Spaced Ranger

AntcuFaalb said:

I was going to post two separate captures (of the same scene) to demonstrate the Faroudja VP-100 2D Adaptive Comb Filter and how averaging the two separate captures together looks indistinguishable from a 3D comb filter.

Very interesting. Please do! And I wonder if you'd post a sequence, from the worst possible example(s), of raw cap to individual 2D caps to combined-2D cap (in full-size PNG, if posting stills).

The Lord Of The Rings: The Fellowship Of The Rings is Lucas-esque(tm) in it's amateurish re-coloring of the Blu-ray "Extended Edition" release. Regardless of the reasons (or reasoning), it's just plain sloppy work:

(from AVS Forum - The Lord Of The Rings Extended
http://www.avsforum.com/t/1307189/the-lord-of-the-rings-extended/990#post_20560106
with 4 more montages there linked)

An automated process, even if it worked (as there seems to be some question if one can do), for correcting the Blu-ray from the DVD, still would be problematic. Perhaps a simple color-correction applied across large swathes of film-time (with tweaks as needed) would do the job ... both here and to other movies.

For example, this EE DVD snapshot would be the target:

It's EE Blu-ray counterpart to correct:

would be processed with these few and simple settings:

     low   gamma   high   midtone (compress)
R   0     1.4         195    15
G   0     1.1         225    15
B   0     1.2         190    15

to produce this corrected EE Blu-ray (yes, really) for this sequence:

msycamore said:

Spaced Ranger, don't forget ... page 49 ...

Oh yeah ... thanks for that reminder. My comment was only in regard to the U.S. releases (I'll edit in the "U.S." mention). Bizarro-world isn't limited to there. :)

I think George Lucas tinkers because he had only a few ideas (nothing wrong with that, BTW) and there's nothing else to do but fix and tweak and add and remove bits and pieces of his work. Was it in Star Wars: Empire Of Dreams? It ended with Lucas bemoaning that his wildly successful films were more from other people's talents than from his. That's probably why he's always saying he wants to get back to doing "small films" -- translation: his films. Oh well, with yet another release of Star Wars, the resulting space-bucks will sooth that hurt. ;)

He also said (same documentary?) it was agony for him to write his films -- he "bleeds on the page" was how he put it. LOL! I know the feeling. It takes me forever to finish these posts! (I wonder why?)

AntcuFaalb said:

I plan to do a transfer soon with the following setup: Panasonic AG-1980 =(s-video)=> Panasonic DMR-ES10 =(s-video)=> Hauppauge USB-Live2 Capture Card

I recently read that (some?) Hauppauge cards (and external boxes?), using the same chipset family, produce slightly "soft" captures. Are there any comparative tests for cards anyone is planning to use?

Funny eBay find. I think GL Marketing missed it, though. It should have been a clock pin, with OMM reciting "My time is yours ... Go ahead" during the backlight-button press.

Also, if the scope print is before the 1983 U.S. retail video releases, then it should be the Lucas re-integration of studio-cut missing scenes -- which would make it a restoration of his first director's cut.

I'm still piecing this together, but my research is starting to indicate that George Lucas was always tinkering, even before Star Wars. The 1983+ retail video releases of THX 1138 may have been his second director's cut -- and SEN's missing scene (one example in this thread) was removed (or re-removed) by GL himself.
His third director's cut would then be the latest DVD / Blu-ray CG-extravaganza releases.

Great additional links! Looks promising (with quite a few customer comments), too.

I did apply your advice globally, but also using comments to verify. Yes, many complain about Amazon's nilly-willy mismatching of comments to "related products". They now seem to be adding the titles of the original products from where the comments came, which is a help.

So, is your above link the actual name of the seller "CVID", from who you found a working splitter? No point throwing away money on one without the full functionality they suggest -- Blu-ray, PS3, etc.

Those links look good -- there goes yet another evening for research! :)

I came across treasure trove of "on the set" 2001 photos some time back ... the LIFE magazine archives hosted by Google:
http://images.google.com/hosted/life
Searching for "2001 a space odyssey" and "stanley kubrick" should bring up everything (in case their tagging hides related shots). This also may be helpful for verifying colors -- keeping in mind that old film (from any source) is still old film.

That's great! ... whenever you can.

Like with Star Wars' laserdisc / DVD bonus disc -- if that Criterion CAV laserdisc source was used for one or both of the non-restored DVDs, then that might be a better and more convenient place to start such a project.

