Arrays in Javascript are 0 based, so the first tab is tab 0. I could make it tabs 1-6 if that’s an issue. I was testing using the number pad rather than the numbers across the top of the keyboard, so I didn’t really think too much about it…)
You can now select the active tab using the numbers on your keyboard (0-5).
Taking this from NeverarGreat’s thread I think you misunderstood my problem then: What I want is to be able to quickly switch between two version even blindly, and even when their tabs are not positioned next to each other. As it is now I have to carefully move the cursor up above the tabs, and back down to the correct tab. But I have a better idea: Right now you allow to upload up to 6 images - can you maybe add keyboard support so that you can change the image by simply pressing its number key?
I like that idea! I’ll see what I can do.
I do take feature requests, but I think this one is already covered. With the Bond example, if you mouseover the laserdisc tab and then up away from the tabs you are left looking at the laserdisc. So then you can mouse back down over the SE DVD (or any other tab) to directly compare it to the laserdisc. Keeping your mouse only on the tabs limits you to comparing them in that order, but move away from the tabs and you can compare them in any order.
Sorry NeverarGreat - I don’t want to hijack your thread, so I have created a new thread for FrameCompare.com bug reports and feature requests:
Because sometimes it’s nice to compare more than just two images at a time…
http://www.framecompare.com/screenshotcomparison/WNNN8T8X
Create your own comparisons now:
If you find a bug or would like to request a new feature, just post it below.
So is there a way to fix the links?
patience?
I would not hold your breath. That site has seemingly never been updated, goes offline randomly, and almost always has extremely slow load times. All of these issues have been present for years. There is simply no better alternative available to take its place. (yet)
I saw this post and I decided on the spot “I should build an alternative”. So I bought a domain name on Tuesday morning and built a quick screenshot comparison site:
Here is an example showing how it works with multiple aligned images:
http://www.framecompare.com/screenshotcomparison/WNNN8T8X
I literally just put it up 5 minutes ago, so there are bound to be some bugs that need working out, but it does seem to work. I made several “enhancements” I felt were missing from the old site:
Try it out and let me know what you think.
That makes sense.
Actually it wasn’t that green when projected - This was taken a few weeks ago with a color calibrated camera from the projection booth at a screening of an SE print:
The image Dre posted above was photographed with the same camera - really the only difference is that these images were photographed reflected from the screen, while the ‘green’ image was photographed by pointing the camera directly into the projector lens. Could the white of the screen be enough to change the color that much? I’m thinking perhaps it can…
My next few payments are spoken for with other scan projects but I can give 200 round the end of August for this 😃
That’s fantastic, thank you so much!
2017 is a big year for James Bond anniversaries. It marks the 50th anniversary of You Only Live Twice, the 40th anniversary of The Spy Who Loved Me, the 30th anniversary of The Living Daylights and the 20th anniversary of Tomorrow Never Dies.
It is almost exactly 30 years to the day since I saw The Living Daylights at a cinema in London. I was 12 years old, and had already seen most of the other Bond films already, and I thought it was fantastic. After the film I went out and bought everything James Bond that I could find, which wasn’t much - just Sally Hibbin’s books and the book on tape version of the film - but I’m still collecting all things Bond to this day and sharing as much as I can of it with fans via The007Dossier.com
Anyway, a couple of weeks ago I was offered the chance to buy an original UK print of the film and before I could say “But I have it on Blu-ray,” the 12 year old inside me was sending the money and the deal was done.
But having bought the print, I don’t have enough money left to get it scanned, and (not having access to a 35mm projector) unless I get it scanned we’re not going to get to watch it and find out just how heavy handed Lowry Digital was with the DNR… A few years ago I had a 35mm trailer of this film scanned. The film was missing the last few seconds so (without making any effort to blend them) I replaced the missing frames using the trailer from the Bluray (35mm in the middle, blu-ray on the sides):
The print appears to be in excellent condition:
Here it is being projected at an undisclosed location, somewhere in Europe (click on the image to see the video clips):
Scanning will cost around $820 (€720)
From what little I have seen of it, the print looks nice and clean but we could (if there is enough interest) send the print for the same ultrasonic cleaning that Poita used on ESB. That would cost an additional $1200, so whether or not that happens will depend on how much interest there is in the project. It sounds like a lot of money, and it is for any one person, but all it would actually take is for 20 people to donate $100 each.
The print will be scanned in 4K and available as a fan edit to anyone who already owns the official bluray. It’s too early to say whether or not any digital cleanup will be needed, or how long the project might take, but I’ll keep you posted in this thread.
How will you get them out?
“Sorry, old man, section 26, paragraph 5. Need-to-know. Sure you understand.”
The print has been purchased and is ready for shipping.
Minimum Target (scanning only) $820
Maximum Target (cleaning and scanning) $2020
Pledges so far: $400
Anonymous: $100
Williarob: $100
Soupdrinker0: $200
Looks great!
This editor uses Markdown syntax… or didn’t you see that? 😃
https://github.com/adam-p/markdown-here/wiki/Markdown-Cheatsheet#images
The other Technicolor scan I have is also very yellow:
I think we all agreed long ago that we cannot reproduce the colors perfectly - every print was slightly different whether it was Eastman, Technicolor or some other print stock. Added to this is the fact that each of these prints was then shown in theaters using a variety of bulbs (and how fresh those bulbs were would also matter) and projected onto different types of screens… The fact is that there is just no way it can be done. And even if it could, the chances that these perfectly matched colors would then be faithfully reproduced on every brand and flavor of consumer television is about 0%.
