Williarob

Uncompressed Star Wars was 21 TB. However, it could be losslessly compressed to about a third of that size.

Regarding whether or not h264 is truly lossless, I did a quick test. I took a short, 3 second HD video and saved it as an uncompressed AVI. Then I took the uncompressed AVI and saved it with lagarith lossless compression as a new AVI file. I opened the new compressed AVI file again, and saved it as a third uncompressed AVI file. Using Hasher, I created checksums for both files. Both The original uncompressed file and the uncompressed lagarith file are identical:

Then, following the directions on the FFMPEG website for lossless encoding, I did the same thing. Here is the command I used to create the “lossless” file:

ffmpeg -i “q:\bombardier-captain-vincent-eva-Original.avi” -c:v libx264 -preset ultrafast -crf 0 “q:\bombardier-captain-vincent-eva-ffmpeg.mkv”

Then I took that MKV and resaved it as an uncompressed AVI. Comparing the hash values, it is clear that this is not the same file we started with:

I tried it again using Handbrake, and the checksums still didn’t match.

QED h264 is only visually lossless. Unless you can uncompress it and get the exact same file you started with, it is not truly lossless - just like with winzip or winrar - you should be able to get back the exact same file you put into it. If you can’t, then you lost something.

EDIT: This is probably due to a behind the scenes color space conversion: Uncompressed RGB -> YUV420; But if it can only losslessly compress data in the same color space that’s pretty limiting.

My preferred lossless codec is MagicYUV (https://www.magicyuv.com/) because it is very fast and can losslessly save even 10-bit+ color formats.

stretch009 said:

ChainsawAsh said:

If you’re going to be doing any reencoding, particularly for color alterations, it’s always going to be a better idea to convert it to a lossless (or near-lossless) codec first. H264 is… not that.

I thought CRF=0 was lossless for h264/x264. That’s what I’ve read everywhere on the web at least.

Technically, I believe CRF 0 is only “visually lossless”. Meaning with the naked eye you shouldn’t be able to see any difference, which is not the same as a true lossless codec like Lagarith, huffy or MagicYUV. A truly lossless codec is like using winzip or winrar - just as you can unzip or unrar to restore the original uncompressed file, you can take an uncompressed AVI, compress it with one of these codecs and then take that output file and resave it as an uncompressed AVI and the MD5/HASH will be identical to the file you started with. You won’t get that with h264 CRF 0.

Trint0 said:

Hi guys,
What an absolute treat to find these restoration projects at this time of year, its like an extra Christmas present finding amazing copies of the OOT lovingly worked on to share with fans. Thank you Team Negative for all the hardwork doing this, as much as it was a labour of love i’m sure it took many painstaking hours at the computer slaving away.
Sorry if its been asked before and i’ve not picked up on it but can I please ask about the filesizes? the 4K no DNR comes in at 83.8gig, whereas the 4K DNR version is a mear 48.3gig just 5.7gig bigger than the 1080p DNR version…it just seemed like you managed to get the 4K DNR version much smaller in comparison?
Thanks for any reply and again I take my hat off for all the hard work!
…I also chipped in a little drink as a sign of appreciation…Cheers!

Asked and answered earlier in the thread, but here it is again:

Yes this was intentional for three reasons:

1. The noDNR version had a lot of noise and grain so it needed a higher bitrate to preserve it. The DNR version is not as complex so it doesn’t need that high of a bitrate.
2. A LOT of people had real trouble playing back the 80+ GB noDNR version.
3. The noDNR version was encoded with a specific target bitrate (80 Mb/s), which was probably higher than it needed to be to achieve the desired quality. Therefore when encoding the DNR version I used a target quality (CRF 16) instead, and this resulted in the smaller file.

Conversely, the 1080p DNR version is bigger than the No DNR version for similar reasons: the noDNR version was encoded using quality based settings, while this one was encoded using a CBR of 40 MB/s for maximum quality - filesize didn’t seem so important here because whether it was 30 GB or 40 GB it was still going to need a DL BD 50 so why not make it maximum quality?

I just wanted to say a Huge Thank you to sanjuro_61 for taking the time to do this, and for sharing the project files.

jerclayv2 said:

Williarob said:

Resolve supports MP4 and Mov, so I usually use ffmpeg to copy the video stream to an MP4 Container:

ffmpeg -i input.mkv -vcodec copy -an output.mp4

Takes about the same time as tsMuxer does to demux…

Hi Willia, have you tried open the mp4 in Resolve? It gives me a lot of errors when I do. Probably, it’s because it’s H264?

