Sign In

spoRv

User Group
Members
Join date
6-Jun-2011
Last activity
16-Oct-2019
Posts
2,794
Web Site
http://forum.fanres.com

Post History

Post
#1293307
Topic
Disney's Beauty and the Beast [spoRv] *BD-25 RELEASED*
Time

Thanks for your kind words!

Agree, I went maybe a bit too far with noise reduction but, hey, it was one of my first projects, and also the source is what it is… 😄
About grain, it was not present in the LD - or, at least, resolution did not preserve it so well.

Watching it with fresh eyes, the only reason to prefer this to BD is color grading and few shots that were changed in the BD; if I would update this, I’d use BD as main source, regrading it as LD, leaving only the changed shots as in the actual project.

Post
#1284109
Topic
The Abyss (1989) - UHD
Time

According to this post
https://www.slashfilm.com/the-abyss-blu-ray/
it would be real… still, who knows (now) if it will get the same fate of T2 UHD?

So, I thought to give it a try…

UHD WEB version Vs mine:
http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/1016
http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/1014

UHD test clip 1, regraded - 1m 438MB HEVC 8bit SDR 61.2mbps no audio:

https://fex.net/s/c55vpv3 - will expire in a week, so hurry up!

final version would be 10bit, though, I would like to be UHD-BD compliant (a dream, maybe, let’s see)

Now, would be nice if someone with an UHD TV/display could download it and give an opinion.

Post
#1280172
Topic
ALIEN (Preservation of various properties i.e. the Fan Bonus Discs.)
Time

Jonno said:

Again, US DVD/Blu-ray players and displays are known to have issues with 25 or 50 field/frame content (SD or HD) - they’re generally not made with anything other than NTSC/film specs in mind (whereas European players have been NTSC ready since the DVD era).

Sorry, you are completely right… well, let’s take the 25/50fps to 23.976fps (or 24), and we will solve everything - or not? Even if there is some movie pieces in the PAL sources, they surely not have IVTC problems.

Post
#1280140
Topic
ALIEN (Preservation of various properties i.e. the Fan Bonus Discs.)
Time

MPEG-2 to AVC conversion is useful only to get the same image quality with lower bitrate, hence smaller file size - yet, some quality will be lost, even if not that much. At that point, an alternative could be to do a nice upscale (that should be better than the average HDTV real time upscale), apply a slight deblock (useful for MPEG-2 encoded video) and possibly a light noise reduction, and have the NTSC 480p 29.97fps as 1280x720 59.94p or 1440x1080 59.94i, and PAL 576p 25fps as 1280x720 50p or 1440x1080 50i - I’d go with 1440 horizontal lines if the DVD material is anamorphic, as 1440=720x2, hence better upscale. So, any PAL and NTSC material, when upscaled, could be burned on a BD-R and be read by any BD player, from US or any other part of the world, without eventual compatibility problems.

Post
#1279941
Topic
ALIEN (Preservation of various properties i.e. the Fan Bonus Discs.)
Time

Jonno said:

I guess the only solution that would suit all users is the ‘bag of files’ option, which isn’t much fun from a user perspective but at least has the benefit of source purity.

“bag of files”, meaning all PAL and NTSC files “thrown” inside a directory/disc?
I’d go with two (or more) disc, one PAL, one NTSC (possibly including two versions, where available).

Post
#1272192
Topic
Open Matte Bond Movies
Time

AFAIK the open matte 007 movies are:

Golden Eye on 1.33:1 DVD
Casino Royale on 1.33:1 DVD
Skyfall on 1.78:1 HDTV
and of course as you stated in the first post,
Quantum of Solace on 1.78:1 HDTV
and as SilverWook said,
Casino Royale on 1.78:1 PSP

(curious to see the latter!)

not aware of other titles, but as some of them were released in 1.66:1 and 1.78:1, it is quite possible they were released in open matte - Skyfall and Quantum of Solace are 2.39:1 yet available in open matte, so… 😉

Post
#1271962
Topic
The Phantom Menace - upscale to UHD
Time

I recovered my old Technicolor-look-a-like-more-or-less regrade of A New Hope made two years ago, and upscaled the regraded HDTV using this technique:

comparison: http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/131279
test clip: http://www.filedropper.com/anhuhdtest (again 10s, it takes so long to make it!)

Guess I went too far with the highlight, clipping some whites.