In my opinion, Dre’s process here is producing some great looking colors. Are they accurate? Obviously not 100% but I bet they fall within 10% of what they are supposed to be and surely that is close enough for our purposes. As I scroll up and down this thread, I don’t see a huge difference between one iteration and the next. Throw the images on Screenshot comparison and mouse over and the difference is still pretty subtle in most cases - at least to my eyes. As long as the skin tones look natural, X-Wings have red stripes and sand is, well… sand colored - I’m happy.
So don’t be discouraged Dre - Keep up the good work!
Much better!
alexp120 said:
If you look at williarob’s “Restoring Color to Red Faded Film” video…beginning at the 15:47 mark, he explains how you can build a model containing a wide variety of colors. You are grabbing sample frames of the shot that you are working on from both the reference video and the test video, and creating LUT’s of all the colors in that shot.
I noticed that the number of sample frames of the shot from both the reference video and the test video is 16. Why 16?
I think it had to do with how big the montage image was going to be. I didn’t want any blank areas, so it had to be 4x4 or 3x3 or 5x5, but if I recall correctly, any bigger than 4x4 at that resolution (each frame about 848x360? - something like that) would just leave the color match tool hanging indefinitely on my system. Your system may be more or less powerful than mine, so your mileage may vary.
If you were using the tool to grade a film like Raiders or Star Wars then I would recommend you take 8 to 16 frames from every scene (rather than shot) and turn them into montages, one of the source (or test) frames and one of the target (reference) frames and create a LUT for each scene.
In my testing, I did try grabbing up to 64 small frames (smaller than SD) from an entire reel of Star Wars and generating montages and a single LUT for an entire reel, but found it was much less accurate than doing it on a scene by scene basis. However, this was probably because the reel did not have consistent colors (parts of the reel were scanned with different color settings) so 1 LUT to rule them all was not possible until all the shots had been color balanced first.
However you may be able to create a single montage for an entire episode of what you are working on, especially if the color changes are consistent.
i would prefer a commandline version myself but am greatful for whatever you give us. Thanks for the awesome tool.
Yes! That may even be better. It would be easy to create a batch file to run as many matches as needed back to back, plus each one could have different settings. e.g.:
// colormatch.bat:
colormatch -t test_01.tif -r reference_01.tif -o match_01.LUT -cs 50 -s 0.05
colormatch -t test_02.tif -r reference_02.tif -o match_02.LUT -cs 10 -s 0.01
Dre, if you are planning to make some improvements… a way to batch jobs would be really useful. For example, if we could select a test folder (instead of just a file) and a reference folder then have it cycle through, taking the first file in the test folder, matching it to the first file in the reference folder and generate a LUT for each pair before moving on the the next pair.
Sure, it could take hours to run, but you could color match every shot in a reel automatically, and not have to sit there watching it, waiting to select the next pair of files. Just run it before you go to bed, and apply the LUTs in the morning.
I’m pretty sure Schorman cleaned up the new capture of the mono track and sent it to me. I remember updating the files in the blu-ray project with the new version and rebuilding it, but I don’t recall whether that happened before the final release or after.
I suspect it happened after as the new flac file is dated 7/8/16.
Oh, I totally get it, and I agree that it’s most important to make the unadulterated versions available; I’m just psyched to see something different in the pipeline. As for your point about everyone being free to make whatever they want with these materials, I’ve been thinking about taking a crack at a denoised SSE myself, and this might have pushed me over the edge.
Go for it! I’ve been hoping for a year that somebody would take a crack at the SSE because, like you, I prefer a more polished look.
I, for one, am really pleased that this project is denoised. I’m much more of a grain agnostic than a lot of the folks here, and it’s been kind of disheartening to see every single 35mm project go the same “grain purist” route. I’m happy to finally see something more in line with my own preferences.
I think the reason for the pro grain route is not so much that the people here enjoy watching a really grainy film (though I expect some do), it has more to do with simple preservation. That’s how it was in theaters. In my projects, and I think Poita feels this way too, if I can give you a nice baseline digital version of a print, looking as close as I can make it to how it looked in Theaters on the day it was released, then you all can take that and make it your own. It’s really very easy to remove grain, denoise, sharpen, modify the colors and generally make it look how you think it should look. Just drop some plugins into your favorite editor and see what they can do. However, if I do all that for you, it is so much harder to undo those changes. Ask anyone who has worked on a project here - “is it easier to add DNR or to remove it?” And you’ll understand why this is the better way to do it.
In this case of course, you already have access to the original, dirty, grainy Grindhouse Edition to play with, and I’m very pleased to see that Dreamaster was able to something great with it. If this is not to your taste, then you are welcome to create your own version too. And “I don’t know how” isn’t really an excuse anymore. There are thousands of tutorials on the interwebs explaining how to use After Effects, Premiere, AVISynth, etc. Just jump right in and see what you can do. It’s not that hard. Heck, even I can do it!
Could just be that after 13 years it’s a bit faded. Could also be that adjusting the settings would help - I probably haven’t done that since I bought it in 2004! Perhaps I’ll try that tonight.
Yeah, the blacks are not even close to black on the the plasma.
The best TV I have in my house is a 13 year old, 42" Panasonic 480p plasma EDTV. Everything looks great on it: 1080p blu-rays are scaled down and look great, 1080i HDTV looks fantastic, DVDs look awesome at their native resolution and even old, lower quality, 512x218 DIVX/XVID AVIs and standard definition TV channels are watchable. Also in the house are a later 32" 720p Panasonic LCD TV and 50" 1080p Smart TV by LG that I was going to use to replace the old EDTV, but it’s just not as good.
When all my content is 4k, I’ll want a 4K TV, but for now, that 480p is great because scaling down always works better than scaling up…
Wow, looks great!