Karyudo

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

Post History

Post: #244337
Topic: Are the PAL GOUT DVDs upscaled from the NTSC masters?
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/244337/action/topic#244337
Time: 14-Sep-2006 5:35 PM

Originally posted by: THX
...there's a perfectly good PAL LD master that could have been used at no cost.

I agree, but the PAL LD master isn't wholly without its own set of flaws. However, I think the PAL flaws would have been easier to fix by determined preservationists. It's sort of hard to unscrew four-eyed Stormtroopers...

Post: #244264
Topic: Star Wars Limited Edition Screen Captures.
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/244264/action/topic#244264
Time: 14-Sep-2006 3:59 PM

Amen, brother.

The PAL master may have issues of its own (it's dirtier, the framing's a bit different now and again, and I think the highlights are a little blown out in places), but it's definitely got more resolution and fewer DVNR artifacts than the NTSC version.

Post: #244259
Topic: Stormtrooper with 4 eyes ::( or Stormtrooper showing terrible IVTC/telecine artefacts
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/244259/action/topic#244259
Time: 14-Sep-2006 3:56 PM

I should clarify:

This particular bit of evidence for the crappiness of the GOUT release first appeared on the Faces/THX/Definitive Collection NTSC LDs, presumably as an artifact of the DVNR noise reduction process. It only seems to be an issue in this scene on the NTSC version. The PAL THX LDs don't show this error. And neither do transfers (such as the Japanese Special Collection) prior to the DVNR'ed releases.

Post: #244253
Topic: Star Wars Limited Edition Screen Captures.
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/244253/action/topic#244253
Time: 14-Sep-2006 3:43 PM

Originally posted by: seventiesfilmnut
I remember reading somewhere on the Home Theatre forum that the DVNR was applied DURING the telecine process back in 1993 so it's unfortunately built-in to the D1 mastertape, which these have been struck from.

If this is true, then they really should have used the tape from the PAL transfer session instead, because it has way fewer DVNR artifacts than does the NTSC version!

Post: #244247
Topic: OUT delayed
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/244247/action/topic#244247
Time: 14-Sep-2006 3:37 PM

Originally posted by: DarthBoMan
The OUT (or GOUT or wathever) won't be released in Sweden until the 22nd, no explanations were given, the discs are just delayed!

Maybe Sweden gets good discs, from real PAL masters!

(No, I don't really think so, either).

Post: #244246
Topic: Stormtrooper with 4 eyes ::( or Stormtrooper showing terrible IVTC/telecine artefacts
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/244246/action/topic#244246
Time: 14-Sep-2006 3:35 PM

Originally posted by: ESHBG
UGH, this looks AWFUL! Would it be like this on the NTSC version too?!? I don't have the DVDs so I have no idea...

That's where it came from. It's fine on pre-THX NTSC LDs, and THX PAL LDs. I'm sure it's this -- among many other things -- that the X0 Project is looking to fix with the Japanese SC discs.

Post: #244194
Topic: Are the PAL GOUT DVDs upscaled from the NTSC masters?
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/244194/action/topic#244194
Time: 14-Sep-2006 2:18 PM

Originally posted by: boris
I wonder how it could possibly be worth it to you spending soo much time restoring your X0 project, so that certain scenes may have a very slight edge over the OUT. I don't think it's worth that much time, blood sweat and tears. Also, I have more respect for Falle, Coov, Rikter and the other partakers in the SW covers thread - now that really is creative, and I think sometimes that it would never have existed if Lucas hadn't kept the OUT from us.

Gosh, you look at things in a weird way.

Soo... you respect people who have to spend no money at all to make covers that would never have existed "if Lucas hadn't kept the OUT from us," but you don't have as much respect for those people who spent their own money to start LD-to-DVD preservation projects (and thus provide the need for third-party SW covers) back when Lucas said he'd never release the OT on DVD?

Leech.

I see you sucking up to those people providing you stuff for free, and dissing those people who you now consider of no use to you. Making covers is creative and difficult, but it's not nearly as creative and difficult as making a top-notch LD preservation (which you'd know if you'd ever tried it). And the X0 Project Zion is part of is as top-notch as top-notch gets.

I am very much looking forward to the day when the X0 Project trumps any official release. Which I am now sure it can, and will (especially since it now has access to the GOUT discs in addition to all its other sources). I know you say you're satisfied with the GOUT release, but you'll be curious to compare, and I believe you'll have a tough time finding a sympathetic audience for your continued support of the GOUT as best-in-show.

I imagine if Lucas ever put out a collection of alternate DVD covers, you'd find another "creative" group to kiss up to, tossing cover makers in the bin along with LD preservationists, eh?

