Asaki said:
Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:
captainsolo said:
OMG THAT BONUS! COMPLETELY UNEXPECTED! MY FAVORITE!
A 16mm capture, too. :)
Speaking of Christmas, when's that 16 mm preservation of the Holiday Special coming out ;)
Sorry, I tried to fix the photos but messed everything up.
Here's a visual example of what I'm talking about. Here's an image from Puggo's site showing a frame of a DV capture with 480 pixels of horizontal resolution:
[img]http://s12.postimage.org/iks9qqn3d/DV_Before.jpg[/img]
The great thing about this image is the fact that it's an anamorphically squeezed image. There's much more resolution available than say a letterboxed 4x3 (ie the GOUT). So, here's the same image but stretched out to 1280 by 480 (1280 being the horizontal resolution in 720p)
[img]http://s18.postimage.org/k91uq9cut/720_HDafter.jpg[/img]
NOTE: this was just a quickly done example to show how stretching out the initial capture would work. Please note, the 720p example does not reflect the correct aspect ratio.
captainsolo said:
djchaseb said:
Getting my pregame on with Puggo Grande
DITTO!! The anticipation is killing me. Seriously.
Mavimao said:
Puggo, I know you were thinking of making HD versions of your captures - are you still considering this? I think these projects would benefit from a more modern codec seeing as the grain and dirt play havoc with mpeg2. Also, because the initial image is in scope, there should be adequate vertical resolution for a good uprezzed HD image, seeing as a scope 2.35 film is 817 pixels tall in 1080p - 544 pixels in 720p.
IIRC puggo said that this would require a new workprinter.
A good thing I'm not suffering from asplenia.
Puggo, I know you were thinking of making HD versions of your captures - are you still considering this? I think these projects would benefit from a more modern codec seeing as the grain and dirt play havoc with mpeg2. Also, because the initial image is in scope, there should be adequate vertical resolution for a good uprezzed HD image, seeing as a scope 2.35 film is 817 pixels tall in 1080p - 544 pixels in 720p.
Verboten said:
Just checking, but is Luke's skin supposed to look so orange during the "For luck." shot?
What I don't understand is why those wanting an MKV are begging Harmy to do it. If we have an SD dvd5 version of these projects, it's because someone else took an initiative and did it himself (chewtobbaca). If you guys really really want an MKV, build one yourselves from the bluray files and offer it to the community. I am pretty positive Harmy would not have the slightest problem with that as long as due credit to harmy is given.
Those scans look great! It must be a special edition print based on the DTS time code present.
If you wish to learn more about anamorphic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anamorphic_format
I have the DVD5 and playing it on my mac, using VLC produces the following results (one is in windowed mode at normal rez, and the other is upscaled fullscreen to 1280 x 800)
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/5914642/shot.zip
They seem pretty clean on my mac, so I am guessing it is indeed the player...
Although I admit that I misspoke when I said the TV or capture card recombines the YC signal into composite. My bad. So I suppose I was initially 70% correct.
Moth3r said:
^ The Laserdisc format does indeed use composite video.
So, I would estimate that around 20% of the above post is accurate.
AntcuFaalb said:
Moth3r said:
It's moderate dot crawl made worse by over-sharpening. ;-)
Does your LD player have an s-video out?
Oldfan said:
I was just looking at the comparison shots posted between v1 and v2. Many of the shots actually look like the black levels are totally crushed - like take a look at the shots of the Millennium Falcon docked on the Death Star (shots 72 & 73, 80 & 81) - tons of detail is just gone, lost in shadow, and in shots 80 & 81 the door on the left in the background is almost impossible to see. And in the shot of Obi-Wan early on (shots 22 and 23), the v1 looks nice but v2 is totally blown out, with all detail in the background completely lost in a sea of white, and the colors look terrible compared to v1.
Is this just unavoidable due to the different sources used for v2? I don't mean this to sound like a criticism, I'm just curious why such a difference in quality- to my eyes many of the v1 shots have more background visible, even though the v2 are clearly sharper. In those shots, is this just how it looked originally, and we're just used to seeing tweaked versions over the years, or are those shots just due to limited available sources? It seems in the shots I mentioned above, v1 looks far better overall.
<div></div>
<div></div>
Oldfan said:
delusions_of_grandeur said:
Oldfan said:
But then we're getting a lesser quality mkv by creating an mkv from the AVCHD unlike this where the mkv is higher quality. Why the hate for mkv? It's the perfect format for viewing on media players. Myself I want to watch this on my HDTV and the mkv can easily play on either my media players or my blu-ray player which supports mkv or even my tv itself which also plays mkv.
<div></div>
<div></div>
Then create it from the Blu-Ray instead of the AVCHD....
Right, except then we have to download a full blu-ray and do the conversion, where for this I just had to download the MKV, which has excellent quality yet I don't have to download the huge blu-ray. The mkv is the perfect compromise between quality and file size - much smaller than the blu-ray yet very close in quality. The whole point is many will not want to download a full blu-ray when the mkv would do fine. I don't even have a blu-ray burner so I'd have to download the blu-ray just to convert it and then delete it.
<div></div>
Should I contact my doctor about my spleen?
But a high quality MKV can be created from the Bluray.
The sound options are great! Thanks a lot!
Quick question, guys: is it possible to replace the soundtracks in the future AVCHD file?
Yes, this technology exists, (it's known simply as DTS) but you have to have the DTS time code printed on the side of the film AND the CD in the sound system has to be conformed to this time code as well.
As far as I know, there are no DTS prints or CDs for the original Star Wars.
More info here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DTS_(sound_system)#History
I can tell you from personal experience that this is very difficult to achieve. The speed of a film projector isn't a solid 24 fps and you'll end up going out of sync even if you manage to hit the play button on the secondary source fast enough.
PS I am assuming that you are thinking of running the film print through a projector and the sound through a cd player or mp3 player... This is what I had to do when the answer print for a film festival I was projecting had sound that was way out of sync, and we had to burn the sound files to a cd, and sit next to a stereo with our finger on the pause button, waiting for the smpte countdown to hit 2. We would sometimes be off by a few milliseconds and that would mess the whole sync and no way to turn off the projector and rewind.
Correct. Only collectors through grey-ish means have 35mm prints. 16 and 8 mm were home formats.
pat man said:
bilditup1 said:
pat man said:
This is a non-faded Technicolor 35mm pint.From 1977,there was not many made for a home release.
.
...That's an IB Tech print, not 35mm. The one Harmy timed it to is in better condition and doesn't have the vagaries of how the digital camera processed the image or whether the Senator used the right bulb
sorry I didn't know :(
bilditup1 said:
pat man said:
This is a non-faded Technicolor 35mm pint.From 1977,there was not many made for a home release.
This is how Harmy made his V2.0.Just his is a shad brighter.I would say lower the brightness by 2% or lower the gamma just a hair,but this is Harmy and others edited's,so it's their opinion.
...That's an IB Tech print, not 35mm. The one Harmy timed it to is in better condition and doesn't have the vagaries of how the digital camera processed the image or whether the Senator used the right bulb
Those samples look really awesome!
I WANT THIS NOW.