Moth3r

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

Post History

Post: #96216
Topic: Info Wanted: Hello and questions for my own project
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/96216/action/topic#96216
Time: 11-Mar-2005 8:13 AM

Zion is doing DVD sourced from the original trilogy laserdiscs.

Several people have been talking about the possibility of restoring the original Greedo scene, but AFAIK nothing has been "released" yet. This is the thread to read:
http://www.originaltrilogy.com/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=9&threadid=1532

Adigitalman has done a version of the ROTJ DVD that removes some of the new stuff; it is available as a torrent at myspleen.net.

Post: #96110
Topic: Letterboxed Widescreen vs. Anamorphic Widescreen Discussion
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/96110/action/topic#96110
Time: 10-Mar-2005 6:14 PM

Originally posted by: Warp99
This is off topic but since it worked very well on the sample vob, anyway, I used this to remove the line:

ConvertToYV12
turnleft()
descratch(minlen=702,asym=15,mindif=3,maxgap=3,blurlen=8,keep=0,border=0,maxangle=0,modeY=3,mark=false)
turnright()

The good thing is that it should not remove anything shorter than 702 pixels so your starfield is quite safe. I could not get a single detection error in the sample anyway, use mark=true for debug mode.

http://bag.hotmail.ru/descratch/descratch.dhtml

Thanks, I'd already identified the descratch plugin but hadn't had a chance to test it. I'll give your vlaues a try.

Post: #96082
Topic: Letterboxed Widescreen vs. Anamorphic Widescreen Discussion
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/96082/action/topic#96082
Time: 10-Mar-2005 2:35 PM

Originally posted by: Warp99
Well, it was a whole line(s) that missed so I just thought maybe you wanted to remove them, they do not look very movie like.

Now you've mentioned it, I'm going to have to change my script in an attempt to remove them, or they're just gonna bug me every time I see them now...

Post: #96034
Topic: Letterboxed Widescreen vs. Anamorphic Widescreen Discussion
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/96034/action/topic#96034
Time: 10-Mar-2005 7:40 AM

Originally posted by: eros
changing ld ripped video to anamorphic will degrade picture detail and sharpness. Let me present to you images A and B.

A:

http://img146.exs.cx/img146/4241/a5tx.jpg

http://img146.exs.cx/img146/2779/b9go.jpg

Image A is the raw capture from the laserdisc, borders cropped, with noise reduction and sharpening filters applied.

Image B is the same frame, noise filtered, sharpening filter, upsampled to anamorphic resolution, encoded to MPEG-2 (this frame is taken from the first pass, so is not even the finished encode), borders cropped and finally resized back down to it's original resolution.

Now tell me how much the picture is degraded.

Originally posted by: Warp99
BTW I noticed a linedrop in frame# 1030 in the sample, it's right in the middle of the picture, maybe you already fixed it...

No, I left that in to give the DVD an authentic laserdisc feel...

Seriously, there are literally hundreds of little spots and lines on the capture; some are off the actual film when it was transferred to the laserdisc, others are caused by dust or scratches on the disc surface when I did the capture. I considered using a despot filter to try and remove some of it, but I was worried that it might have a detrimental effect on other aspects of the video, e.g taking out twinkling stars because the filter thinks they're laserdisc defects. (I'm very proud of my beautiful starfield, I even think it looks better than the official retail DVD). And I have neither the time nor the software to go through frame-by-frame and remove the defects manually...

Post: #95872
Topic: Letterboxed Widescreen vs. Anamorphic Widescreen Discussion
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/95872/action/topic#95872
Time: 9-Mar-2005 8:33 AM

Originally posted by: Trooperman
I cannot stand PAL because the sound is sped up along with the video. This is a problem if you were born with something called "perfect pitch" like I was. It means that you automically identify pitch names. So I am immensely distracted by the Star Wars theme playing in B Major rather than B flat Major. It's not so much the voices, but every time a musical cue comes in, I'm busy noticing that it's not in the original key. I can't help it, and it throws the whole thing off for me.

That's very interesting. Myself: I'm completely tone-deaf. (Although, I used to be a DJ, and I have enough "pitch" to be able to identify a key clash in a mix. But usually only after I'd done it.

).

I there any noticeable loss in quality if you were to get the NTSC audio and do a "time-compress"; basically speeding it up without changing the pitch?

(What has this to do with letterboxed v. anamorphic? Why do threads on here go off topic so quickly?)

