and the thrilling and sad
conclusion of ben kenobi vs darth vader:
=============================
pw : OT
that's about 11 minutes of the raw
red reel in total... i'll see if i can upload
a composite clip..
later
-1
Mavimao said:
Here's a visual example of what I'm talking about. Here's an image from Puggo's site showing a frame of a DV capture with 480 pixels of horizontal resolution:
The great thing about this image is the fact that it's an anamorphically squeezed image. There's much more resolution available than say a letterboxed 4x3 (ie the GOUT). So, here's the same image but stretched out to 1280 by 480 (1280 being the horizontal resolution in 720p)
NOTE: this was just a quickly done example to show how stretching out the initial capture would work. Please note, the 720p example does not reflect the correct aspect ratio.
fixed the picture links. (and resized)
later
-1
hey,
i appreciate accuracy.
and i WANTED people to inspect the findings.
it's never wrong to post what you find.
we're here to learn things. so don't apologize.
keep posting what you find.
i look forward to new findings and corrections.
what you see is the original screencaps
from the english VOB version. i take it
you are using the same?
later
-1
(ps. and one last one for the road:
--------------------------------------------
)
jero32 said:
Just to clear up any future confusion:
resize
to me, that's the only shot from the bluray that looks slightly improved,
all the rest from the dvd despite the blue tint, look much better to me.
also, watching it now..(it's out there now)..
and have previewed most of the shots
from the bluray are accurate. they do seem warmer and orange
and yellow oriented...
==================
the blown out shots (like this) are there,
=============================
and i didn't see the snake reflection either..
so there are changes, and a different visual look to it..
later
-1
captainsolo said:
djchaseb said:
Getting my pregame on with Puggo Grande
DITTO!! The anticipation is killing me. Seriously.
Mavimao said:
Puggo, I know you were thinking of making HD versions of your captures - are you still considering this? I think these projects would benefit from a more modern codec seeing as the grain and dirt play havoc with mpeg2. Also, because the initial image is in scope, there should be adequate vertical resolution for a good uprezzed HD image, seeing as a scope 2.35 film is 817 pixels tall in 1080p - 544 pixels in 720p.
IIRC puggo said that this would require a new workprinter.
yeah, the 16mm HD ones look sweet!
-----------------------------------------------
http://www.moviestuff.tv/16mm_telecine.html
later
-1
we're in for a good time shortly!
many thanks again..
later
-1
here's my arcade machine, blasteroids!
played it a lot in college, and bought one
pretty cheap, and it's still in near mint condition.
video of it:
=========
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzzgAK4Eb-8
later
-1
thanks for all those shots tservo,
it's good to know that it's like that..
early on it was hard for me to say
what it was like.. but this clears some
of it up..
so what kind of %'s are we looking at?
5 - 10 - 15% ???
later
-1
TServo2049 said:
The Blu-ray cropping is different than the GOUT. Some shots may have been reframed for the 97SE, or the 2004 version, but in general, it seems that the 2004/11 transfer is positioned a bit higher and more to the left than the GOUT.
EDIT: Here are the cropping estimates I promised: http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Cropping-the-Original-Trilogy-35mm-vs-dvd-gout/post/595678/#TopicPost595678
The more GOUT framing estimates I do, the more I see that the cropping is very consistent, and not as severe as your original comparisons imply.
good deal,
and thanks for that.. overall it might not be as severe,
but there are frames that exhibit that large amount,
overall it's still probably 5-15% throughout the movie.
later
-1
(ps : almost done with the test reel:
http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/cleaning-up-dirty-frames-for-scenes/post/595724/#TopicPost595724
)
DuracellEnergizer said:
I have a hard time believing the OOT will remain suppressed indefinately. Some time from now, long after Charon ferries Lucas across the River Styx, Lucasfilm will probably restore the theatrical films to the best of their ability and release them. Perhaps they won't be of the greatest quality, but at least they'll be acknowledged. A number of surviving films from the early eras of cinema don't come wrapped in the prettiest of ribbons, but people still watch and enjoy them.