The '99 Warner DVD heralds the audio (nothing for video) under "special features": SOUNDTRACK REMASTERED IN DOLBY DIGITAL 5.1.

SilverWook said:

I own nearly all of the editions mentioned.

captainsolo's referenced article is The Big Picture: 2001 on Video by Thomas E. Brown http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/brown2.html.

The Criterion CAV 3-disc Laserdisc set (1989)
http://www.lddb.com/laserdisc/00997/CC1160L/2001:-A-Space-Odyssey:-Special-Edition-%281968%29
was from a 35mm scope print (due to lack of 65/70mm transfer equipment) with meticulous inspection and approval by Stanley Kubrick.

The MGM CAV 3-disc 25th Anniversary Laserdisc set (1993)
http://www.lddb.com/laserdisc/04985/ML103104/2001:-A-Space-Odyssey:-25th-Anniversary-%281968%29
was from the original 65mm film, via film-to-tape, with shot-by-shot color correction (to "fix" problems like too dim to be seen stars, and brightness variations) but not in complete accord with Kubrick's color scheme.

It looks like the best color reference would be the Criterion set, but the best detail would be the later MGM set.
For best color fidelity on DVD, can we (meaning you) determine if the Criterion source was used (if at all) for the non-restored DVD releases (1998, and again in 1999 with new DD5.1 audio)?

        1998 DVD R1                1999 DVD R1

2001: A Space Odyssey ...

in the theater ...

[edit]
Above was made by a simple pincushion warp -- quick but inaccurate.

Below was made by a (manually) graduated horizontal compression, from
center to edges, and then the pincushion -- more accurate.

is interesting. Is popcorn aroma included?

.

Color correction will be needed, of course, because from 1999 ...

1999 DVD R1

to 2007 ...

2007 DVD R1

the moon ripened into green cheese.  :O

As per your advice, I was looking at powered splitters with mentions of Blu-ray and PS3 and came across this one:

SANOXY HDMI 1x2 3D splitter v1.3 HDCP 2 ports swither 3 4 5 8 PS3 XBOX360 DVD Blu-ray
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B003UYOEMI/

Comments about it's construction:

"However, I received the newer plastic-cased version of the product and it has met/exceeded my expectations."

"I did not receiver the metal cased, square edged version. My was made out of cheap plastic and had rounded corners. ... I was only able to get it working a few times, and never consistently. Not worth the hassle to return."

Comments about it's operation:

"They do not advertise that this baby bypasses HDCP protection ... But to my surpirse if I use this with my PS3 HDCP protection does not work, allowing me to stream and capture ps3 gameplay from HDMI."

"I found that my older model splitter did NOT transfer or split the signal from my new blu-ray. ... So, I purchase a [this] splitter labeled for "Blu-Ray"...it did not function either."

"This splitter does not support 3D like it says."

"Tried 3D and worked beautifully."

There are over 100 comments with most being either 1 or 5 stars -- an indication of problem construction / quality control / outright different product.

At your mentioned new link, there are no comments at all. Curious. And this one doesn't mention Blu-ray / PS3. Do you have it's original listing with comments to determine it's quality control?

drngr said:

Here is the US account for the same seller. I posted the Aussie one because it was slightly cheaper before, with the exchange rate. ... Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/VeeCome-portable-Powered-Splitter-Support/dp/B0094OEQNU/

There are a number of sellers that have like the same-looking box -- but who knows what's in them. Reviews are inconsistent -- some say they get the pictured box (metal), some say they get another kind (plastic).

That original eBay seller's name TomTop, also the name of their ChiCom website, isn't the same as the Amazon seller's name VeeCome.

Has anyone verified by purchase that this Amazon seller (or any other for that matter) has a splitter that actually handles the "hand-shaking" for devices that can't?

If you haven't already searched around, check out this similar problem on a Star Wars capture:

Calling all Color Correctors: Can this source yield a different set of results to Gout?
http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Calling-all-Color-Correctors-Can-this-source-yield-a-different-set-of-results-to-Gout/topic/13746/

I lay the groundwork of my solution on page 4:
http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Calling-all-Color-Correctors-Can-this-source-yield-a-different-set-of-results-to-Gout/post/621942/#TopicPost621942

with the final approach on page 5:
http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Calling-all-Color-Correctors-Can-this-source-yield-a-different-set-of-results-to-Gout/post/622169/#TopicPost622169

This way, a simple single adjustment might be able to transform your entire source video to look like your target video.