Post: #95744
Topic: The "EditDroid" Trilogy DVD Info and Feedback Thread (Released)
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/95744/action/topic#95744
Time: 8-Mar-2005 3:58 PM

Well, seeing as it comes at the start of the movie, VTS_01_1.VOB would be a good place to start.

(Don't ask me how to un-multi-angle the video, I don't know)

Post: #95696
Topic: Letterboxed Widescreen vs. Anamorphic Widescreen Discussion
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/95696/action/topic#95696
Time: 8-Mar-2005 2:46 AM

- so should we refer to a 4:3 letterboxed DVD as "isomorphic" then?

Post: #95621
Topic: Letterboxed Widescreen vs. Anamorphic Widescreen Discussion
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/95621/action/topic#95621
Time: 7-Mar-2005 7:20 AM

Originally posted by: skyman8081
Well, Moth3r is better off with an Anamorphic NTSC transfar, as his source are the PAL LD's, which will look sharper and will look better as Anamorphic. In theory, yes, making an anamorphic NTSC DVD from the PAL laserdiscs would only require upsampling of about 11%, instead of the 33% required when going from the NTSC laserdiscs.

But that's not what I'm doing; I'm making a PAL DVD because I'm chosing PAL's 4% speedup over NTSC's motion judder.

Originally posted by: ApolloOne
And what about the vast majority of viewers, the folks who have 4:3 televisions? The first question should have been what about the vast majority of viewers who have NTSC TVs, they won't be able to watch my DVD at all! My answer would be: ask Cowclops, MeBeJedi, Zion et al. But to address the point about 4:3 televisions, most people here who have DVD players also have 16:9 sets. (The only exception I can think of is my parents!) Argos sell twice as many widescreen TVs as standard Tvs.

Originally posted by: ApolloOne
As a DVD creator, an inviolable rule I have to obey is "bother the fewest." In a commercial world, that certainly makes sense. However, I will not be selling my DVDs so I have no qualms about who I bother.

Originally posted by: ApolloOne
Having said that, if you want to make a DVD that works best for your situation, Moth3r, then I don't think anyone would begrudge you that.

I admit that I'm selfish. This DVD is purely for myself. In fact, the only reason I'm making it available to others is for the ego trip!

Originally posted by: The Dark One
First off, before I start blabbering on...I'm in "NTSC land" (although I do have region-free PAL-compatible DVD players for my viewing pleasure) and this is the info on my set: Sony KP-43HT20 43" Rear Projection HDTV Monitor

I see there are no 576i or 576p modes on that display - how do you watch PAL stuff? I assume your player converts to NTSC?

Originally posted by: MeBeJedi
... you lose resolution again when your DVD player removes 1 of every 4 lines to get the once-anamorphic picture to fit on your smaller TV screen.

Only if your 4:3 TV does not have a 16:9 mode!

--

There is one reason I've found for not going anamorphic - I've noticed at least two locations where my capture exhibits interlacing artefacts, and I believe it's a problem with stray fields on the laserdisc. This problem will in theory be more noticeable on an anamorphic transfer; really I should fix it before resizing, however, I'm going to go ahead and produce a test screener version and see if it is noticeable or not when watched on screen (it only occurs on a small number of frames).

Post: #95475
Topic: STAR WARS: the alt.binaries.starwars thread
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/95475/action/topic#95475
Time: 5-Mar-2005 6:10 PM

Russ, I think you'll find that if you ping news.virgin.net a few times, the IP resolves to the same group of servers as news.ntli.net, news.ntlworld.com, news.tesco.net, etc., so I cannot understand why the retention would be any better.

Myself: I have hard-coded all the IPs into Newsbin Pro, and I just hammer them all...

Post: #95302
Topic: Letterboxed Widescreen vs. Anamorphic Widescreen Discussion
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/95302/action/topic#95302
Time: 4-Mar-2005 10:57 AM

Originally posted by: MeBeJedi
Hopefully, people won't confuse this with an anamorphic picture made from film, which doesn't require this upsampling. Anamorphic video made from a letterbox transfer looks nowhere near as good as anamorphic video made from a film source. Does anyone know what "algorithm" Dr. Gonzo used when he made his transfer?

I've edited the text now so hopefully there's less chance of it confusing people.

I don't know what algorithm Dr Gonzo used, but I would hazard a guess that the resizing was done in TMPGEnc along with the IVTC and encoding.

