darth_ender said:
Great! Just great! Now the whole Internet's down! That darn Doomsday virus! I can't post anything!
oh no! now, we'll just have to keep using
the imaginary backup version of the internet!
later
-1
Leonardo said:
I really, really, really hope for him his password isn't password.
why not try it out?
well i haven't looked into this in awhile,
but once we get closer to finishing, we
will have enough data for a comparison.
and should be able to adjust the offsets.
later
-1
jero32 said:
To each their own. I'd stil like to see apropriate scenes cleaned up real good and inserted instead of the cgi footage though. (I'm not so much a "purist" as I'm someone who really really hates not having good high def footage of the movies with no cgi )
And yes this should look great once it comes out.
i've run some comparisons with the bluray,
and some scenes might match the quality of it,
while others are more grainy, and darker.. although
still light years better than the GOUT.
it's too jarring a transition going from the pristine
clarity of the bluray back to sampled film. i don't think
it would mesh well. but i'm sure people will try.
later
-1
TV's Frink said:
Incidentally, today I again watched whatever the last version of this was and it was fantastic as usual. Even my four year old daughter enjoyed it this time (her favorite is "R-Doo-Dee-Doo").
you have a daughter too? i must be living in some bizarro universe now..
ok, time for me to get off this planet!!!
ha ha...
what else are you going to come up with next !?
later
-1
jero32 said:
Man that clip with the machine looks awesome.
So about the trailer.
I assume the interlacing won't be there in the final release? (or is there some technical reason for it)
Also is that about the quality of cleanup we should expect? Or will there stil be more cleanup applied (some kind of digital filter) to clear up even more of the dirt?
Regardless, you guys are awesome and doing great work. Keep it up! :D
we'll see how the final release goes.. still working on it..
yeah, that's about the quality, some scenes are better,
some are still grainy, etc... but there will be a lot more cleanup
of non-source dirt/dust/scratches..
in the machine video after the 1 min mark, is various footage
of full projectors used to capture the audio from the 2nd print
of the US that is red faded, warped.. it's in stereo. the 1st lpp
print is in near mint condition and we are capturing the spanish
audio (international mix).
later
-1
Brooks said:
I hate all those fake download links on sendspace, but the video is awesome! How did you guys get that motor to time out just right? It seems like the film moves slowly through the camera part of the contraption but quickly off of the reels.
little bit of trial and error, and
the canon hack toolkit allows for very
precise timing and synchronization through
the USB cable. when you're going that slow
it's not hard.
we'll probably have a writeup about the machine,
and add it to the archive of the website.
later
-1
check out a much longer video of the transfer machine,
in 720p avi:
==============================
http://www.sendspace.com/file/93qc4x
password: ot.com
later
-1
frank678 said:
Here's my tweak (2nd attempt) on a still from one of myscamore's new technidisc clips to give you an example of the above statement:
ORIG
TWEAK 2
Or if that sounds a bit too like rambling nonsense - does anyone have any ideas how to lift out the darkness embedded in this master a bit without blowing out the whites?? Is there actually much room for manouevre on this?
here's our uncorrected version of it:
--
(and a picture from 4 frames earlier)..
later
-1
SirJonah said:
lurker77 said:
The next best thing that can be done is something that the article touches on - oversampling. Simply, if you use a 12 megapixel digital camera to capture a 4K image, it will turn out almost as good as a 3-chip scanner. Today's DSLRs do 12 megapixels.
EDIT: My mistake. 12 megapixels is not the same thing as 12,000 pixels per line. That would be 48 megapixels, beyond what any off-the-shelf camera can do ATM.
Even 12 megapixels seems like overkill for this project. A typical 1.85:1 35mm release print (a 3rd generation copy of the camera negative) has roughly 1000 lines per picture height (examining the print directly)... so that works out to about 88 lines per mm.
Since the Anamorphic Projection Aperture dimensions are 20.96 x 17.53 mm, that works out to about 1844 x 1542... or about 3 megapixels.
agreed
Baronlando said:
SilverWook said:
negative1, I think your amazing contraption needs a name. :)
Agreed, maybe a variation on "The Dykstraflex". The NegaFlex? The later-Flex?
not my machine, i didn't have anything to do with its creation
thejediknighthusezni said:
Thanks, that was interesting.