Space Kaijuu said:

Does anyone have any suggestions on the best way to adjust the audio so that it syncs up with the video?

(Only some?) capture cards sync audio to the video on-the-fly and don't always make a full accounting of "rounding errors" in it's sync-delays (both "+" and "-"). All other things being equal, this causes instances of drift that may or may not cancel out each other across the length of the stream. Editing can exacerbate these errors. This information (for mpeg, as best I know) is fully embedded in the audio stream (.MPA, .MP2).

Your first step might be to convert your audio to .WAV or some other format without time-adjust information and determine if that format remains in sync with your video. If so, you're done.

Failing that, your next step might be to confirm that your video is complete (no dropped or duplicated frames) for it to be your audio-anchor. Failing a "reference" video and/or if your audio is warbling throughout, then, scene by scene or even shot by shot, stretch or compress your audio segments with something like this:

The PaceMaker Plug-in v2.6
http://www.surina.net/pacemaker/

Such software can change the tempo of the audio to fit into the allowed video space. This one may not have fine enough adjustment or good enough quality, but it's freeware and will let you determine if this approach is practical. PaceMaker happens to be a plug-in for WinAmp (and MediaMonkey) but others are stand-alone programs.

Finally, always, always, cut your zoomed-in audio at the 0 dB points at descents, or at rises, uniformly:

When rejoined (at those points), you will never hear "clicks", "pops", or other poor-construction artifacts. If your audio editor doesn't let you visualize your edits this way, you're using the wrong audio editor.

As it's just a data file, any system can process it (as long as the software doesn't have artificial size limits). The rest is just raw speed ... so you don't tie up your system for days processing the file (multiple times, too) ... and so you won't view a stuttering "slideshow" before burning it to disc for a proper review.

Use a YouTube 1080p video (downloaded, not streamed) as your guide. If it stutters or loses audio sync, your system will only have much worse performance on your non-optimized video.

Regarding format size, there's "no need to guesstimate" (as explained in a CreativeCow forum post):

Not understanding professional resolutions
http://forums.creativecow.net/thread/54/859839

"No need to guesstimate - the Arri study at the top of the thread measures the ideal 35mm exposure on a 200 ASA stock, saying that the smallest resolvable detail is .006mm large on the negative.

Super 16mm is 12.35mm x 7.42mm or 2058 x 1237 "points"
...
but since the grains move around, the digital grid should be twice as fine."

Here's that Arri study (download link) if you like the tech stuff:
Arri 4K+ Systems - Theory Basics For Motion Picture Imaging.pdf
http://www.arri.com/?eID=registration&file_uid=3525

I've read elsewhere that optimum 16mm is slighter better resolution than our present 1920x1080 HD. Therefore, 1080p (or the 2K capture) should get everything there is to get. With the above-mentioned "moving [film] grains" issue, a final 720p might show little difference from a 1080p, with a less-than-optimum 16mm print.

But the archivist in me says - Go 1080p!  :)

HD, 2K, 4K ... I don't get it without a picture ...

A-a-ah ... that's better.

Unfortunately, we are in deeper trouble than we think.

"And, brother, when it disintegrates ... it disintegrates!"

"Well, wha-da-ya know ... it disintegrated."

Almost everything that we do here is from commercial distribution media. It is a throw-away. It was never meant to be archival (or archive-able). Worse, in the digital world, information once gone is gone instantly and forever. Not so with analogue media, which is partially recoverable from it's slower and piecemeal deterioration.

All the rest that we do here is not restoration or preservation, but rather further damage ... but a damage that is more pleasing to the eye. Every time anything is changed from it's original state, the original suffers damage -- whether to destroy it or to "fix it up". That's the creed of the archivist.

And this is not just in our little corner of the universe. Paper records (books) are a bigger preservation problem. When books were being printed for greater distribution, cheaper acid-bath paper was used with the same disregard for survivability as in today's media distribution. As a result, these books literal crumble to dust when touched (both copies and originals) despite massive preservation efforts. Only something like 5% or 10% of all history's books can be rescued, tops. The rest will be gone forever without any other record of their existence.

And forget on-demand digital. (Obviously.)

Proposals for new media/formats don't remedy or completely ignore this this ticking time-bomb.

Welcome to the real world ...

alex s said:

An HD off the 16mm, it would be an even bigger undertaking than what we're doing now... to photograph each frame off the print and restore it one at a time. Besides, the 16mm does not contain every deleted scene, with the most important scene of all, Jor-El talks to Superman after the first night of rescues, missing from it.

