Cheers Jetrell.
@nightstalkerpoet - yes really close now. I'll do a test encode soonish, and then readjust a few things like the vertical subtitle placement and all the upscaled stuff.
BATB is not true HD though, it's just up-scaled to HD.
I have it on demonoid, remember?
Vinnie981 said:
where is this released? i don't see in on myspleen : (
Check your PM.
AHHHH I'm going to have nightmares for weeks now!
johnlocke2342 said:
RU.08 said:
TV's Frink said:
Have you ever tried seamless branching before? From what I hear, it usually ain't so seamless.
True for DVD but I think bluray is a different matter as the files are physically different.
I used seamless branching for a multilingual Blu-ray based on Harmy's DeEd and foreign projects based on it with multiAVCHD. Well I can confirm it's NOT seamless AT ALL. But I think professional software might be able do fix it.
Ah I was just wondering where this discussion was. multiAVCHD can't create seamless branching, however, BDedit can. Sadly exactly how to use it is anyone's guess, all I know for sure is you use the playlist file (.mpls), put the parts in order, and set "c" to "1" for the first part and "5" for all the others. What I would like to know is if it's possible to hide certain tracks (e.g. subtitle or audio tracks) using a playlist so they are only available when played back on a certain title?
No they're some other exceptionally high quality format.
Then they'll just have to give him a 70mm version instead.
Are you encoding your file in parts and then joining them? That's what I would do with a long encode like that...
towne32 said:
RU.08 said:
Just a note - my encode finished and it looks really good. A huge improvement over the original encode at the same file-size (about 3.5GB). What a difference the grain makes! I'll probably just use this version for my AVCHD... I don't think this needs scratch/dirt/damage removal - except for a a handful of scenes mostly involving the end and start of the reels - and frankly I'd rather leave in the residual dirt as it doesn't really detract from the experience at all.
Sounds nice. Still waiting to see what The Team cooks up, as far as scratches/dirt go. But I agree that it's in decent shape already compared to many films.
I actually uploaded it almost right after leaving that post. You can find it on Demonoid/AMPSdeux.
Just a note - my encode finished and it looks really good. A huge improvement over the original encode at the same file-size (about 3.5GB). What a difference the grain makes! I'll probably just use this version for my AVCHD... I don't think this needs scratch/dirt/damage removal - except for a a handful of scenes mostly involving the end and start of the reels - and frankly I'd rather leave in the residual dirt as it doesn't really detract from the experience at all.
Best wishes to you & your family potia. :)
Pfft, 45 days is nothing. The CGI effects for Jurassic Park took on average 10 hours to render, per frame. There's about 4mins of CGI footage in Jurassic park, so that's 57600 hours (342 weeks/6.6 years!!) Mind you that was back in the day when computer hours were more expensive than they are now, these days you could afford to spend millions of computer hours for complicated effects and still achieve a short turnaround time (with a large enough bank (network) of computers of course).
Here's the retro-looking disclaimer I made in all of 2 minutes. Click the picture to download (3.4 MB)
Will you be keeping it at 1.78:1?
@towne32; I currently have a 720p version encoding as we speak with image stabilisation. I'll see how it looks when complete, and then probably wait until this version is released and work off that for an "unofficial" AVCHD file.
Just a note on that though, I did a test encode a few days ago (with faster settings and CRF not 2-pass), it came out at the right size (about 3.5GB) but there was clear macroblocking due to the level of grain in the print. Which makes it obvious why we see macroblocking in the previews that Team Neg 1 upload of the SW stuff - the bit-rate just isn't high enough to cope with the low compressibility of the source. So this time I degrained it, like I said though I'll probably wait until the -1 Team release their version and then work off that. I didn't do any scratch removal because the algorithm I used left behind smearing (akin to what's commonly referred to as DVNR). If the Negative 1 encode is free from DVNR I'll use it, if not I'll leave the scratches in.
The AVCHD is not intended to in any way to replace the current version though, it's just something I'm doing for the more public trackers so the film can be shared in acceptable quality.
When they started the project everything was scanned at 1080p. Later, they changed their camera and later scans were done at 4k and resized to 1080p. By every account they've given, all work being done (clean-up, stabilisation, etc) is being done at 1080p and not 4k. By their descriptions, their 4k scans don't yield meaningful detail above 1080p anyway.
team_negative1 said:
Once DVD's came out, they matched Laserdiscs in resolution. And with remastering, at times, better quality.
So there was no high-end at that time.
Once DVDs came out, it beat LDs in resolution off the bat. LDs don't store pixels, they're an analogue format that is horizontally compressed just like VHS. DVD's can produce 100% of the horizontal fidelity (all 720 pixels). That's equal to 540 lines per picture height (TVL). LDs have a resolution reported to be around 425 TVL, meaning that it has 78.7% of the horizontal information that a DVD can hold.
As for how it looks, that's another matter. LDs can look just as good as early DVD releases (or even better if the MPEG2 compression was rubbish), and for releases based on the same master they can look near identical. It's quite hard to tell the difference in horizontal fidelity when it's only a difference of 21%. This page has a good visual representation.