It sounds like the typical Engineer's approach to things: "Let's determine the centerpoint of all common aspect ratios and then divide by the mean area of the...." ;)
Silly me, I'd just ask "Now what would most people want in wide aspect HD?"
IMHO, nearly all theatrical releases people want these days come from the anamorphic era, nearly all major sports events are best viewed in the widest aspects, and nearly all made-for-TV content doesn't really rate small-screen VHS-def 4:3 presentation.
while widescreen is great for movies, sports,etc.
how much is out there? and how much do people watch lately?
the vast majority of tv material is 4:3 , and stretching and
cropping it isn't worth it. so we'll be stuck with these ratios
for quite some time.
only people that watch a lot of movies, or hd material care
about true widescreen.
later
-1
msycamore said:
-1, you missed this horizontal white line across the frame. ;)
i think i skipped that frame.. will have to go back to the
source frames. these are downsized of course.
later
-1
Brooks said:
Millions of dollars?? What scanners are those, I'd like to read about them. That's obviously not practical, but this project will provide us with great results that will sustain us for years, and by the time house sized tv's are common maybe scanners will have advanced too and gotten cheaper. When I worked at a camera store in 2000 a one megapixel digital camera cost hundreds of dollars. You could have gotten a nikon f100 for not much more (which was much much better).
The only improvement I would suggest to their current setup is to use a slr, if only because they shoot faster and have larger apertures (and arguably better focus). And you can get 18mp slrs now for $800 or so. I got my 8mp rebel xt for $200 used and that was years ago.
the machines that pro's use are these:
thejediknighthusezni said:
I'm sure there's a technical reason for 16:9 being more convenient to broadcasters and manufacturers, but I don't understand why it wasn't 21:9 from the start. I want to see ALL of my movies and ballgames in widescreen HD and NONE of the news anchormen in more than Low-Def 4:3.
there's a good article here:
===================
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16:9
later
-1
TV's Frink said:
I know, it's almost as unbelievable as your Maxim model girlfriend, right? The difference, of course, being that we're actually married, as opposed to either being just a friend or being made up entirely.
oh, i thought you meant you made up your wife! ha ha
(or you imagined you had one!)
i can just imagine the conversations you must have,
they're always jokes, and OT! fun..
later
-1
SilverWook said:
negative1, I think your amazing contraption needs a name. :)
How about The Millennium Falcon?
speaking of the millenium falcon,
check out this scene, i noticed it
looked very grainy.. is it like this
in other versions?
===========================
later
-1
speaking of grainy scenes. just noticed this one, yike!
the millenium falcon taking off from mos eisley,
is it like this in other versions?
sampled every 3 frames over 104:
==========================
later
-1
1990osu said:
In other words, each individual frame you are taking is somewhere in-between 2K and 4K res, but for coloring and cleanup work you are using a downsample because that will be faster and yield similar results to doing all your editing at the higher (let's call it 3K) resolution, only to have to size it down anyway at the end, for home video.
yes, thats a better way of stating what i was trying to get at! phew..
here's a small image of what the differences in sizes are.. very
substantial!
later
-1
1990osu said:
negative1 said:
we are saving the 4k scans, for future proofing the video when the time
comes. that is what we are using as our source, not 1080p or 2k.
we've done some quick tests with 4k video and
resampling it down to 1080p, and did not notice an
improvement over just using the 2k/1080p downsamples.
Now I'm completely confused.
much like the problem with kb, KB, Mbyte , and megabytes.
resolutions are confusing.
approach 1
-----------------
the camera is 8mega PIXEL.. we capture the frames at 3500x2200
or something like that.... we then downscale the images down
to 1080p, which is 1920x1080 and then render it to video
True 4k is actually 8.8 megapixels
depending on how you define it:
-------------------------------------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4K_resolution
digital cinema standards
standard resolution DAR pixels
-------------------------------------------------------
digital cinema 4k - 4096x1714 - 2.39:1 7,020,544
digital cinema 4k - 3996x2160 - 1.85:1 8,631,360
academy 4k - 3656x2664 - 1.37:1 9,738,584
full aperature 4k - 4096x3112 - 1.32:1 12,746,752
====================================
QFHD is quad full HD, which doubles the 1080p,
which is closer to what we are using.