Post: #243839
Topic: .: The XØ Project - Laserdisc on Steroids :. (SEE FIRST POST FOR UPDATES) (* unfinished project *)
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/243839/action/topic#243839
Time: 13-Sep-2006 7:23 PM

Originally posted by: eros
I think DVD releases have to conform to industry standards and only use certain types of audio files.

Of course they do. But PCM and high-rate DD are both acceptable.

Post: #243553
Topic: First Impressions of the OOT ...
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/243553/action/topic#243553
Time: 13-Sep-2006 2:46 AM

Originally posted by: boris
You should really OWN the laserdisc first, before owning the bootleg (which means the PAL French LD's if getting Moth3rs, or the Definitive Edition if getting Citizen's... etc.
I guess I'm one of the few people who can comment, then, since I own all of those LDs several times over.

...with written permission from the copyright holder
You don't have to ask for permission to exercise your fair use rights. They are rights.

The official DVD [...] has the original 1977 crawl - something no bootleg has

The EditDroid Star Wars has the original 1977 crawl -- and it had it about two years ago. Not to mention the fact that the DVD version is almost certainly CG, same as EditDroid. And EditDroid lets you choose between the original and "A New Hope" titles.

I think if anyone is going to disagree they should at least own the Laserdisc and not just a DVD bootleg.

I think that collectively, there's still many things better about bootlegs/preservations than the official DVDs:

- First of all, PAL-sourced projects probably have a bit better resolution than the GOUT discs -- especially where resolution deficiencies are punished.

- PAL-sourced projects have marginally better contrast ratios than the GOUT discs. That doesn't automatically mean better contrast, but a nicely-preserved project could do better than the official DVDs.

- Pre-THX-sourced projects probably have a bit better detail, and possibly better colour than the GOUT discs.

- A couple of projects have isolated scores, which I didn't think I'd care about, but which turned out to be pretty cool.

- Several projects keep the uncompressed PCM audio from the LDs, which is better than the Dolby Digital used on the GOUT DVDs.

All in all, I'm definitely anticipating that some new projects (most notably the X0 Project, but possibly Moth3r's v1.1) could outdo the official release, by combining the best features of the GOUT discs and new LD caps.

LD is dead; Long live LD!

Post: #243035
Topic: Info Wanted: Anyone Planning on making Anamorphic versions using 2006 OUT DVDs?
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/243035/action/topic#243035
Time: 11-Sep-2006 8:49 PM

Originally posted by: Doctor M
As far as 1080i, from my understanding they're starting to push 1080p now. I'll admit I'm not completely up on the format, but is the interlacing just the way the TV displays it or do they actually record the content interlaced?

For live broadcasts (e.g. sports, late night talk shows), 1080i content is recorded and broadcast interlaced. It is impossible, given the limitations of the FCC-mandated bandwidth for a given over-the-air channel, to broadcast in 1080p -- at least at video frame rates. So the options are typically 720p, or 1080i. Which both look about equally good when it's a live source.

What is on HD-DVD and Blu-Ray will probably end up being 1080p24, which really doesn't give you any better resolution than 1080i60 when the source material started out as 24fps film, although it will avoid the hassle of IVTC. It's a drag, but you can already IVTC 1080i HD (from OTA, cable or satellite sources) the same way you'd IVTC 480i from DVD.

Post: #242983
Topic: Info Wanted: Anyone Planning on making Anamorphic versions using 2006 OUT DVDs?
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/242983/action/topic#242983
Time: 11-Sep-2006 5:59 PM

Originally posted by: Doctor M
This is why there are Progressive Scan DVD players. They don't convert the data to 29.97, they playback the 24 frame progressive material as recorded.
Not to split hairs, but I think most progressive scan players actually apply the flags, and then use post-processing to IVTC. This is because a lot of DVDs -- especially older ones -- don't use the flags properly, like they should. Ignoring flags is elegant, but brute force field matching is more foolproof.

[HD content] allows for true 24 frames. There is no NTSC and no PAL. Hopefully interlacing and telecining will soon be a thing of the past.

Not too likely. Don't forget that 1080i is interlaced, just like NTSC.

HD-DVD and Blu-Ray discs don't even allow for 4x3 content, meaning non-anamorphic discs can't exist.

Actually, HD is defined to be a square pixel format, so strictly speaking all HD is non-anamorphic! And there's nothing stopping anyone from releasing a pillar- and letter-boxed version, so the widescreen movie is letterboxed in a 4:3 window which is pillarboxed in a 16:9 HD frame...

