camroncamera

For anyone in the Portland, Oregon area, the beautifully restored historic theater near me will be celebrating Life Day on Friday, December 4, 2015, with their secret annual screening of this cult favorite.

Enjoy a pint of microbrew while watching TSWHS in a full theater of Star Wars fans who don’t know how deep in it they are. Seeing the crowd groan, squirm, and laugh at this show is really the only bearable way to experience TSWHS.

jadepraerie said:

Was this the original owner? http://originaltrilogy.com/user/zombie84/id/2362
Was this the true FB page? https://www.facebook.com/Save-Star-Wars-353462731392141/

Thank you.

Yes and yes. I’d love to hear Zombie84 give us an update, and to see Save Star Wars back online. I know Zombie84 is behind the ‘Star Wars News And Views’ channel on youtube.

poita said:

Oh, and if anyone is wondering what the hell a LUT is, this is a good introduction:

http://www.redsharknews.com/post/item/2966-the-beginners-guide-to-luts

 Ha, ya beat me to it! Was about to share this myself.

yotsuya said:

I guess what I'm saying is that ANH doesn't look like it is from the same VT master. If it was, the letterboxing should be identical. I had avoided buying them because I had also heard they were identical, but if anything, I see a small bit of additional detail from the PAL version. Very small, but there. I also like that the sides of the image go all the way to the edge.

 Could you post some screenshot comparisons for same frames?

DrDre said:

So, my question is this. If Team Negative1's preservation is as great as it appears to be from the samples, why not create a high resolution version of the GOUT from those, by color matching the preservation to the GOUT, rather than settle for an inferior upscale of those 2006 bonus DVD's? It may seem like an odd question from someone who has spent many hours working on this, but I think it is a valid question.

 The fact that the DC Laserdisc and GOUT DVD are legally obtainable sources (whereas the Negative1 project is not) makes this, to me, a very compelling reason to render to completion. This does not mean that I feel that you should necessarily personally have to render every frame.

Glad to hear you are  back home and I hope you have a speedy recovery. 

A recent article discussing Sony cameras' "Clear Image Zoom" feature, which apparently utilizes Super Resolution technology:

http://www.redsharknews.com/technology/item/2921-what-is-really-going-on-with-sony%E2%80%99s-clear-image-zoom

I'm not quite sure that I am understanding what your goals are, but it sounds interesting. I'm no audio engineer, but I do goof around in Audacity and VinylStudio from time to time when cleaning up flaws in my record and CD library. I'd like some software that can merge two or more copies of identical vinyl pressings as a snap/crackle/pop noise removal technique. There is an existing patent on this concept, it is about 15 years old or more IIRC. However I don't know if there is any TooT-type audio merging software that is commercially available. Being able to separately save the sounds removed from a process similar to this is what I think you are trying to accomplish. Perfect alignment of waveforms I think is key to everything, I see you mention on a per-sample or 1ms basis. I wonder if zero-crossings are sufficient alignment points?

Thanks Neglify and Post Praetorian for your input. So far I have added a short introduction and am currently reviewing the existing written work to see if I am happy enough to leave it as-is. The original is really 95% of what I wanted it to be, and with the remaining details that I wanted to add in a postscript I will probably be completely satisfied. I don't think there are any errors to speak of.

EDIT: The introduction has been finished and I have decided that a formal postscript is not necessary. The eulogy was posted, in its original form without any changes, a couple hours ago on Facebook and the feedback from friends is that it is a very moving tribute. I will have the option to post any further details in the comments over the coming days as I think of them.

I truly appreciate those of you here at OT for your thoughts on this matter, I thank you again.

Warbler said:

My condolences on the loss of your friend. 

How about posting the original version and an edited version?

 Thank you Warbler. The additions that I have in mind are pretty minor, I don't really see it necessary to post - twice - the three pages, with such minor additional text. I don't anticipate any removal of text.

DuracellEnergizer said:

I think that your first suggestion -- the one with the introduction and postscript -- would work just fine. Placing edits in brackets would probably make your eulogy come off as too manufactured.

 Thank you DuracellEnergizer for your input. You are right about my idea for additions in the brackets.

Hello OTers, I am looking for a small bit of advice. About 6 weeks ago a dear friend of mine passed away. Other than three buddies that I have known since childhood and my wife, he was my closest friend that I had met as an adult. His mother asked me last week to share some stories of our friendship at his memorial service, which I was honored to do.