QFHD (3840x2160)
Quad Full High Definition (QFHD), at 3840 x 2160 (8.3 megapixels), doubles the 1080pHDTV standard (1920 x 1080 or 2.1 megapixels) in both the vertical and horizontal dimensions.
approach 2
========================================
or we can render video at this resolution, but we can't see
it at this native resolution, so we take this QFHD video,
and downscale it to 1080p and compare... there wasn't much
of a difference..
here's more on digital cinema specs:
==========================
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_cinema
later
-1
yes, you're right. i stated incorrectly it was 4 megapixels,
when i should have said 4k.. please read the next post.
thanks for pointing that out. it does get confusing!
later
-1
Joel said:
negative1 said
:there's no point in shooting at higher megapixels, because the
disk space, and rendering time, along with resizing and scaling
make it much harder. also the difference when you render down
to 1080p isn't really that noticeable.
I agree that bit depth is a bigger factor than pixel resolution in this process.
RE: Capturing at 1080p vs downscaling to 1080P - maybe this is true using the method you are using currently? Usually, video downscaled from 4k captures looks signifcantly better.
The only thing I would do differently here, with all of the time involved, as well as this expensive/rare film and equipment, would be to capture it in as high-res a format as possible -at least film-grain resolution- to have the highest quality material to start with. Isn't that kind of the point of capturing the 35mm print in the first place?
we are saving the 4k scans, for future proofing the video when the time
comes. that is what we are using as our source, not 1080p or 2k.
we've done some quick tests with 4k video and
resampling it down to 1080p, and did not notice an
improvement over just using the 2k/1080p downsamples. of course we
don't really have a 4k monitor to see what it would look like at
native resolution. i'm sure there will be some higher resolution
monitors/tv coming out that will support that. but that's a moot
point as most people can't take advantage of it.
check out thorr's WQHD (2560x1600) trailer.. not too many
people can even view video at that resolution and compare
it to the 1080p version. it might be possible for a very large
screen.
----------------------------------------
http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Thorrs-35-mm-Star-Wars-Trilogy-SE-Trailer-WQHD-Restoration/topic/13086/page/1/
although there are people that have HD projectors, we are
also creating a full frame 1920x1080 version that will not be
squeezed or letterboxed. you will have to correct for that
yourself using the projector.
later
-1
TV's Frink said:
twister111 said:
So zebras running and playing alternate universe zylophones. While Zod is in town shouting "Kneel before Zod!" with ZZ top playing in the backround. With the addition of Lord Zedd walking in the streets with his "Z" staff. Everyone in the diners eating zucchini while playing with their zippers. Others smelling zinnia flowers while checking their Zodiac. All while she herself finds out she has zero change in her pockets must be the worst day ever for her huh?TV's Frink said:
xhonzi said:
TV's Frink said:The Zombie one is the best one!
^allol
I think there are 8,000 versions of Pride and Prejudice and my wife has seen/read them all.
Except for the zombie one.
Well, I thought so anyways. Mrs. xhonzi enjoyed the Zombie one... if that means anything to Mrs. Frink.
It won't, she's allergic to anything starting with "z."Yes.
i'm shocked about the 'wife' part!
who would've thought it?!
congratulations.
later
-1
CatBus said:
If you're feeling on the fence about Jedi, consider doing a "just Lapti Nek" transfer, getting good copies of otherwise lost footage. And Vader with eyebrows, and Vader's ghost, etc.
good ideas. but its not my call.
if others want to work on it, i'm sure
they'll do the whole film if they can.
in the meantime, we can all start wondering
about a 4k version of star wars down the road,
for those new tvs!:
-----------------------------------------------------------
later
-1
Brooks said:
You should definitely do Jedi! Of the three original films that one was altered the most egregiously (I think). Those changes are unforgivable.
my primary concern is star wars only.
there are others that will work on empire,
and possibly jedi. i might be loosely associated
with them. but that is too far into the future.
later
-1