Post: #242910
Topic: .: The XØ Project - Laserdisc on Steroids :. (SEE FIRST POST FOR UPDATES) (* unfinished project *)
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/242910/action/topic#242910
Time: 11-Sep-2006 2:42 PM

This is not too different from a filter I proposed and had coded about two years ago, called 'TooT'. In fact, I don't think PhotoAcute could do any better, since the three captures are not "continuous photos", but instead three nearly-identical copies of exactly the same master. In other words, all the scan lines are fixed; there is none of the small variation in capturing small details that can be exploited to increase detail. Like PhotoAcute promises, TooT will reduce noise and eliminate dropouts, but it can't possibly increase real resolution (just as PhotoAcute can't).

I thought I'd read a post or e-mail by Zion where he mentioned TooT, so I'm confident the X0 Project is well on top of image post-processing.

Post: #242809
Topic: .: The XØ Project - Laserdisc on Steroids :. (SEE FIRST POST FOR UPDATES) (* unfinished project *)
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/242809/action/topic#242809
Time: 11-Sep-2006 12:14 AM

I don't know that they did. I'm just sayin' that's what I predict.

Post: #242806
Topic: Info Wanted: Anyone Planning on making Anamorphic versions using 2006 OUT DVDs?
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/242806/action/topic#242806
Time: 11-Sep-2006 12:12 AM

Originally posted by: Knightmessenger
Does IVTC mean you make an interlaced image progressive?

No. It means to get rid of the 3:2 pulldown applied to run 24 fps film on a 29.97 fps TV.

Was it a time consuming process for those who did LD to dvd transfers?

Takes a while, yeah. Especially when the pattern changes.

Could NTSC laserdiscs be progressive?

No.

Post: #242773
Topic: .: The XØ Project - Laserdisc on Steroids :. (SEE FIRST POST FOR UPDATES) (* unfinished project *)
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/242773/action/topic#242773
Time: 10-Sep-2006 9:15 PM

I predict: not gonna happen.

However, I also predict that nobody will make better use of the DVDs than will the X0 Project...

Post: #242772
Topic: Info: Anyone Got A Spare 1300 Bucks? Star Wars 16mm on ebay...
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/242772/action/topic#242772
Time: 10-Sep-2006 9:08 PM

Originally posted by: iRantanplan
[T]he 1080p "resolution" of 16mm film is only valid [for] high quality prints.

Another claim I'd dispute. If you want as good quality SD as you can get from a 16mm print, then you pretty much have to start at a higher resolution. There is quite a lot of stuff to worry about at the edges of the frame/gate, and if you want to be able to maintain as much quality during resizing (16mm Scope prints do exist), cropping, cleaning, colour correcting, sharpening and editing (of reels together, for example), then you'd want to keep as much resolution as possible. The absolute final step (if I was doing it) would be to drop to PAL or NTSC SD resolution from at least a 720p work print.

Post: #242768
Topic: Info: Anyone Got A Spare 1300 Bucks? Star Wars 16mm on ebay...
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/242768/action/topic#242768
Time: 10-Sep-2006 9:02 PM

Originally posted by: iRantanplan
NTSC has 480 lines dude.

No, it doesn't (dude...). It has 525. And how many does it have the other way (vertical columns)? Hmm? That's right: not exactly defined in the analog domain. Which is why a broadcast camera is free to quote 700: it has a frequency response that gives 700 resolvable vertical lines in that direction, with 525 defined horizontal scan lines. Even lowly VHS has 525 scan lines. It has to: that's how NTSC works!

A broadcast camera claiming 700 lines is possibly analog, and certainly SD.

Post: #242712
Topic: Info: Anyone Got A Spare 1300 Bucks? Star Wars 16mm on ebay...
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/242712/action/topic#242712
Time: 10-Sep-2006 4:47 PM

Let me put it this way: I have gone a lot further down this road than any of you (except maybe Silverwook), and it is far more difficult journey than any of you imagine. I obviously don't think it's impossible, but the threads that pop up every time a battered 16mm print go up on eBay make me laugh and frustrate me, all at once.

Maybe if the chit-chat went beyond "maybe we could get the money together to buy a print!!!" and started heading toward "maybe we could get the money together to help those who have prints make transfers!" it would be worth paying attention to.

Actually, no, it wouldn't. Because the attention generated by taking up a collection would almost certainly kill any transfer project, either because LFL would come to bear, or because of the sheer reporting burden ("No, still not enough progress to make any of you happy...").

(Oh, and by the way: ronlaw, I don't see that the 700-line broadcast camera is anything but SD. That's still 20 lines off the digital SD spec, and nowhere near the 1280 "lines" of 720p.)

Post: #242515
Topic: Info: Anyone Got A Spare 1300 Bucks? Star Wars 16mm on ebay...
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/242515/action/topic#242515
Time: 9-Sep-2006 3:56 PM

Originally posted by: ronlaw
And here's a guy selling hand-built 16mm telecine equipment, for a few thousand dollars.

http://moviestuff.tv/16mm_telecine.html

No, it's clearly impossible. Can't be done.