I spent the next several days thinking about what I was going to say, and the night before the service I was up all night writing furiously, editing the best I could as I went. I managed to get a few precious hours of sleep before the 11:00 AM service. When it was time, I read aloud the eulogy that I wrote. It went very well and my friend's family loved it (my friend's father had a huge smile on his face and gave me a big thumbs-up as I left the pulpit). At the post-service reception at the parents' home I was further greeted by more family members that expressed how much the loved the eulogy, and I was sure to discreetly leave a printed copy near a photo of my friend for his parents to find later.

Some friends were unable to attend the memorial and I was asked to post the eulogy online (such as to Facebook) for posterity, which I am happy to do. However, in the days since the memorial, I keep thinking of small details that I had intended to include in the eulogy but escaped me during the frantic night of writing. Also, though fairly well-written, there are a few spots that could use slight clarification, in order to paint a more accurate  picture.

It would best honor my friend if I were able to include these edits for the online posting, but I feel an obligation to not post a "Special Edition" of the eulogy thst isn't exactly as I read aloud, at least not without some sort of disclaimer. I am asking you folks what my best option would be... such as posting the eulogy exactly as first written, but with a short introduction and postscript that addresses my unintentional omissions. Or, perhaps include the edits where I intend them to go but place such text in brackets [seems a little distracting]. 

Thanks in advance for your input.

CatBus said:

[snip] The 04/11 SE's are limited to 2K, so going back to the 97SE's, doing a 4K scan, and re-specializing is the only way to keep the SE fork alive at all for higher-res releases (and, given that complicated history, it won't be an exact match to the 2011SE even if that's their intended goal). 

It's even more complicated than taking the DeLorean up to 88 miles per hour and going back to 1955 to prevent Biff from giving his younger self the Gray's Sports Almanac, without running into your other self. Too bad this still won't repair this awful, awful, awful alternate 1985.

DrDre said:

Thanks! Building a color matching model takes quite a long time. About 10 min on my Intel Core i5 laptop. So, if you want to match each frame to a reference, it would take forever. However, if you use 1 reference, and correct between 20-50 frames with this model, it takes 10 min to make the model, and then 5-20 sec for correcting each frame, depending on the resolution. It's about 10 sec for a 1080p frame. On the 3.5GHz 4 core it will probably be a lot faster, especially if you can use parallel computing. 

 It sounds to me like this is a full-blown render operation. What about, also/instead, a plug-in for something like DaVinci Resolve? The plug-in could analyze a reference (like your algorithm does) but generates a "correction" or LUT that can be applied in a new node. Basically a filter or "look" that can be cut, copied, pasted, blended to varying strengths, etc. to any clip in the timeline, with live preview. Rendering would take place using the Resolve engine once the project is finalized, as any normal Resolve render job.

There would be quite an advantage to have this tool built-in to an established colorists' workflow. I think you'd have commercial hit on your hands. Perhaps you already have a goal like this in mind.

SilverWook said:

Thanks for the heads up, and welcome to the boards. You mean Sept. 8th of course. ;)

IIRC, the last two times TCM ran THX, it was the 2004 version. Can anyone record it, just in case?

 I recorded this broadcast, and afterward quickly shuttled through the first few minutes until I saw the CGI robot factory :(

DrDre, are you following poita's most recent work in the THX-1138 Preservation thread? I'd like to see what could be done with a badly faded film, that has been carefully scanned to wring out the very last bit of the most faded colors. 

http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/THX-1138-preservations/post/787159/#TopicPost787159

Craving an update on one of my favorite threads haha. I loved learning about your color-matching scripts as well.

AntcuFaalb said:

clutchins said:

benduwan said:

 tatooine is to yellow

 as hoth is to white

LMAO

Tattooine should have been called Hoth.

And Hoth should have been called Coldth.

DrDre said:

Progress is still slow. However, in the mean I've also been working on SRV13. I actually have to agree with g-force for a change. There's an ugly slow moving grain in the upscale that is really visible. I've updated my script to get rid of it. Here's a first screenshot comparison:

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/137467

More to follow when I get home from work...

 Fabulous work, as always, DrDre. I believe managing that grain is a worthy goal. I remember our feedback on the screenshot comparisons was to keep the film grain intact, but after watching the moving SR clips - as amazing as they were - I agree that the big grain that appeared to be "floating above" the upscaled moving image could be distracting, and was not necessarily representative of the actual film elements. Eager to see a moving clip of SRV13.