at this point, does anyone really care if it's from
lucasfilm or not? why do we really need their
stamp on it for legitimacy when they've shown
they can't and won't handle it in the past?
later
-1
part 1/2 of the
epic lightsaber battle between
ben kenobi and darth vader..
with a lot of awesome lines in there,
it's really blocky at the beginning for some
reason.. oh well.. the rest is ok:
================================
pw: OT
almost done....
later
-1
red5-626 said:
the grindhouse, and grindhouse+deleted scene versions will
be the LPP with very slight noise removal, and
some of the more difficult scenes fixed.
later
-1
Just an idea but wood it be possible to apply the Color information from the LPP to the red print?
Get the LPP coloring but the grain of the Red print?
don't know.. possibly,
but that would be another project
way into the future if it ever happened..
later
-1
here's ben sneaking around..
and a shot of the droids,
close the blast doors!:
=============================
pw: OT
a few more to go..
later
-1
TServo2049 said:
negative1 said:
i'm not using the cropping diagrams.
this is a just a straight dump of the image
from the DVD VOB file, against the frame captures
we have.
I'm sorry, I wasn't clear. I didn't mean the diagrams you showed in that thread, I meant that your raw-to-GOUT comparisons are likely inaccurate. I just can't believe that isolated shots would be cropped that close. It doesn't match with my findings on how reel 3 was cropped.
My point was, I don't try to overlay images when I do my comparisons. I just try to find the edges of each transfer and draw them onto the raw frame. That way, I don't have to worry about the warping/distortion of the transfers. (As I said, I think the GOUT has a "curve" to the image, with the picture starting to get narrower on the sides.)
Do you have a test clip containing that scene with Ben walking down the hall?
i'm posting it as we type.
will have the link up shortly.
it would be good to do a comparison if
you could that would be great.
also, haven't checked it against the bluray
to see if more is lost there also..
later
-1
(edit : it's up now:
------------------------
)
TServo2049 said:
I thought we determined that those cropping diagrams were not accurate due to the way the image is warped in the GOUT transfer not correctly lining up with the red reel transfer.
I always based my comparisons solely on what was at the edges of the image, without doing any warping to match the two sources to each other.
i'm not using the cropping diagrams.
this is a just a straight dump of the image
from the DVD VOB file, against the frame captures
we have.
later
-1
jero32 said:
The edges...well I checked and occasionally it seems you could see the edge of the other frames. Didn't notice anything too odd. But then again i'm not nearly as familair with these films as some of you guys are.
edit: wait, seems the edges arent entirely 100% straight. They have these little "hills" sticking out on top of them a little bit. Very subtle.
it should be more noticeable than that..
there's a lot lost to the cropping..
some of the shots look very different from the
standard GOUT ones, with almost 20% being cut..
look at this for example..
---------------------------------
lot more here:
============
http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Cropping-the-Original-Trilogy-35mm-vs-dvd-gout/topic/13945/
later
-1
captainsolo said:
Ok ;)
Hey look there's actual blacks and darkness in the image without everything being crushed!
You can easily see the amount of pink shift in the second clip from the skin tones, wall color of the DS (greenish) and the tractor beam power indicator.
Still it says something when a pink shifted reel is 1000% preferable to a single frame of the official BD. I'd watch and love a whole faded, scratched, cropped, beat to hell, torn, water damaged, burned, mold infested print before I'd watch the BD.
I made copies of the PG for backup and have showed it to numerous people. The difference is quite apparent-even to the un-initiated. The fact that the SE prints had such good color and printing and then we get everything reduced to this putrid 2004 mess is inexcusable.
As far as the grindhouse versions, I'd think that the best idea would be to leave it wholly uncropped and reveal the entire frame. Those of us who are viewing these aren't going to care about the inherent quality anyway as we've probably seen far worse. Also this would probably be the best way to see the different ways to perform the overall 2.35 crop points for the final version.
ok, good to know someone has comments..
well i wouldn't go too far with these prints, they're
more of a curiosity and historical record, than the
ones to showcase the movie.. i think it's good to
have a few different versions floating around because
of the appeal of the different types to different people.
did anyone notice anything different when the pictures
are uncropped. does it seem that way to you?
if you didn't notice it before, you probably won't notice
it after either..
oh and another one:
========================================
later
-1
and now for the
daring swing over the chasm...