So, if someone downloaded the clips, how do they seem? Too fake, plastic-y etc. or watchable? Thanks for the feedbacks!

Post
#1271915
Topic
The Phantom Menace - upscale to UHD
Time

Sources went through temporal noise reduction, and when needed (usually with MPEG-2 sources) deblock and/or sharpening and/or dehalo.
Using more than one source helps to get some details back, even if the whole process is far from perfect - “guessing” details sometimes, losing them other times…

I downloaded Emanswfan’s 35mm 4K Filmized ROTS test clip; I like a lot his color grading, so I applied it to my test clip (just increased the gamma for the luma, though); added also a finer 35mm grain plate.

Comparison: http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/131243
Test clip: http://www.filedropper.com/rotsuhdtest (only 10s, just to have an idea)

Opinions are welcome as usual.

Post
#1270339
Topic
The Phantom Menace - upscale to UHD
Time

The fact is, difference in the TPM comparison is so big because the source was quite poor - in comparison to BD, for sure, hence it looks… well, “better” - at least, watched at 1x; in motion “should” be even nices. I guess BD would look not so sharp, yet better than simple “go and upscale”. Color grading apart, of course.

I guess also TPM could have some value, until a 4K (or more) scan will be ready.

Post
#1270272
Topic
The Phantom Menace - upscale to UHD
Time

@DrDre & Turisu: thanks!

@Bobson Dugnutt: took a look, it seems great! Don’t know if this project could have a reason…

@RU.08: agree partially; it looks a bit platic-y, because I maybe exceeded with the sharpening, and also the fact source is HDTV instead BD did not help - indeed, previous comparison made using BD looks better IMHO.
But, sharpening it less, and/or blurring the image a bit, watching in motion, at the normal distance (not zoomed in, of course) could lead to a nice result. Of course, as usual, any feedback is welcome!

Post
#1269856
Topic
The Phantom Menace - upscale to UHD
Time

I’m 99.99% sure that Phantom Menace is not available in UHD (BD or WEB); yet, I’ve found that someone released a so-called UHD-rip… now, again 99.99% sure it is a mere upscale (and not greatly made, I should add).

So, I can’t resist to make an attempt to clean and upscale the BD - and also regrade, as I was there! 😃

Sadly, no BD player on my PC, so I just took the “UHD”, downscale it 50% with paint (!) and started to develop a suitable script… it took several days of trials&errors, but I think I got a nice result: http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/130289

(Note: you can see some details lost in the dark areas, it’s due to my regrade choice, but this is out of the scope of this thread for the moment)

Problem #1: the difference, when zoomed in, is great, but at normal size it is far less impressive…

Problem #2: to render a single frame, my PC takes around 2 minutes (!) - so, at that rate, it will take around 8 months and half, 24/7!!! So, unless someone would kindly give me a powerful workstation as a gift (or more than one) 😉 that will reduce rendering time to a decent amount (“only” one month? two?), the whole project will not happen…

Opinions?

Post
#1268777
Topic
ZigZig's THE PHANTOM MENACE Theatrical reconstruction 1080p – V1.0 work in progress
Time

ZigZig said:

Here is the resut (compared to another project where a simple upscaled SD video seems to be used):

http://www.framecompare.com/image-compare/screenshotcomparison/KKW7NNNX

Comparison :

SD upscaled :

ZigZig’s HD reconstruction :

I did it quicky without really adjusting the fine parameters, but the result seems to me already very promising.

I just took my TB copy (ORF is the same, by the way), upscaled on MSpaint to get HD size, and noted that in this shot, its frame is bigger on all sides, in particular on bottom…

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/129849

I also noted that Chewielewis’ frame size is a bit bigger, albeit your has more details; I wonder you have used the BD and overlaid the humans only, right? Why don’t you use both SD and Chewie’s versions to get added “borders”? Just my 2c, hope this could be useful!

Eagerly waiting to see this release - do not let us wait until 20th Anniversary! 😄

Post
#1267866
Topic
Jurassic Park - Open Matte / uncropped version
Time

The IAR (Intended Aspect Ratio) was 1.85; the 1.78:1 version shown on HDTV has a bit more image on top and bottom; the 1.33:1 fullscreen DVD has much more image on top and bottom on most shots, while loosing some on left and/or right side; but only the original film frame was full open matte, containing the whole 1.85:1 width, plus more on top and bottom - sometimes not intended parts, too, hence boom mics etc, that you will never see on any official versions.