DrDre said:

towne32 is doing a substantial cleanup of the GOUT Star Wars as we speak and should be finished in a few days, so I will be using that as a starting point for the rendering of the whole movie. In the mean time I will try to make a short sample for SRV11 and post a few screenshots for TESB. 

 Might I suggest to NOT stabilize the image until after the SR/AA process. My hunch is that the gate weave plays a factor in the recovery of image detail due to subpixel-level shift of picture within each shot.

DrDre said:

Here's a split screen version of the sample video. Left is SRV12, right is a PointResize upscale of the source.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8_LYKyZDiajVEtVRkRwNXlCYkE/view?usp=sharing

 Perfectly executed, thanks! Great comparison tool right there.

It would be really interesting to see a split-screen view of before/after Super Resolution of a few select scenes as a demonstration video. I'd suggest that the 'before' view be shown as true as possible to the original video, with a simple, non-interpolated resized/zoomed view, rather than even a basic bicubic upscale.

DrDre said:

Here finally is the 10 min sample for SRV12. Enjoy!

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8_LYKyZDiajQkIyUW05YVJ3Tm8/view?usp=sharing

For full quality, please download!

 OMFG

AntcuFaalb said:

camroncamera said:

The GOUT image... It's like the original telecine process was transfered at 16:9 anamorphic and was converted to 4:3 letterbox at the mastering stage (and caused all of that awful aliasing) by throwing out every other scanline like yesterday's bagels.

Close, but the process was significantly simpler (and 100% analog) than you describe: http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Star-Wars-GOUT-in-HD-using-super-resolution-algorithm/post/771079/#TopicPost771079

 Thanks, I now remember reading this a couple weeks ago.

By the time I started to work in Telecine (circa 1999), CCD scanners (Philips Spirit 2K) had taked the crown of "best image" away from flying spot telecines (Cintel). The facility where I was employed had one of the first Spirit installs in the US. Virtually all of our clients were commercial (advertising) or television, so there was almost never any anamorphic (features) film on the machine.

Although non-anamorphic letterbox projects were very popular (especially with Super 16 DP's), the occasional anamorphic 35mm print Indian Bollywood movie that we'd be hired to transfer would be telecined as either 4:3 letterbox for our first few jobs, or 16:9 anamorphic SD for all the subsequent transfers. In the case of the 4:3 letterbox transfers, the CCD Spirit "datacine" would continuously scan at 2K internally, and would beautifully downconvert/de-anamorphize on the fly with it's high-end scaler, no special anamorphic lens gate required. TV scanlines were never simply tossed away, as seems to be the case wth Star Wars. I've never worked with a flying spot telecine, though I understand that Cintel and others eventually caught up with (and in some cases surpassed) CCD datacines.

Man, what a difference 7-8 years made in telecine technology.

DrDre said:

Here are the two frames mentioned compared to Harmy's DE. It is true that the antialiasing affects the detail negatively in places, but I think it is relatively minor compared to the detail corrected by the antialiasing.

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/130622

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/130623

 Socks knocked off.

In addition to the SR magic...

The GOUT image... It's like the original telecine process was transfered at 16:9 anamorphic and was converted to 4:3 letterbox at the mastering stage (and caused all of that awful aliasing) by throwing out every other scanline like yesterday's bagels. 

I don't know how, but I believe you found all those scanlines that they tossed away, then rolled them in sesame seeds, added the most amazing cream cheese, homestyle berry preserves, smoky lox and toasted it all so that is 9 times better than when the bagels were fresh to begin with. That's how good this work is.

Truth is, I don't even know if 16:9 anamorphic standard definition video was even used during the (pre-DVD) Laserdisc era for feature film transfers, so I don't believe that those "missing scanlines" of the GOUT were ever even in any video signal from the telecine machine on down the video chain. I know HD video had been in development for several years at the time of those film transfers, but pretty much as R&D only.

Still, in the back of my mind, I wonder if there might be a 16:9 anamorphic D-1 tape straight from the Star Wars telecine session floating around. If a very early scan converter was used to convert this (hypothetical)16:9 anamorphic film transfer to 4:3 letterbox format, and that subsequent 4:3 tape was used as the Laserdisc master, that could explain the heavy aliasing of the GOUT. If Lucasfilm returned to these scan-converted transfer tapes to produce the 2006 bonus DVDs (erroneously believing them to be the best existing transfers of the Original Trilogy), they had missed the opportunity to use these hypothetical anamorphic original transfer tapes instead.