No, I replaced Sanjuro’s source with the original prores master. I also replaced the crawl with the new 4K version and rendered it out at 77 MB/s to create a new UHD (NoDNR) version 1.1…

(Note: My version still has the reel change markers).

ChainsawAsh said:

If you’re going to be doing any reencoding, particularly for color alterations, it’s always going to be a better idea to convert it to a lossless (or near-lossless) codec first. H264 is… not that.

I recommend Lagarith personally, though I’ve zero experience working with it in any resolution greater than 1080p, and even that does require fairly large file sizes.

Resolve won’t open AVI files. (though it will let you encode them). Strange but true.

poppasketti said:

Williarob said:

ffmpeg -i input.mkv -vcodec copy -an output.mp4

Hey Williarob, I use ffmpeg all the time, including this particular script, with the exception of the “-an” part. What does that do? Is it “audio none” or something like that? Just curious!

Yes -an = audio null

Resolve supports MP4 and Mov, so I usually use ffmpeg to copy the video stream to an MP4 Container:

ffmpeg -i input.mkv -vcodec copy -an output.mp4

Takes about the same time as tsMuxer does to demux…

You will also need to copy the 2 LUT folders from the first download into:

C:\ProgramData\Blackmagic Design\DaVinci Resolve\Support\LUT

Then go to File -> Project Settings -> Color Management and click on “Update Lists”.

jerclayv2 said:

sanjuro_61 said:

Sorry, my bad.

Here’s the .drp file: http://uploaded.net/file/nbip2zlp

Hey. Somehow I cannot open it either - when I click on it, nothing happens…

You need to go to File -> Import Project and import the .drp. Then you go to File -> Project Manager and open the project. Then go to the media tab, right click on Star 23976.mov and choose Replace Selected Clip…

sanjuro_61 said:

Williarob said:

That looks very nice!

Could you export your Resolve Project and share a link to that here? (I don’t think that would break any rules since without already having 4K77 it would be worthless. Plus it would be a very small download). That way, everyone who already has a copy of 4K77 can simply import your project file into Resolve, open it, relink it to the 4K77 NoDNR source file we already have, and then render it out.

Also, if it’s as good as it looks in the stills I can apply it to the prores master…

Yeah, no problem.
I uploaded it to uploaded net.
If you have any trouble downloading it, just tell me.

Direct link: http://uploaded.net/file/9l4fda0o

You will see 2 folders with LUTs. There are about 160 (!!) of them, but as I said, I ended using only about 60.

It downloaded fine, but I’m not sure how to open the project. It looks like you included the DB file, rather than going to File -> Export Project and saving a .drp project file.

That looks very nice!

Could you export your Resolve Project and share a link to that here? (I don’t think that would break any rules since without already having 4K77 it would be worthless. Plus it would be a very small download). That way, everyone who already has a copy of 4K77 can simply import your project file into Resolve, open it, relink it to the 4K77 NoDNR source file we already have, and then render it out.

Also, if it’s as good as it looks in the stills I can apply it to the prores master…

JonathanArthur19 said:

What shots from the Blu-Ray we’re used for 4K77, it says on the 4K77 page and I quote " Finally, about 400 frames that couldn’t be sourced from anywhere else at the time they were needed, were upscaled from the official Blu-Ray." I was wondering what scene interpreted these frames

Last shot of reel 3, first and last shots of reel 4, first and last shots of reel 5, first shot of reel 6.

If this thread is about color correcting 4K77, why are you using the Bluray as your source? I mean, I understand that once it’s corrected you’ll match 4K77 to it, but isn’t that extra work - having to deal with the magenta instead of just adjusting the actual target colors?

There are currently 0 seeders for this on the Spleen, so if anyone can PM me a link that would be great, thanks!

Is this still available somewhere?

The image on the left is mostly uncropped. It’s hard to tell because of the fading, but the frame ends at the bottom (where the text begins), then there is a space and then the top of the next frame. At the top of the frame is another space and then the bottom of the previous frame, though this was cropped out of the preview. Top and bottom were cropped correctly for the finished version on the right.

