NeverarGreat

@g-force: Noise reduction can work on a single image, and uses algorithms that reduce variance in luminance over small areas while leaving larger variances alone. This leads to the ‘plastic-y’ look of many film restorations. This process isn’t that. This process requires the use of several similar frames to build a map of the image, where the center of the grains are treated as the image detail. In fact, one could consider this to be a sort of anti noise reduction, since the ‘noise’ is the only thing that remains of each frame. Remember, in film, the grains are the ‘DNA’ of the image. If you only had a map of where each grain was positioned in the image and its color/luminosity, you could re-develop a convincing facsimile of the image, with grain intact. On the other hand, if you erased the grain (or placed new grain after erasing it), the DNA would be lost and no further information could be gained from this process.

UnitéD2 said:

Very interesting !

Would it work with prints done by imbibition (Technicolor) or only with prints done by emulsion of multiple layers (as Eastman)? If I’m not mistaken, it is the difference between the two process.

I’ve scanned some Technicolor frames at fairly high resolution, and I doubt that this process would work on those frames because of how soft the grains are. You are correct that the print is made by imbibing it with dye, not using film grain to ‘grow’ a new image, so unless the grains from the source print are still identifiable, the process will not work.

@cameroncamera: I see what you’re going for here, I think. That would be a process for upscaling a digital image, but if I’m reading it right, wouldn’t there be an issue with duplicating image detail across pixels, causing another form of interpolation smearing? Each image is expanded so that there is a one pixel gap between each pixel. If A is a pixel and B is an empty pixel, the result would be this:

ABABAB
BBBBBB
ABABAB
BBBBBB

The second frame would then be shifted one pixel to the right, filling in the B spaces in the 1st and 3rd rows. The third frame would be shifted down, so that half of the 2nd and 4th rows would be filled, and the fourth frame would be shifted down and to the right, completing the picture.

So far that’s your process, as I understand it. Now imagine that the image showed a red light in the upper left corner of the image, taking up only one ‘A’ pixel. If each of the four frames showed relatively similar detail, the upscaled image would show that single pixel of red repeated four times in a box configuration.

I don’t have any idea about upscaling a digital image, since the pixels are the detail. Perhaps the only way to really upscale digital content like that would be through an adaptive learning algorithm such as the ones being developed by Google, wherein it identifies common objects and upscales their detail with images culled from a library of images. http://newatlas.com/google-raisr-image-upscaling-super-resolution/46434/

I have been kicking around an idea for a sort of end-all, be-all technique for recruiting image detail from film grain. I briefly described it on the 35mm thread and talked with Dr Dre about it as well. The somewhat involved explanation in my original message is below, but first, some background on the film process and film grain:

http://cool.conservation-us.org/coolaic/sg/emg/library/pdf/vitale/2007-04-vitale-filmgrain_resolution.pdf

So let’s take Mike’s Legacy project as an example of how detail recruitment is done in its current best-case scenario. From my message to Dr Dre:

Mike’s method involves stacking up to five of the same frame on top of each other from sources of varying quality, and doing a weighted average of the pixel values. He also recruits data from neighboring frames, but let’s just focus on the stacked frames for now. So say he has 5 stacked frames. Two are slightly sharper (Tech frames) and 3 are slightly softer (Kodak frames). If you do a weighted average of every pixel, the softer frames will tend to override the sharper frames, since there are more of them. The result is a cleaner, but softer image. If you’re looking to retain detail, your best bet is to stick with the sharpest frame and discard the rest, since any averaging will invariably soften the image, regardless of the increase in clarity.

I think there’s a way to keep both the detail and the grain-free look. You would probably need a scan that is in 8-10k quality, so that each grain (more accurately each dye cloud) is distinguishable from another, at least mathematically. It could be that a 4k scan may have this level of detail. In any case, it should be possible for a sufficiently robust algorithm to examine the frame and identify the center of each dye cloud, recognizing local minima in luminosity for each color layer. With this map generated, it makes transparent the pixels not directly surrounding the center of each dye cloud, so you have in effect made cheesecloth of the image. You keep only the center of the dye cloud, information that is the most likely to have come from an actual photon impacting the silver halide crystal at the center of the dye cloud. In a way, the map should contain all of the actual color and luminosity information necessary to digitally ‘develop’ a new image by expanding each dye cloud back to its original size. However, with multiple stacked images, this process is repeated for each one and the results of this are overlaid, with the sharpest image on top and the softest image on the bottom.

This process could also be applied to neighboring frames in a more traditional super resolution method. If the center of two dye clouds is targeted to the same pixel, then and only then should a weighted average of the pixels be applied.

TL;DR version: Taking the pixels from a high resolution scan that are most likely to contain actual image information and discarding the space in between dye cloud centers, then overlaying multiple prints or sequential static frames, you should theoretically be left with an image with much higher detail and sharpness, since only the noise is removed, and the detail is multiplied over the number of sources used.

It would be interesting to run an experiment to test this theory. One would need to take a sequence of photos of the same object, preferably with grainy film stock, then develop them and scan them with a high resolution film scanner. After that, you would need a program that identified local luminance minima (the darkest parts of the grain are where a dye cloud formed) then applied a weighted transparency to any pixels not in these sections. Process the images, then overlay them, and compare the result with the same image stack run through a conventional super-resolution algorithm. With enough frames, one could upscale the resolution with a similar jump in actual image detail until running into the limit of resolution dictated by the quality of the camera lens.

This process, if it works, could perhaps be used on the infamous speeder and sandcrawler shots to bring them in line with the rest of the film.

It looks really good!

