DrDre said:
It takes some getting used to, but this print is seen as being in pristine shape.
Where did I talk about the print?
These corrections look totally wrong. The Technicolor caps too, they're burnt out.
DrDre said:
When we compare the before/after frames, the difference is pretty stunning:
The matching is good, but it is way too bright overall, and too heavy on contrast.
I very much doubt the accuracy of those TechniColor caps. Even if the print was fine, many, many thing can go wrong before it appears on your screen. Also, a lot depends on the projector bulb that was used for screening etc. It's a black hole.
I wouldn't change the overall brightness of the GOUT, maybe I'd give it a bit more contrast, and most definitely color correction.
archimedes said:
I tried v10 on Star Wars SE97.
SR does next to nothing on this source.
However, the colors look very nice on the caps, but it may be just an illusion. Is there general consensus on how it compares to Harmy's colors? Better/worse/just different?
It's not fair to criticize IMDb for being inaccurate. It's free and has amazing amount of information. If it would disappear, it would be a disaster.
Runtime 1 hr 56 min (116 min)
2 hr 6 min (126 min) (original)
What's this 2 hr 6 min running time?
OK thanks for the answer, I was just curious. Too bad it would not really help much.
Every reply is only an (educated) guess. Noone actually tried it. You have (or you'll have) the script. Try it yourself before you give up.
But if 4K becomes standard I am not sure how bad SD will look on it.
Just as bad as it looks on HD, not worse.
No worries.
Of course your logic makes sense, and it could be the same master indeed. But I'd absolutely believe if an insider would tell us that the DVD master was too low quality and they've done a higher resolution scan from the same print for the Blu-ray. I simply couldn't find that out just by looking at the releases. I can only see they had a common source at one point in time (hence the similar dirts), but that's it.
But after all, it's not even important. It doesn't help us.
I wasn't 100% sure those white speckles here and there were the "dust", sorry. Still, it was only a question to make sure what you consider proof.
It's all an assumption, and not even an educated guess. I didn't say a word about the original negative. But I can't see how would you know what's on an interpositive and what's not (I guess there are more than one interpositive), and how would you know if Universal has done a new scan or not since 2002. Because it's stupid? Edge-enhancement and temporal degraining wasn't stupid?
ilovewaterslides said:
Seriously? What about these two? LINK
You're so much worked up you forgot to answer the question.
ilovewaterslides said:
Don't tell me they are part of the wall because I just checked the scene and they only appear on this frame.
Those dirts may be already there on the print(s) they made the masters from. It could be one and the same print, but different masters. And it could be even different prints as well, not only different masters. You never thought about that?
ilovewaterslides said:
Ok, you want more dust, here is more dust: LINK
To be honest, it doesn't convince me either. What should I look at? The white speckle?
towne32 said:
Maybe Dre can try a version at some point that keeps the rest of his script, but with the SR plugin code omitted.
It's not possible as the SR plugin - while gaining (some) details from the adjacent frames - also cancels out noise and makes the image sharper too. With removing the plugin you'd remove the denoising and sharpening as well, leaving not much else but the anti-aliasing.
This is a funny debate considering "we" (g-force, RU.08 and me) all say essentially the same thing.
RU.08 said:
It certainly isn't SR on its own that brings the source to life - its his Avisynth script that implements SR in his own uniquely designed way.
Exactly. That's what I was saying from the very beginning: the substantial part of SR adds very little to the overall effect. It is the noise canceling and sharpening/deblurring that happens during the process are responsible for most of the improvements.
And, of course, the smart anti-aliasing elevated the earlier results to another level. It is very impressive indeed.
x5gb said:
The guy that did the original encode of the DCP prior to this originally used the Wowow and meticulously removed the subtitles using the Harold Nipps method (spoRv, I,ll send you information about this method later if I can find it)
Post here, please, or send me too. I'm interested as well.
Probably frame distortion is the explanation for that.
(I mean, distortion within frame.)
kk650 said:
Sorry about that! To be honest I hadn't noticed before reading this thread either. I'll take that as a yes for changing the wheel colours in those shots.
I hadn't notice it either. But, if someone wants to be pedantic, it's not just the wheels. It affects the whole picture.
No print damage here. Just auto color-correction went wrong and noone noticed it in time.
jedimasterobiwan said: then how about someone does an edit of the dcp that's better than the blu ray? color correction and the dirt and scratches.
I believe everybody understood what you wanted.
Antialiasing seems very impressive. All in all, I prefer this over Team Blu's results. But both look miles better than the source.
If someone would even do some (non-linear) contrast enhancement (but without brightening up the image overall, because that leads to detail loss) and some color correction the improvement over the GOUT would be even more shocking. I know it's not the goal of the project, just noted.
It would be possible to write a script that automatically corrects the scratches and spots that are present on the DCP and not present on the Blu-ray. But this is for die-hards only, as it needs image registration.
Also, the errors on the Blu-ray are partially reversible. But what for...
jedimasterobiwan said:
thanks if you consider color correcting the back to the future dcp and fixing the dirt and scratches in as well that would be great if not i understand whole hearty or if someone else is doing just that then never mind.
What dirt and scratches do you mean? Could you please elaborate?
ilovewaterslides said:
By the way, I'm keeping you guys informed. I've just received an answer from Universal and they told me the 30th Anniversary edition will use the same masters as the previous release.
Really? That's very nice of them to share infos like that with an individual.
How long is the color problem in the skateboard scene? A few frames in a shot, a whole shot, or several shots throughout the movie?
kk650 said:
You can find comparisons between the DCP and DVD releases on caps-a-holic.
If those are the real thing, then I stand by what I've assumed. The DVD is a bit warmer, hence a bit better, but the difference is so little when they're not side by side that it doesn't affect the viewing experience.
TServo2049 said:
There are/have been 35mm film cells on eBay UK that could be helpful at determining color, even if it's not the same as projecting them. (Also, the auction pics are low res.)
How would a picture of a picture be helpful for that?
Is there a comparison somewhere between the DCP and DVD version? I never really compared them myself, but looking at them independently they both looked fine to me.
The DCP could use a bit more warmth and vividness. It would fit the movie. Perhaps. But it's really icing on the cake...
jedimasterobiwan said:
The first color corrected screencap with the flames really looks bad - too much contrast, burnt out, oversaturated.
The second (Marty's close-up) is just too bright. On that particular frame it's not really a problem, but applying that to the whole film... it would probably be wrong. Brightening up too much is a common problem in home-made remasterings.
Honestly, I don't see the problem with the DCP's colors. I'm not saying I couldn't imagine even hotter colors for the movie, but they look good and consistent.