Look at the THX 1138 preservations (Italian Cut available, see 1st post) thread http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/THX-1138-preservations-Italian-Cut-available-see-1st-post/topic/11741/ for the work and drawbacks of 16mm transfer -- from page 48, to the end result on page 53, for this faded film recovery ...

... and an HD transfer solution that promises to by-pass the problems that needed to be overcome. Begin here: http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/THX-1138-preservations-Italian-Cut-available-see-1st-post/post/626373/#TopicPost626373

vbangle said:

I don't care how much my BD-R cost, I want the best which is Verbatim.

You forgot ...

:)

You also might want to look at Blu Ray Media: TDK Review
http://blog.consumerpla.net/2011/02/blu-ray-media-tdk-disks-review.html where the comments are telling ...

... and the entire review starting at Blu Ray Media: Best BD-R Discs Review (yes, Verbatim is mentioned)
http://blog.consumerpla.net/2011/02/blu-ray-media-best-bd-r-discs-review.html

.

Dunedain said:

Burning at very slow speed ...

Too slow can be just as detrimental to "a good burn" as maximum speed:

MAM-A Archival Discs - FAQ
http://www.mam-a-store.com/faqs.html

"When duplicating an analog tape, recording at the lowest speed yields the highest quality recording. For optical discs (CD-R, DVD-R, Blu-ray), this is not true. As a rule of thumb, we find that the best recording is roughly at half the top rated speed."

dark_jedi said:

... we only use Verbatim blanks, nothing else so please do not even ask, we want good burns with no CRC errors and we want the BD's to last! so only Verbatim blanks will be accepted, I am sure you guys want them to last and have no read errors as well right?

If that's the case, you might want to reconsider Verbatim. This from the Doom9 forum http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=149108&page=29 :

"I've started testing my oldest Smartblu discs. I've scanned a number of them from 16-19 months old. I thought you might appreciate hearing that they are holding their quality very well. LDC averages at that age still down in the 2-6 range. Better than most of my Verbatim burns straight after burning. Verbatims are showing a little higher rate of degradation, but still readable."

That thread's end pages have other bits of good, up-to-date information. Technology doesn't stand still (nor do the changing to lesser-quality 3rd party manufacturers, like with TDK).

@AntcuFaalb - Thanks for the confirmation. I suspected that might be it, but didn't want to blame the poor camera negative without research.

@You_Too - I know.  :)  The mention is for when the related subjects come up and it might be useful, in the present or next project version. (Of course, if the project has already stated using such techniques, I wouldn't redundantly suggest it.)

You_Too said:

If you haven't seen this post by Harmy ...

Thanks! Not only that, but the whole page is great -- and now, of course, I must go through the entire thread.  :)  Actually, that page demonstrates the virtues of working in RGB in a number of ways.

Harmy's previous post, there, showed his quick correction (using Affect Effects?) to match another source. Here's the original scan with luminance graphed (split apart RGB's are roughly the same, although 2 channels had slightly blown-out whites):

It's in pretty good condition.
However, the adjustment compressed the entire range and produced slightly crushed blacks:

While "the color" part may look better (from the program interpreting the dials and sliders), the frame is more damaged overall (which would have been immediately noticeable working on the RGB elements directly).

Another instance of RGB superiority is in noise reduction. Another scan from 70mm Star Wars Film Cells (http://www.jedi1.net/) is very noisy, but split-apart RGBs show where most of that noise resides (here cropped but full sized):

(From what I've seen, this distribution of noise seems to be the norm. I wonder if it's from the very construction of film itself?)
By applying varied noise reduction (temporal would have been superior, but only rudimentary spacial is available in the paint program), it isn't applied where not needed (minimal loss of remaining detail). In my quick demonstration, RED is untouched, GREEN has a little smoothing to approximate RED's noise level, and BLUE has more to get closer to RED's without total smearing (which it seriously needs). A slight overall sharpening was added after the RGB rejoin, to offset the blunderbuss of this spacial smoothing:

poita said:

... that I have looked at that actual scene from a variety of original film sources, rather than scans ...

Even though this project has locked in it's techniques/corrections, I wonder if you could post your mention of such a shot (one from that scene of the Death Star "ready room"* would be excellent!), or a link to one? At least as a comparative resource ... if an excuse is needed.

(*yes, I know, I'm deliberately mixing sci-fi metaphors)