The hue shift is definitely a part of what must be done for this version. I did a similar hue shift in my LUT way back when the grindhouse was first released:

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/154445/picture:0

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/154447/picture:0

I believe this is the correct link:
https://mega.nz/#!fFlhDYBA!hRF4lpAM6wpP984TMlx61RdFKXxL1wn-COz3X8rqrkA

If I were to do it again, it would probably have a saturation increase like yours, though most video players can handle that without a LUT.

You mean like this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sClBNY1EISU ?

JEDIT: I think there’s a non-zero chance that they used the binary sunset from Harmy’s Despecialized edition.

Now I want a version of the film that shows every moment of R2’s agonizing descent into the docking bay, only to roll up to the Falcon and see that the ramp has been replaced with…another staircase.

Sometimes when somebody describes something an image leaps fully formed into my mind. Like this time.

Thanks for that.

It sure would be nice to have preservations of these in 35mm. I’m making the prediction now that when Adywan gets to reworking the prequels, they will be based on film scans, not the Blu-rays.

Arrival - Excellent movie. I would urge everyone who can to go see it, since not only is it a very intelligent sci-fi concept expertly executed, but recent political events have given it a rather unavoidable new meaning.

I wasn’t trying to start any drama, I just wanted to clarify if this was a new scan or not. It’s sometimes difficult to determine what sources are new or not, with so many floating around here. And that’s exciting! It feels like a renaissance of Star Wars around here recently, with things happening so fast it can make your head spin.

Williarob said:

Two new videos were posted in the last 24 hours, one on some of the new techniques we’re using to clean the film:

and another about the 35mm sources:

Anyone who was wondering, but are they using THAT Technicolor scan will be pleased to see that we actually have a BETTER technicolor print to play with than the one we were experimenting with earlier in the year…

Excellent news! I wonder about this Tech print though, since Mike said he had 2 Tech scans, one in rough shape and one that was quite clean. Are we sure that this isn’t the same as the clean one that he is using? The only print I know of that is in better shape than that is the one used at the Senator theater screening.

Also, perhaps the ending music on your videos a tad loud? It’s kind of startling.

I’m confused about that last photo. It’s obviously hyperspace, but it looks like it’s being projected and then filmed. I guess this is to more accurately capture the light effects on the subject, which presumably is behind that plastic barrier. Interesting in any case.

I’ve noticed some other problems with the SSE in terms of this, such as the sparks around R2’s restraining bolt when it is attached. Automated cleanup does not like lasers or sparks.

The more you look at these Blu-rays, the more terrible things you find.

The colors of the '97 SE are problematic, tending too green in many cases or pink in the case of Mos Eisley, so they would really need to take a long look at that for any restoration.

Even if these are the 2011 digital versions, there may be increased detail in the shadows like in the 2004 Broadcast.

V for Vendetta is still a great movie.

We’re through the looking glass, people.

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/189787

The first comparison is between the HD broadcast colors and my settings. As you can see, the blue is still very prominent.

The second comparison is between the corrected Blu-ray and a combination of Blu-ray and HD Broadcast shadow detail. I noticed that the shadows of the Blu-ray, especially in this scene, were quite pixelated and the Broadcast seems to have a similar level of detail without pixelization, so I am going to use this combination for the scene, and perhaps others. The door is now a very grayish blue.

We actually never see R2 enter the pod though - when he opens the door, he is actually going through an entry tunnel of some kind made of a reflective material. R2 stops next to a door bathed in blue light at the end of the tunnel, but in several shots the blue light is gone and it’s just reflecting the brownish gray of the surrounding set.
Since Image Shack is down for now:
Escape Pod Colors
You can clearly see the end of the access tunnel when the pod ejects from the ship. Granted, there are no visible doors on the side of the pod, but nothing about the pod makes sense as there is also no window looking back on the Star Destroyer. The people in charge of making sense of these things apparently also gave up and put the window on the side of the pod:

And the prop used in the desert doesn’t look like the model:

Too bad it’s in black and white, but the interior of the pod appears gray in all of the releases, it’s just the door that is blue.
In short, there’s no evidence one way or another as to what the pod door looks like except what is seen in the desert.

JEDIT: @Towne: That’s a good point. I’m going to see how the blue door looks with my final grading.

The circle is now complete: when we started our projects we were trying to match the Blu-ray to 35mm sources, now we’re matching 35mm sources to the Blu-ray.

That still begs the question though, of how they managed to make C-3PO’s highlights look green. It looks like even your program can’t make them look that crappy.

Thine criticism wounds me mightily! Prithee, cast no evil aspersions on the SE, for long it has weathered the slings and arrows of outrageous backlash, and yet the original is safe in the keeping of not a few among us.

But yes, I updated the first post a few days ago before finalizing the scene and yesterday when I finalized the scene I remembered that it isn’t in the goal of the project to despecialize the film, but only to make a ‘best of’ the 2004 and 2011 versions with an eye to continuity and fixing mistakes. The blue doors were clearly a mistake long overdue of a fix.

😃

It’s up to those those in charge of the prints, but it certainly makes sense for the despecialized parts to be cleaned first. The last large sections of the blu-ray for me to finalize are the last half of reel 1 and most of reel 2. After that it’s just small pieces involving lightsaber replacements. I would be surprised if this took me long after the end of 2016.

Maybe someone working on the site decided that the Blu-ray was too crappy looking to show, so they did some adjustments on the sly. Perhaps Lucas himself didn’t realize just how bad it looked on the disc so for the online segments they applied a LUT to make it better. Who knows, Lucasfilm is anything but consistent in their decision making.

Are we looking at the same thing? I took a screenshot of one of the videos in question and compared it to the blu-ray:
http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/189547
It only required a small color adjustment to closely approximate the Blu-ray, and the cropping/warping is identical. The Blu-ray also has more detail, probably because it isn’t compressed for the internet.

It’s the Blu-ray with a small paint job.