logo Sign In

Moth3r

User Group
Members
Join date
26-Oct-2004
Last activity
16-Jul-2017
Posts
4,892

Post History

Post
#106511
Topic
ROTS: Good God, it's already leaked. (Screenshots)
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/106511/action/topic#106511
Time
Quote
Originally posted by: oojason
any links or sources, lads?
I hope everyone here has enough sense to leave that question unanswered. Discussing torrent sites for fan edits and laserdisc rips won't exactly grab the attention of Lucasfilm, but if information on obtaining this release is posted, I can see this site getting shut down very quickly. And I quite like this site.

Post
#106399
Topic
PAL vs NTSC laserdiscs
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/106399/action/topic#106399
Time
I wasn't aware of that one, THIS must be it.

I'd guess original not SE, looks like the European equivalent to the DC set?

:: EDIT - No, actually, the artwork on THIS auction is similar to the earlier PDO UK pressings, so it's likely to be the same transfer - very poor quality by all accounts.

Just thougt I'd mention if you didn't pick it up from elsewhere, the French PAL ANH - both the English language boxed set and the individual "version francais" discs - have a defect at side 1/2 flip, where a screen wipe is missing and the next shot is only half-resolution.
Post
#106276
Topic
PAL vs NTSC laserdiscs
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/106276/action/topic#106276
Time
Could the effect be due to the DV codec being used in your capture hardware maybe? I doubt that the "removing of lines" theory is correct.

Note that my raw capture was "upsampled" to make an anamorphic DVD, so what you see in that image has been vertically stretched from the original - this might have "masked" any jaggies that were present.

The DVDs that were on Suprnova were Dr Gonzo's, however, it is unclear whether they were identical to his originals that were posted to Usenet or if they had been tampered with in any way before torrenting.
Post
#106201
Topic
For those that cannot play PAL DVD's....
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/106201/action/topic#106201
Time
Originally posted by: Jedikev
I got a multi region DVD player for £25. YES!!! That's not an issue with my DVD as it's region free.

Originally posted by: Darth Mallwalker
... if your $35 cheapo plays PAL 4% too fast, as mine does.
I don't think you mean it plays PAL 4% too fast (i.e. 8% faster than NTSC ), I think you mean that it plays PAL at the correct speed, which is 4% faster than NTSC.

But wait a minute, if it is playing the audio at the correct speed, and your TV is still in 525/60Hz mode (480i), then you will either get juddery playback as additional frames are inserted to make up the correct framerate, or the audio will very quickly go out of sync.

I don't know if it is possible to transcode AC-3 in realtime from 25fps to 23.976fps. Certainly when I used to play XviDs via the TV out, I could make 23.976 up to 25 with the ReClock filter, but only if they had MP3 sound. It was not possible to resample AC3.

The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that a PAL -> NTSC conversion using VirtualDub or AVISynth is superior to an on-the-fly conversion by a DVD player.
Post
#106023
Topic
For those that cannot play PAL DVD's....
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/106023/action/topic#106023
Time
Originally posted by: russs15
The same rule applies over here in the UK. The cheaper the player, the better it is..........
I wouldn't totally agree. We got a £25 model from Asda - sure it plays every format, but the picture is so muddy when compared to a more expensive model, and the build quality is shit (a piece of plastic keeps dropping off the disc tray).

My parents had a different model from Kwik Save - that lasted a year, just out of warranty, before it decided to no longer recognise any discs.

Back on topic, Rik do you have any more details on the exactly how these players do the conversion?
Post
#105800
Topic
***The "official" Screenshots feedback thread ***
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/105800/action/topic#105800
Time
Here's a bit of narrative to accompany my screenshot comparison, just to give some pointers as to what you should be looking at. (It would also be beneficial if you could ensure that your monitor is correctly calibrated when making comparisons.)

Shot 1: Tonality check (#1)
The blackness of space should be black, not a shade of grey, and the stars should be clear bright spots. Also check that the ships are the correct "temperature" of grey with no colour cast, and look out for dot crawl artefacts on the laserbolts.

