL), and at least some more R2 is in Japan (NTSC). As another poster mentioned, these two things are quite independent.

2) If so, do multi-region players therefore scale between these standards in real-time? Typically they do, but that's sort of a lucky fluke. I'd say more players can do PAL <--> NTSC conversions than can be made region-free, so by the time you're able to solve the region-freeness problem, the chances of the format conversion being done are pretty good.

a) the best possible LD>DVD transfer should start with a PAL LD, regardless of the eventual region/standard of viewing;
True, if the following two things are also true:

1) The PAL telecine session is as good as or better than the NTSC session; and
2) A PAL LD player exists that is as good as or better than the best available NTSC one.

I can tell you from direct experience that it is unclear that (1) is true, and that (2) is (unfortunately) almost certainly not true. We're trying, though...

b) from there, an anamorphic DVD would be best for all 16:9 TV owners, a letterboxed DVD for most 4:3 owners;
I'm in the camp that says anamorphic is better for everybody overall, but I guess technically an argument could be made that you're right. I know MBJ -- whose opinion I respect -- would say you're right, for example. I would argue that since everything's moving to 16:9 HDTV eventually, the tiny compromise in picture quality made for those aging 4:3 sets out there is worth it. And let me assure you, this is coming from an owner of a mid-range, not-too-aging 4:3 set. (Of course, I figured out how to access my set's service mode, and now I can make it do native 16:9...)

3) Which is better for NTSC viewers, PAL disc played on multi-region player with player's real-time scaling or NTSC disc made from PAL transfer?

I say an NTSC disc from a PAL transfer. If you play a PAL disc, it'll be 4% too fast (25/23.976 = 1.04, or thereabouts). With a properly-made NTSC-from-PAL effort, the material would benefit from both the better starting resolution of PAL, and the correct speed of NTSC.