With 4K BDs though, the main advantage won't be pixel resolution. It'll be the wider colour gamut, the higher bitrates, and the HEVC codec.
Possessed said:
Most peoples ears can't tell a difference. 192 is better for *recording* the audio because it captures more details in the recording process, but once it's recorded downsampling it to 96 or even 48 will be virtually lossless.
I agree entirely, I doubt that I could tell the difference. I was simply pointing out that BD already matches and even beats DCP in terms of audio quality. The UHD-BDs should match or beat DCPs in terms of video quality.
TV's Frink said:
RU.08 said:
crampedmisfit1990 said:
Why not? Do they get all twisted-up about it or something? haha
Because it's not scanned in 4k. Read the thread.
That's not what we were talking about. Read the rest of the forum.
Http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/4K-restoration-on-Star-Wars/post/770625/#TopicPost770625
Team Olie
How does that change the fact that the Negative 1 project isn't scanned in 4k?
The best way to think of SR is that it widens the scanlines and distributes the picture information across them. Where you once had a scanline of 1 pixel thickness, after SR you have a 2 pixel thickness scanline. This itself reduces aliasing - but the aliasing can be reduced further by using an interpolation method designed to de-interlace or reduce aliasing - like EEDI (enhanced edge directed interpolation) and/or NNEDI and/or QTGMC (and/or possibly even SR again). EEDI widens your scanlines, except by keeping the exact information present in the original scanlines and interpolating the information for the new ones. Your 1-pixel scanline is now 4-pixels, and depending on what you've done the width is either doubled or quadrupled. You then resize down to your output resolution.
crampedmisfit1990 said:
Why not? Do they get all twisted-up about it or something? haha
Because it's not scanned in 4k. Read the thread.
g-force said:
Okay, let me ask you this. How much of the improvement is from the temporal combination? How much is from all the other things that the script is doing? Scientists usually publish their methods, I have yet to see what the script is actually doing. I guess I just fundamentally have a problem with applying a bunch of denoising and spatial filters and claiming that it's all SR.
-G
Earlier in this very thread you agreed that SR is able to recover detail from the sub-pixel level on this source:
g-force said:
As AntcuFaalb correctly pointed out, and as you can see from every example in that paper, you need to have plenty of aliasing for this to work. Fortunately, the GOUT has plenty of that, at least in one dimension! For most sources that are scanned well however, the best you can hope for with such methods is just noise reduction.
-G
Then, in the previous comment, you said that SR contributes almost nothing:
g-force said:
I stand behind what was stated. Only a very small percentage of what you are considering improvements here are due to SR. What you have is a denoiser that leaves a sheet of slowly moving grain, oversharpening effects (sorry, de-blurring artifacts), and shimmering residual aliasing.
In answer to your question, SR is a plugin that (given the right source) can recover detail lost in a single frame. So whereas an avisynth script may look like this:
Source > Denoising > Anti-aliasing > Upscale > Sharpen > Downscale
SR slots in and does most of the anti-aliasing and up-scaling for you:
Source > Denoising > SR > [Further upscaling > Residual anti-aliasing > ] Sharpen > Downscale
And that's just plucked out of the air I'm not suggesting this is the exact order of filters used by DrDre, but just using it as a visual representation of where SR fits in the Avisynth script. It literally takes the place of the anti-aliasing filter. So compared to previous methods that were based on EEDI or NNEDI for the anti-aliasing it provides more detail and a more organic anti-aliasing.
Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:
I have the remaining cartridges, and my plan is to telecine all of them and make a DVD of all of them.
You should ask if Lucasfilm will exchange your outdated cartridges for the Special Edition!
g-force said:
I stand behind what was stated. Only a very small percentage of what you are considering improvements here are due to SR. What you have is a denoiser that leaves a sheet of slowly moving grain, oversharpening effects (sorry, de-blurring artifacts), and shimmering residual aliasing. What's happening here does nothing to restore the rivets on R2, actually blurs Obi-Wan's hair into a solid mass where individual strands were once visable, turns most objects into oil paintings, and only fakes out one into thinking there is more detail through edge enhancement.
What utter bullshit. "Only fakes out one into thinking there is more detail ..." Of course there isn't more detail, but rather the detail that is present across several frames is recovered. The net effect is that each frame contains more detail than it did previously.
SR has quite limited use, obviously, but this is one source that clearly benefits from it.
If you watch it in motion the window glare is a clear difference - the main difference in fact that you'll notice. And as for the "shadow" I think the z-vcd speaks for itself:
There are some minor differences in frame count between it and the LD (speaking generally), as I've previously indicated I'll be syncing to the LD.
Yeah, as you mentioned there are a couple of differences in such an ordinary shot. The windowpane placement is slightly different, there's glare/reflection in the windows, and that "shadow" looks to be a part of the window-frame, and is gone for whatever reason in the bluray.
Also, this is one shot where the difference in quality between the HDTV and the bluray are quite obvious, in most other shots this is not so much the case.