Shot 2: Hue check
Incorrect hue is most noticable on skin tones. Check that the face is a natural skin tone, and not too yellow (EditDroid?) or too purple (ISOMIX?).

Shot 3: Chroma subsampling check
Look at the raw DVD screenshot, as it doesn't show up so well on the resized image. Check the extremities of Artoo's red light. The TR47 and ISOMIX versions show the artefacts associated with a DV capture.

Shot 4: Tonality Check (#2)
As well as the black of Vader's cloak, and the white of the roof lights, this shot displays all the midtones in between. The Farsight version shows what happens when the white level (contrast) is set far too high. Also look for the halos to the left of Vader on the Moth3r version, caused by setting sharpness too high.

Shot 5: Detail Check
Examine very fine detail in this shot, such as the appendages of the droid in the centre of the picture. Fine detail appears blurred in the Dr Gonzo transfer.

Shot 6: Dot crawl test
Look at the edges of the red sun in Tatooine's sky. The EditDroid version gives a very good example of what the dot-crawl looks like.
Post
#105798
Topic
Info Wanted: What is the Best Quality OT Fan Preservation Set?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/105798/action/topic#105798
Time
Thanks Karyudo for the mention.

Although it should be noted that my "set" is only 33% complete (well, more like 45% now I've capped the raw video from the TESB discs). If you live in Europe/Australia, and you have a widescreen TV, then I can say without too much fear of being accused of blowing my own trumpet that my version of ANH is the best in terms of video quality. It's not perfect and there is still room for improvement, as you will realise if you read some of the comments in my thread.

I'm not really fit to make a judgement on audio quality, as with my system (and my ears which have probably suffered permanent damage from too music loud music when I was younger) I cannot tell the difference between AC3 @ 192kbps and LPCM @ 1536kbps.

I wouldn't recommend the Farsight version to anyone; the white level is set far too high. Disappointing as setting brightness and contrast correctly is the first most important aspect of any transfer.

Dr Gonzo's version scores highly on presentation, and is the most popular version seen for sale on eBay and for download from torrent sites. Personally I find the image detail to be slightly too soft for my liking.

ISOMIX seems to be a bit noisier, but otherwise is similar to both the TR47 and EditDroid versions; all three are very good transfers. (I assume that "Row47" is essentially identical to the TR47 version in terms of AV quality). All three have a slightly different colour balance, ISOMIX is perhaps a bit too red. ISOMIX and TR47 suffer from chroma-subsampling artefacts due to DV compression, whilst EditDroid suffers from dot-crawl. There's not much to choose between the three, but EditDroid probably wins out because of its overall quality (including presentation/menus).

I'm optimistic that future versions can improve on the good work that's been achieved already. For example, when Dr Gonzo produced his version (in 2001/2002?) I'm guessing a "fast" PC would have been around 1GHZ. My PC is nearly three times faster, but even so with the advanced noise filtering in use it took me about 48 hours to encode the video. That level of video processing would just not have been feasible a few years ago.
Post
#105426
Topic
Info Wanted: Your favourite sound mix for A New Hope?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/105426/action/topic#105426
Time

(I’ve not included the original theatrical 70mm 6-track mix , because it’s unlikely to ever be heard again in its original form. Elements of this mix were used in the 1985 and 1993 remastered versions.)

I don’t think I’ve ever heard #1. Although I saw TESB and ROTJ at the cinema, I was too young to go when ANH was first out. This mix was the one on the early (pre-1985) VHS and Laserdisc releases, so I’d like to check it out someday.

#2 is the one I grew up with, because it was on my VHS taped off a TV broadcast in the '80s. Although I like many aspects of it, “close the blast doors”, “the tractor beam…”, “blast it Wedge…” and the un-synthesised radio voices during the Death Star battle, IMO a Dolby mix is always going to be a winner with the opening shot, where you can hear the Tantive behind you a second before it bursts on screen in a hail of laserbolts…

I’ve heard #3 once, but not in surround sound! I know that “close the blast doors” is missing, but “the tractor beam” line is back in. I can’t really comment much more than that.

