towne32

Are the crushed blacks being discussed in this specific example just in the shots of 3PO in the dark?

towne32 said:

There are several other threads about that, and it's off topic in this thread.

For instance these ones:

http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/More-OUT-Rerelease-Rumors-from-John-Landis/topic/18219/

http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Star-Wars-theatrical-versions-not-coming-in-2015/topic/18110/page/5/

http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/4K-restoration-on-Star-Wars/topic/16857/page/89/

pittrek said:

The colours look pretty good, but the whole video is so dark... even the blacks look crushed.

The motion is "weird". There's even some motion smearing, I hope that's the correct term. It's nowhere as bad as the GOUT but it's pretty annoying. And I didn't notice it in further scenes.

Owen and the stuff behind his back - what's going on ? In some shots it appears like Owen's stable, but the background behind him is "dancing", in other shots the background looks almost like a static painting. In the "he doesn't exist anymore" shot  the whole picture is "weaving", just like in the shot where Luke wants to go to the academy.

The shot of the two suns the white sun is shaking. It's extremely annoying.

The rest is pretty much great.

 I agree that the colors look quite nice. I honestly never thought this print would look as good, color-wise, based on the early (and even more recent) samples. Not sure about the blacks being crushed. Probably not the best example to tell by, but doesn't seem unrecoverable based on this.

Regarding the 'dancing' I see some of what you're talking about and agree that having a time stamp would be useful to discuss more specifically. Seems to be incomplete stabilization and some single frame  warping due to the scan itself. Noticeable in a few places.

Cleanup looks good, but still incomplete. The first night shot with the twin suns could use a bit in particular. And then from Luke's closeup to the end there are tramline issues. They're thin and migrate horizontally through static shots, so they should be removable to a decent extent. There's a rather bright one on the left in the very last shot.

Coming along nicely, overall.

There are several other threads about that, and it's off topic in this thread.

TV's Frink said:

Space Hunter M said:

And by theatrical, they mean revisionist grading and no mono mixes.

 It must be hard going through life this grumpy.

 It will be great if they release any sort of real effort of restoring the OOT. It's possible that they will even do a good job. But they'll never be able to satisfy the people on this forum. Even if Mike Verta's version comes out, there will be people here complaining about how it would have been great if he hadn't ruined it with some tiny decision they don't like.

Obviously, it would be wonderful if Disney or whoever might be restoring it gave it the same attention to detail as Mike. Even if they don't, it will be uplifting news to have 'the powers that be' no longer pretending that the OOT didn't happen or was a beta test of the film. If it happens, 99.9% of people outside of this forum who want the OOT restored will be totally happy with it (although, it sounds like plenty of them are happy with the GOUT or VHS). And the people on this forum who can spot the flaws will undoubtedly be fixing the color and remuxing the audio anyway. 

That said, it would be really unfortunate if a significantly flawed restoration blocked Mike's release. 

Someone asked this before and I'm not sure if there was an answer. But, if going the route of a single correction applied to an entire film, is there a way to simply make an LUT out of the original and modified frame? 

DrDre said:

towne32 said:

It would be nice with the kind of shot change detection that exists in software like pfclean. Have the whole reel/film laid out into shots and choose the representative source shot/frame and apply it to as many target shots as you like until your whole sequence is covered.

 Yes, that would certainly be ideal... 

 Well maybe when Adobe or pixelfarm buys it from you we can have that. :P

(he said, having no clue about the licenses of any code involved)

It would be nice with the kind of shot change detection that exists in software like pfclean. Have the whole reel/film laid out into shots and choose the representative source shot/frame and apply it to as many target shots as you like until your whole sequence is covered.

Should have waited until the 10 year anniversary.

Cool. I hope Mark has a big role in VIII.

I agree with Neverar. Dre, I'm certain that it was unintentional, but your Star Wars images there are literally the exact same url. Here's the comparison, at least using the images you had a couple days ago:

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/142387/picture:2

You can see that it gives the same general impression and tones. But it's lacking the specifics and looks more homogeneous overall. The shadows look a bit funky, too. If you look at shots 1 and 4, I think there's really no competition. The specific match looks like a technicolor print. The non-specific looks like it's in the ballpark, but not right. 

The predictive ability is really neat that it even works as well as it does. A great proof of concept and I'm sure there will be cases where it's useful because of limited resources being available. Now, I'm not suggesting it needs to be frame by frame, but probably shot by shot or as new elements enter a shot. Applying one ref over a wide range of frames seems like it would be risky for introducing artifacts and incorrect color.

edit: I am curious if your second Indiana example WOWOW and Match might be identical images. It seems the actual WOWOW might be missing.

First day of filming!

http://www.starwars7news.com/2015/09/star-wars-episode-viii-filming-on-skellig-michael-day-1.html

Some set photos posted today: http://www.tmz.com/2015/09/15/rogue-one-a-star-wars-story-set-photos/

If it supports the file format, yes. 

Thanks.

I had concern as well at first, but I sent it to Dre in lossless format and told him not to use it if there was any quality loss in SR comparison tests.

His recent previews use it, I believe. So please do mention if there are suspected problems due to the source! While I was reasonably confident in it, I don't think I would have submitted it to him without more intensive review if I had known the rendering time that would be required for SR.

michaeldc said:

As for not knowing when to stop, I think you have me confused with someone else.

 Hint: before the thing that you just said.

Very nice indeed.

Dre, will the GUI eventually be sophisticated enough where you can lay out a whole film, organizing which shots will be corrected to which frames, and press go?

I agree for the most part. Jabba's crappy bumpmapped texture shines a little less and he looks a little more natural. 

Worst Turing test ever.

Hah! Very cool. I was hoping you'd try that one.

edit: The results remind me of Harmy's 97: http://postimg.org/gallery/cfmct944/

The X-wing explosions in the Death Star run had their color changed dramatically in the blu-ray. I believe some (but not all?) were recomposited. How do these look with your technique? Does something that's as dynamic frame-by-frame as an explosion need exact frame reference matching? 

edit: On that note, I'd like to see if it can change back the glow of the sparks after Han shoots at Vader and company.

Do you have a brother that uses this board?

I hope your situation improves. I don't really collect things like fan merchandise, sorry.

I think the you may be right that the movement of the nostril is not 100% with the movement of the rest of the head, but it does not stay in place entirely. It generally moves with the head. It's hard for me to tell, especially in the two frames between people walking by. 

My point about it being due to the beast leveling its head is not to say that you're wrong. Just that I believe Harmy hand animated this movement, and it's not a case of each individual frame being from the 35mm (IIRC). So in order to change the perspective of the head, he may have had to separate it into segments.

I see the feature you're talking about. But it is moving up with the head. You can leave your cursor on the point where it starts and see that. I'm not sure if it's moving perfectly, but it seems to be staying the same distance from the center of the nose. But the dimensions of its head change because it is looking down first, and then leveling its head. 

Hmm. I don't really see what you're saying. It's kind of hard to tell with the people walking right in front of it, though. Not sure why the head would be made into separate elements, but one of the complaints people had about the 1.0 was that the head was a bit too disconnected and floaty. So maybe if it's still hand-animated, it's an attempt to give the snout more dimension. 

edit: I can't tell if it moves perfectly with the head, but the nostril certainly moves a good deal.