Post: #95277
Topic: .: The Lancer DVD Project :. (* unfinished project *)
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/95277/action/topic#95277
Time: 4-Mar-2005 5:52 AM

Lancer = tellan
http://www.originaltrilogy.com/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=9&threadid=1839

Post: #95276
Topic: Letterboxed Widescreen vs. Anamorphic Widescreen Discussion
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/95276/action/topic#95276
Time: 4-Mar-2005 5:38 AM

Anyone who saw the sample from my DVD on a.b.starwars will know that I've finally decided to go with an anamorphic transfer (as I had originally planned to do, only for a long while I was considering doing a letterboxed transfer - all the JPEG screenshots were letterboxed).

The main reasons are purely personal:
- Our TV is in 16:9 mode most of the time, so it saves me from having to press a button on the remote control to change to zoom mode.
- We have a portable player with a 16:9 LCD screen, which has no zoom mode.

But I'd like to discuss some common (IMO) misconceptions that have cropped up in other threads recently; rather than add my thoughts to other threads I thought it'd be better to have all 4:3 vs 16:9 discussion in one place.

"You're not gaining anything by making an anamorphic DVD, because the laserdiscs are letterboxed the information isn't there in the first place."
&
"If you have a widescreen 16:9 TV, you can view letterboxed DVDs by setting the TV to zoom mode, the quality is just the same as resizing during post-processing."

Assuming most people have CRT TVs; when you watch a letterboxed film, setting the TV to zoom mode, the TV stretches the picture vertically by increasing the distance between the scanlines. Some 25% (?) of the total No. of lines (480 NTSC/576 PAL) end up in the "overscan" areas off the top and bottom of the screen - but of course these lines only contain black bars anyway.

Now when you process the video to create an anamorphic picture, you use a process called upsampling (or interpolation) to generate additional lines of video. The upsampling algorithms used - bicubic, lanczos, etc. - are much more sophisticated than simply doubling up certain lines or using linear interpolation. The aim is to increase the size without blurring the edges too much or producing jaggies, and these algorithms do this sucessfully (lanczos is said to be sharper, but I don't really notice a difference between bicubic, lanczos, Mitchell, sinc or any of the advanced upsampling filters).

So when you watch a DVD containing a straight letterboxed transfer, you see a stretched out picture. When you watch an DVD with video from the laserdisc converted to anamorphic, you see an upsampled picture. I don't need to tell you which looks better.

For those people with a home cinema setup incorporating a plasma or LCD screen, or when you watch a DVD on your PC, the image will always be upsampled, either by scaling circuitry in the display device or the video card in your PC. In such cases, there should be little or no difference between a letterboxed or anamorphic version.

"If you have a regular 4:3 TV, then you lose 1 out of every 4 lines of resolution when playing an anamorphic DVD."

This is partly true. If you set your DVD player to 4:3 mode, then it will downsample (decimate) the active image and add black bars to the top and bottom. I've no idea if this an actual scaling process, or simply removal of every 4th line.

However, many modern 4:3 TVs now have a 16:9 mode. In this mode, the distance between the scan lines is reduced, compressing the picture vertically. The black bars top and bottom are not part of the video - they are black because there are is no electron beam scanning that area (like your TV is black when you turn it off!). With the DVD player set to 16:9 mode, you still see every line of the anamorphic video, and you don't lose anything.

"You need a higher bitrate for anamorphic video."

Of course you do - there are more lines of video and fewer lines of solid black. Solid black compresses well, actual video information needs more work. (Try this: use notepad to create two text files, exactly the same length, one full of spaces, the other containing random text. Now zip each one. Which is smaller? How much smaller?)

However - and this has been discussed at length by Cowclops - laserdiscs cannot reproduce the same level of detail as a DVD. The picture will always be softer, and a softer picture compresses better than one with lots of sharp details. Unfortunately laserdisc captures contain analogue noise; this noise, because it is random, does not compress well. That is why we must use noise reduction during post-processing before encoding to DVD.

So a de-noised laserdisc capture will compress reasonably well, and this is the reason why Cowclops and myself both consider that single-layer DVD is more than adequate for an anamorphic transfer, with no noticeable increase in quality by using dual-layer. But that's another discussion...

:: Edited for typos

Post: #95100
Topic: The "EditDroid" Trilogy DVD Info and Feedback Thread (Released)
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/95100/action/topic#95100
Time: 2-Mar-2005 9:38 AM

Originally posted by: ChainsawAsh
...if anyone can point me to a way where I can take the original m2v file, run a dot-crawl filter on it so it ends up in a new m2v file and NOT an avi file or anything else because I still have problems converting avi to m2v, please tell me so this would look as good on any TV.