My vote has to go to #4, because it’s the one I’ve heard the most since I bought my VHS set in 1995. Star Wars wasn’t the first film to use Dolby Surround, but it was the first one that really showed what could be done, and I believe it should always be watched with a pro-logic compatible system.

Post
#105398
Topic
Letterboxed Widescreen vs. Anamorphic Widescreen Discussion
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/105398/action/topic#105398
Time
Originally posted by: Karyudo
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;
....
I can tell you from direct experience that it is unclear that (1) is true... It would be useful if someone who has the NTSC and PAL discs could capture from both using the same hardware and settings. This would give a true comparison and clear up any doubt. In fact, I remember someone saying they would do this some time ago...

Originally posted by: Karyudo
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.
A quick calculaton shows that the D.C. discs are 2.32:1, and my PAL discs are 2.37:1. But like you say, the figures are unimportant.
Post
#105240
Topic
<strong>The &quot;Dr. Gonzo&quot; Trilogy DVD Info and Feedback Thread</strong> (Released)
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/105240/action/topic#105240
Time
Originally posted by: Mindless Philosopher
It looks like you used the web version, which comes out a little stuttery and dark. Yes, I noticed a bad framerate/stuttery playback in the THX trailer too. I thought it might have been due to the person who ripped and torrented the disc, but it looks like it's present on the Dr Gonzo original.

Originally posted by: Mindless Philosopher
Screenshots?
HERE
Post
#104619
Topic
<strong>The &quot;EditDroid&quot; Trilogy DVD Info and Feedback Thread</strong> (Released)
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/104619/action/topic#104619
Time
Originally posted by: RichKS
Sorry to put this post here but the splinter thread for Widescreen/anamorphic discussion appears to have disappeared. It looks like threads get deleted after a month with no posts.
Did you mean this thread? It still shows up for me, maybe you've got your options set up differently.
Post
#104504
Topic
.: Moth3r's PAL DVD project :.
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/104504/action/topic#104504
Time
Originally posted by: s7en
Very nice looking screengrabs. Are they from before or after mpg2 encoding? They have not been encoded into MPEG-2; I took the output after post-processing, cropped the borders and resized the image to natural aspect ratio, then saved as JPEG with a high-quality setting.
Originally posted by: s7en
The only point for criticism I can see is the red behind c3po looks a bit noisey, and seems to have a bit of a moire pattern running through it. Is this a casualty of dot crawl or a problem in the original source? And more importantly, how does it all look on a tv?
I'm not sure on the technical details of why pure reds are so problematic. Bear in mind it looks worse on a monitor than on a TV, and I am using only light noise reduction so as to keep detail intact.

I've just noticed that shot shows some minor ghosting (there is a faint shadow of Luke's face from the previous frame); this is present on the raw capture before post-processing. I think I've read somewhere that the Def. Collection laserdiscs had similar defects, I believe it's due to digital noise reduction applied to the video master that the laserdiscs were pressed from.
Post
#104427
Topic
.: Moth3r's PAL DVD project :.
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/104427/action/topic#104427
Time
Originally posted by: dumb_kid
...
(3.3m since you're on the other side of the pond)...
Most Brits still use feet and inches; it's our European cousins who are totally metric...

Thanks for the feedback!

A couple of little updates:

There's a neat cover for the first DVD in the making (thanks to Metallaxis), I really like it and it's a bit different to the covers that have been done for the other sets.

I've had to re-calibrate the capture settings for Empire, the disc transfer seems to be completely different from ANH. Here's how it's looking so far:

http://img147.echo.cx/img147/5929/14hk1.jpg
The white level needed to be lowered as the brightness in the sky in this shot was overblown.

http://img207.echo.cx/img207/5987/28yw.jpg
When I got to this scene, the hot pixel scan shot off the scale with that red! After reducing the saturation, I've recovered a bit of detail in the reflections behind Threepio.

http://img120.echo.cx/img120/3623/34ig.jpg
Checking the starfields still look nice...

http://img120.echo.cx/img120/2332/46vh.jpg
Checking the Hoth battle. Bright images seem to be very noisy on my hardware, but look a lot better after the filtering process.