You will note I never said anything about "impossible," or "can't be done."

I perused this site a couple of years back. Nothing has changed since then. Problems still include:

1. Only SD
2. Only 8-bit colour depth (per channel)
3. Doesn't capture full dynamic range of film
4. Only decent ones are the Sniper and SniperPro, so in addition to the $1300 you'd have to scrape together to buy film, you need at least another $3200

So I stand by my original rant: getting the film is the easy part. Digitizing it is hard.

Post: #242428
Topic: Info: Anyone Got A Spare 1300 Bucks? Star Wars 16mm on ebay...
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/242428/action/topic#242428
Time: 9-Sep-2006 2:34 AM

Yeah, it would. Scary and expensive and completely impractical, but what could be cooler than flying around with a jetpack??

Post: #242372
Topic: Info: Anyone Got A Spare 1300 Bucks? Star Wars 16mm on ebay...
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/242372/action/topic#242372
Time: 8-Sep-2006 8:25 PM

If there was a... oh, I don't know: let's say a jetpack, like in that Bond film -- and it was $1300, would you buy it? No? Why not? 'Cause it might be relatively cheap to own, but it's almost completely useless without a pile of extra stuff (fuel, parts, maintenance) to make it work, it's dangerous, and you probably don't have the know-how to get it up and running in the first place.

Guess what? Film is exactly the same.

Getting film is easy. The biggest problem by far is the digitizing. The best and most reliable way to get it done is to buy or build your own telecine. Which is still about 100 times more tricky and several times more expensive than buying the film in the first place.

Everytime I read a "let's make our own film transfer" thread here, I can't help but think of the Monty Python sketch "How To Do It":

Cut to a sign saying 'How to do it'. Music. Pull out to reveal a 'Blue Peter' type set. Sitting casually on the edge of a dais are three presenters in sweaters - Noel, Jackie and Alan - plus a large bloodhound.

Alan Hello.

Noel Hello.

Alan Well, last week we showed you how to become a gynaecologist. And this week on 'How to do it' we're going to show you how to play the flute, how to split an atom, how to construct a box girder bridge, how to irrigate the Sahara Desert and make vast new areas of land cultivatable, but first, here's Jackie to tell you all how to rid the world of all known diseases.

Jackie Hello, Alan.

Alan Hello, Jackie.

Jackie Well, first of all become a doctor and discover a marvellous cure for something, and then, when the medical profession really starts to take notice of you, you can jolly well tell them what to do and make sure they get everything right so there'll never be any diseases ever again.

Alan Thanks, Jackie. Great idea. How to play the flute. (picking up a flute) Well here we are. You blow there and you move your fingers up and down here.

Noel Great, great, Alan. Well, next week we'll be showing you how black and white people can live together in peace and harmony, and Alan will be over in Moscow showing us how to reconcile the Russians and the Chinese. So, until next week, cheerio.

Alan Bye.

Jackie Bye.

Post: #242301
Topic: Info Wanted: Anyone Planning on making Anamorphic versions using 2006 OUT DVDs?
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/242301/action/topic#242301
Time: 8-Sep-2006 5:27 PM

Originally posted by: Sluggo
Several THOUSAND!? Maybe a few dozen.
OK, "several thousand" was hyperbole.
And what is wrong with collecting new and updated projects? That's half the fun!!

If only all of them were good...

Post: #242263
Topic: Info Wanted: Anyone Planning on making Anamorphic versions using 2006 OUT DVDs?
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/242263/action/topic#242263
Time: 8-Sep-2006 3:46 PM

Maybe this thread title should be changed to "Anyone NOT Planning on Making Anamorphic Versions Using the 09/12 OUT DVDs?"

I'm getting worried there are going to be several thousand new projects to collect and watch and criticize....

Post: #241851
Topic: In defence of the 2004 DVDs
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/241851/action/topic#241851
Time: 6-Sep-2006 8:15 PM

Originally posted by: BigBlueRig
I dunno...to be honest, I like the way it looks inside the Tantive on the 2004 DVD's better than the other versions.

Maybe you should petition Lucas to fix Episode III to be more in line with his latest thinking about the Tantive corridors, as seen on the 2004 DVD.

The director of Episode III clearly didn't understand what Lucas really wanted the corridor to look like.

Post: #241848
Topic: Info Wanted: Anyone Planning on making Anamorphic versions using 2006 OUT DVDs?
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/241848/action/topic#241848
Time: 6-Sep-2006 8:11 PM

I think you could answer that question for yourself after a quick trip to Doom9.org. In my mind, the evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of pre-processing to "fanamorphic", rather than letting a lowly display device do it on the fly.