Not possible I'm afraid - if you want to change anything within a compressed MPEG-2 stream, you will need to re-encode.

Post: #95094
Topic: The "EditDroid" Trilogy DVD Info and Feedback Thread (Released)
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/95094/action/topic#95094
Time: 2-Mar-2005 9:04 AM

The architecture of PAL TVs is optimised for a 50Hz/576 line display, as that is what they will be primarily be used for. They will quite happily switch to 60Hz/480 line mode for NTSC, and will zoom in for non-anamorphic material (losing scanlines off the top and bottom in the process). If I'm correct, this leaves you with just 360 scanlines on screen - on a display where the shadow mask, phosphor dots, etc., are optimised for 576.

When I watch non-anamorphic NTSC material on my TV, I can see noticeable gaps between scanlines.

Post: #95089
Topic: Info Wanted: Haven't been here in a while and just need an update of site events since
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/95089/action/topic#95089
Time: 2-Mar-2005 5:13 AM

Originally posted by: Rattlehead
...
I couldn't get the screenshots to change on your site either.
...

Think I've fixed it now. Try again.

Post: #95086
Topic: Info Wanted: Haven't been here in a while and just need an update of site events since
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/95086/action/topic#95086
Time: 2-Mar-2005 3:22 AM

Originally posted by: Rattlehead
...Your PAL set, is it compatible with NTSC at all? Basically, is it worth getting if all your equipment is NTSC like mine? Good question, and difficult for me to answer because I don't have a lot of knowledge about playing PAL on NTSC equipment.

1. Worst case scenario is that it won't play at all, or it will play in black and white with a rolling picture - in this case then obviously it's not worth getting.

2. If your DVD player can do on-the-fly conversion but your TV is NTSC only, then you would get a stable picture in colour, but would lose some of the extra resolution and the playback might be jerky. If this is the case, you might want to take a look but personally I'd still recommend getting an NTSC version.

3. If you have a display device that is truly PAL-compatible, or if you use a digital display (e.g. a software DVD player on a PC connected to a LCD screen) then it would be worth getting.

Originally posted by: Rattlehead
... For the specs of each transfer, under "Capture Source" you list "ADC." What does that stand for? And Why does TR47's version have a Digital8 video camera listed under ADC?

ADC stands for Analogue to Digital Converter; this is the device that converts the analogue signal from the laserdisc player into digital form. Many digital video cameras have inputs that convert an analogue signal into DV for transfer into a PC via a firewire cable - this is the method used to create the TR47 version.

Post: #94797
Topic: Info Wanted: Haven't been here in a while and just need an update of site events since
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/94797/action/topic#94797
Time: 28-Feb-2005 6:57 AM

Originally posted by: klokwerk
BTW, Moth3r, your screenshot page doesn't refresh the image at all. No matter what I select.

Hmm, I've just tested it with Firefox and it doesn't seem to update.

Any Javascript programmers reading who can tell me how to fix the code?

Post: #94795
Topic: Info Wanted: Haven't been here in a while and just need an update of site events since
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/94795/action/topic#94795
Time: 28-Feb-2005 5:26 AM

Good to hear your dad is doing well.

I think I joined this forum round about October, so you probably won't have seen my name before. Here's a brief summary, then:

Zion and MeBeJedi are now both now working on "The X0 Project", basically Laserman was able to get a capture off a Pioneer X0 (the "ultimate" top-of-the-range laserdisc player) and provided the source to the two of them for their DVD projects.

A new transfer is available called the "Editdroid" set, picture is on a par with TR47's version but it also has menus, an isolated music score and a selectable Pre-ANH opening scrawl.

I'm working on a transfer from the PAL discs, a menu-less version of ANH is nearly finished, picture quality is looking good. Of course, you need to own PAL-compatible equipment to get the most benefit from this version.

"Cowclops"- the person who created TR47's version - has nearly completed another transfer with a better player. Expectations are high!

Zion's screenshot site appears to be down today, but you can see a small selection of images from each transfer on my site here.