Without cropping or resizing it looks like this:

Easier to see the frame spacing here:

deathstar1138 said:

So is it worth downloading now. Or are people still needing to be convinced,
so they don’t waste their time getting it again. I hope this settles that issue.

Sigh… Can we all just agree to ignore this post?

Aha. I compared the settings to the SSE project. 4K77 and 4K83 have a copy Protection setting on, while the SSE project does not. (This wasn’t deliberate, it must be the default setting, which I forgot I needed to turn off)…

SSBB1123 said:

I’m not sure if this is just me but I used one disc to burn 4k83 and another to burn 4k77. The discs I used were verbatim BD-R DL inkjet printable discs, the burner is the pioneer BDR-XD05B, and I used imgburn as the software. When I put these discs in my ps3 and my ps4, they are shown to be invalid. I’m not sure if this is just a problem with those systems or if the iso may be corrupt.

You are not the first person to have this issue. Let me check something…

OR… A slightly different comparison video to the one that was requested…

https://vimeo.com/305403161

On the left is the new 4K scan in it’s raw state and on the right is the version on the ISO, as cleaned up by Skydude, who had this to say about how much work went into it:

"It was cleaned up (a lot) and stabilized/dewarped and CC’ed. Had to do some gradual color corrections (using an adjustment layer with a very wide horizontal feather in Ae) too as there was some sort of red light leakage coming from one side.

Also the letters and the stars received separate color corrections (using manual masking in Ae) as the print was very faded and pretty much everything was the same color. Also chroma keying of the letters was used for separation in one of the many passes."

In this video you can also see where the Eastman stock ends and the LPP stock begins. The original crawl on the LPP was in Spanish but the previous owner of the print spliced in an English version. Sadly, the Spanish version was not shipped to us along with the print, so we don’t know what happened to it). The LPP stock is unfaded, while the Eastman section has of course turned pink.

JonathanArthur19 said:

I didn’t mean to offend anyone and if I did I’m terribly sorry, I get mad easily, and that’s Canadian for you sometimes, the reason I got mad is because deathstar1138 made a rude remark and said “do it yourself” and I got mad, I just wanted to see the difference between the new scanned crawl and the old version, I think I will keep the older version though, but I’m sorry if I offended anybody, I thank you all for making 4K77 and 4K83, and 4K80 is on it’s way, I’m thankful that you put lot’s of time and effort into this or the films would be lost forever, I thank you and I’m truly sorry for the way I acted the other day. And thank you ChainsawAsh, for the screenshots of both versions so we know what is different, and I thank you all for this huge project that you all created, thank you so much, and I’m really sorry for my actions, I got really mad, I freaked out big time, and I am really sorry.

Thank you for apologizing- it’s something few people do on forums. Usually things just degenerate further.

I’m sorry too, I probably overreacted as well.

Let’s say no more about it and get back to discussing Star Wars.

Handman said:

Where exactly in my response did I accuse you or Smithers or anyone else of constantly complaining?

Deathstar1138 did. He was rather rude, and received it in kind.

Then perhaps you should have quoted his post in your response, and not mine.

My post quoted JonathanArthur19, and it was directed entirely at him. The requests for comparisons by others were polite, and I read them simply as “If anyone has downloaded both versions, please post some comparisons”, which sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

Handman said:

Geez, we appreciate the hard work you all put in, neither of us were asking any of you personally. I’ve already got the MKV, it’s the best version of Star Wars I’ve ever seen. We were just asking for someone who has the new file to provide some screenshots of the new crawl. We were literally asking of you and deathstar nothing, but still got shitty responses. ChainsawAsh has done it, and it’s great. And as you stated, you liked the comparison anyway. I’m really not sure what the issue is. It was a simple request that just got a lot of rude responses. I was just curious what the upgrade was.

Is very frustrating.

Where exactly in my response did I accuse you or Smithers or anyone else of constantly complaining? My response wasn’t even directed at you. Deathstar1138 (a member of TN1) was accused of being lazy for not clicking the mouse a few times and providing screenshots. I simply explained that we are not lazy, and it’s not that easy at this point for us to generate the comparisons.

But go ahead, bite the hand that feeds you. It would be so much easier, safer, and less stressful to just work on these projects and keep them to ourselves, like Mr Verta…

I’ve never compared them side by side before. That’s a nice upgrade. Great work, SkyDude!

@ChainsawAsh: Thanks again for taking the time to create these comparisons.