===========================
pw : OT
a few more?
later
-1
Brooks said:
Doubling the width seemed to do the trick. Does this look right?
https://picasaweb.google.com/106564773224485847205/September132012?authuser=0&feat=directlink
(the forum seems to be cropping them on the right, at least on my screen, they must be too long)
very nice..
i think the max width is 720 pixels.. that's what
i did to them.
or you might just want to point to a thumbnail if it's
that wide..
later
-1
pittrek said:
negative1 said:
i would think 20th century fox.
anyways, you can't just go around dealing with copyrighted material
in this manner, and then releasing it when you're in the industry.
i'm sure he would be blacklisted and all sorts of legal repercussions.
since we're (mostly) anonymous in ours, we do have some risk.
but i'm willing to take it on. because this is too important an issue
for me..
most people have families, careers, and real life to worry about.
i don't have anything, or any of those to worry about..
i live in an empty vacuum. (with some air)..
so even if i get taken out, nobody else will get into trouble
i don't mind taking the hit.
besides, it's not like i have a martyr complex.
there's plenty of people on this board that
have taken grave risks to get material out,
and their own versions released, etc.
i just like finishing projects that i started.
it's an OCD thing, i think.
later
-1
We all are VERY grateful that you take this risk ! :-)
that's ok,
i'll be dragging all of you down with me,
when the cops come knocking!!! ha ha
just kidding...
i think..
later
-1
AntcuFaalb said:
i'm done.. which, hopefully will be really
soon !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Really?!
definition:
soon = done when it's done
and not before.
haha
later
-1
hmm,
screen captures of dvd vs bluray:
=======================
http://www.caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergleiche/comparison.php?art=full&cap1=14341&cap2=14325&cID=1273&lossless=&image=0#auswahl
don't tell me we have to hunt down
a 35mm print of that to do it right?!
here we go again!
later
-1
Zottig said:
And you are entitled to your opinion as I am to mine.
As I said, they are trivial and fleeting issues, only quality (or lack thereof endures.) Storage is laughably cheap and only to get more so. Once 640x480 GIFs were considered high quality.
Ben
they may be cheap to you, but not everybody.
who's preventing you from buying bigger sd cards, or hard drives,
or getting music in FLAC or uncompressed? last time i checked
there's quite a few places that sell music in some of those formats.
my camera phone goes up to 640x480, which IS GOOD enough
quality for me.. maybe you need more than that?
later
-1
Brooks said:
negative1 said:
most people have families, careers, and real life to worry about.
i don't have anything, or any of those to worry about..
i live in an empty vacuum. (with some air)..
I'm sorry to hear that :(
that's ok.. i have plenty of 'star wars' stuff right now
to keep me company.
i'll get back to the women (or at least the
one i know) ha ha..
==================================
/ wine / dance / song when
i'm done.. which, hopefully will be really
soon !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
later
-1
Zottig said:
VHS, Microsoft Windows, MP3, there are far too many instances of the masses willing to sacrifice on quality in exchange for trivial and fleeting factors like cost, ease of adoption, convenience, etc... all of which quickly end up being meaningless and then you are just left with the compromises.
The reason audio has effectively topped out at CD quality is because the unwashed masses preferred convenience of MP3 to quality of DVD audio or SACD which could have brought things closer to the limits of human hearing but no "the market has spoken" and mp3 was deemed "good enough."
Ben
how about practicality, price and being realistic (storage)?
i love music.. but i could care less if it's a SACD or DVD-audio, which
are dead.. mp3's at 256k or 320k ARE GOOD ENOUGH.. so are CD's.
DVD's ARE GOOD ENOUGH for most people.
and Windows? what does that have to do with anything?
that's ALL I WILL EVER USE. no need for macs/linux, etc..
NO THANKS!
the market HAS SPOKEN, too bad for you!
later
-1