Post: #94793
Topic: For those who don't have newsgroup access
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/94793/action/topic#94793
Time: 28-Feb-2005 3:43 AM

You may be able to get the smaller files, cover JPGs, etc., from this site:
http://www.usenet-replayer.com/groups/alt.binaries.starwars.html

Also you can read the text posts here:
http://www.usenet-replayer.com/cgi/content/vsq?days=1&groups=alt.binaries.starwars

Post: #94697
Topic: Info Wanted: Screenshots from the original mono VHS
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/94697/action/topic#94697
Time: 27-Feb-2005 11:32 AM

Rev, thanks for lending your tape to MeBe. I think it'll be useful to have it in a digital format for reference by these "preservationists", i.e.:
- use the mono audio to fill in the gaps in the soundtrack sampled from the UK TV broadcast
- reference for those who are re-creating the original 1977 theatrical opening scrawl
- reference for the typeface and positioning of Greedo subtitles

Post: #94427
Topic: The Cowclops Transfers (a.k.a. the PCM audio DVD's, Row47 set) Info and Feedback Thread (Released)
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/94427/action/topic#94427
Time: 24-Feb-2005 3:39 PM

Originally posted by: sweyland
Moth3r, just to clear it up for you and everyone else here, I'm pretty sure that Cowclops has indicated that his new version is definitely going to be DVD-5 hence his stance that LD quality hasn't really taken a hit during compression and that there would be little difference between a DVD-5 or 9.

I knew that - the "j/k" in my post stands for "just kidding". I asked the question as a joke, because it's been asked 50 times already (including on the page before this one).

Post: #94390
Topic: Easy part done - Now 29.997 > 23.976, the hard part
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/94390/action/topic#94390
Time: 24-Feb-2005 7:00 AM

I wasn't flaming you for hijacking the thread, just saying that dropped frames is a different subject to IVTC. However, the original poster didn't seem to mind so I'll shut up now.

What program are you using for capture? It may help to use something that has the option to dynamically resample the audio, so the framerate is fixed to 29.97 and audio sync can be maintained without dropping frames. Check out VirtualVCR.

It's inevitable that you will get dropped frames from a poor source like an old VHS or 8mm tape, but laserdisc should not be problematic. You can check by capturing from a DVD player, and see if you still get dropped frames.

Post: #94384
Topic: The Cowclops Transfers (a.k.a. the PCM audio DVD's, Row47 set) Info and Feedback Thread (Released)
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/94384/action/topic#94384
Time: 24-Feb-2005 3:08 AM

So is the new version going to be named "Cowclops" or "TR47v2"?

If the video is finished, any chance of sending some images for Zion's official screenshot pages and my unofficial screenshots page?

And is it going to be DVD5 or DVD9?

(j/k)

Post: #94186
Topic: Easy part done - Now 29.997 > 23.976, the hard part
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/94186/action/topic#94186
Time: 22-Feb-2005 5:13 AM

Originally posted by: fwibbler
I've finally got a capture of Star Wars from the Faces LaserDisc (50gigs compressed with Huff codec) using a Pioneer CLD 925 into a PDI Sweetspot Deluxe capture card.
The quality is decidedly average... I would expect that combination of hardware to yield better-than-average quality - perhaps it just needs some post-processing to bring out the best in it?

Originally posted by: fwibbler
The problem I have now is converting the 29.97 fps AVI to 23.976 fps.
I've tried using both TMPGend and VirtualDub to do the inverse telecine process but both seem to give a jerky result. Although I didn't have to do this step, I'd recommend you look at AviSynth. If IVTC'ing manually using DoubleWeave and Pulldown doesn't work, then you can use something like Telecide that attempts to match the fields automatically.
Originally posted by: grnpte
what do you know, im in the same spot.

Yeah, but we don't mind if you want to start your own thread, rather than hijack someone else's!
Originally posted by: grnpte
i have captured side a of the faces star wars several times at different resolutions (720X480 and 720x366, both of them cropped)

Do not scale vertically, or you will have problems de-interlacing. That means you must capture 480 lines (uncropped), as that's the NTSC standard.

Post: #94185
Topic: .: Moth3r's PAL DVD project :.
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/94185/action/topic#94185
Time: 22-Feb-2005 3:09 AM

Twelve people downloaded this and no-one has noticed that the left and right audio channels were the wrong way round? Tsk, come on guys!

(It wasn't a deliberate creative decision either, to be honest I don't know how it happened - I assume I connected the red and white plugs up correctly, maybe my SCART adapter is wired backwards.)

Anyway, I authored a short 1m 30s sample to a DVD+RW last night to check compatibility with my DVD player, and I was very happy with the quality on a 28" widescreen CRT TV.

That's the good news. The bad news: I estimate it's going to take about 60 hours to do a 4-pass encode on this sucker...