It is currently 22 Sep 2019, 08:59

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Search found 18 matches

Author Message

 Jump to forum   Jump to topic

Posted: 09 Dec 2012, 20:19 

Since no one has posted a picture from Back to the future, here it is.

[Reveal] Spoiler:
Image

 Jump to forum   Jump to topic

 Post subject: Re: Laserdisc vs DVD
Posted: 25 Oct 2017, 22:50 

I find this discussion kind of funny... We're currently in the age of digitizing and most countries have started major restoration efforts of their films. Currently the Swedish Film Institute is restoring Det sjunde inseglet in 4K (original negative scan) and their goal is to make the film look like it did when first released back in 1957. If there's damage, they'll try to fix it. If something's missing, they'll try to fix it. If the audio has high-frequency noise, they'll try to fix it. And the list goes on.

Some may say that this is altering history. All I have to tell these people is that they have absolutley no idea of what they're talking about nor any idea how these restorations are made. If they come to a point where the damages cannot be repaired without it looking repaired, they'll just leave it as it is. Or if they cannot find any of the eventually missing frames, they won't put in any new ones unless the final results look like it was originally supposed to.

With high enough resolution (2K is actually enough for most productions), as well as uncompressed scans to work with and good source material, there are incredible possibilites for a re-release. Dirt, damages, scratches and mold were never intended to be seen in a feature film, just like chroma noise from Laserdisc isn't making the final result look anywhere near the intended image of that very same feature. DVD was certainly a step up but not really preferable on modern displays. Blu-Ray is decent but really not more. And UHD-BD... Well, now we're talking. :)

So please, get out of your trenches and see the possibilites with digital instead of the obstacle of it not being analog (which is the most illogical statement ever). I mean... third gen theatrical 35mm prints didn't look very pretty. A 2K DCP would give you results much closer to the intended look.

 Jump to forum   Jump to topic

 Post subject: Re: Laserdisc vs DVD
Posted: 26 Oct 2017, 14:04 

Seriously, who’s the real idiot? Forper or someone who shoves the same facts down his neck every 6-8 weeks on command with zero results?
First of all, what makes you think my post was aimed to Forper? And second, if you've stated that Blu-Rays on CRT is like "Laserdisc with more colors", I would dissuade you from asking who's an idiot.

Ertoili: Blu-Ray has too many flaws to be any more than decent if you ask me. 4:2:0 sub-sampling and 8-bit color depth are certainly limitations that affects the final image, but it's actually possible to watch a well-mastered Blu-Ray in a movie theater without hurting your eyes so it's certainly watchable.

Personally I rather see less sub-sampling and higher bit depth than higher resolution, but since UHD-BD has it all I am certainly fond of that medium.

 Jump to forum   Jump to topic

 Post subject: Re: Laserdisc vs DVD
Posted: 27 Oct 2017, 08:38 

I’d like you talk more about my idocy regarding BR on CRT.
You can watch BRs on CRT. I’ve done it 1000 times. It looks like LD with more color, or DVD with no macroblocking.
If the only improvement from LD to Blu-Ray would be the color space, it would be much more difficult to justify an upgrade than it already is.

i have read elsewhere that DVD can go to 720 horizontal resolution. Is that not correct? i always assumed it was 640x480 (and either 480i or 480p) as most DVDs I have ripped become video files at 640x480. In any case, both those figures are far above 500.
He put the numbers in perspective. With analog signals, the horizontal resolution is measured in TVLs. It's simply the maximum amount of visible, distinguishable lines in horizontal lead within a square in the center of the screen. Basically it's the horizontal resolution in contrast with the height of the image and not the total amount of lines that the signal is delivering.

In other words, if the frequency response remain the same throughout the entire image you'll get a total of 565 horizontal lines (425*1,33) in a best-case scenario for Laserdisc (not counting chroma). This is the only real way to measure resolution for an analog medium (including celluloid).

Since DVD is a digital format it uses a fixed, pixel-based resolution. The oddity with DVD is that the total horizontal resolution is 720 pixels but only 704 of these are active. This is a problem for many modern players as those usually process the image based on a 720 pixel count, making diagonal lines non-linear and causing other sorts of scaling artifacts.

DVD also supports various vertical resolutions (480 and 576 vertical lines) and pixel aspect ratios (standard (1.33:1) an anamorphic (1.78:1) but the horizontal, visible lines are always 704. The only possible exception would, in theory, be if MPEG-1 was stored in a resolution if 320*240, which is only supported for backward compability with Video CD but from my knowledge it has never been used on any DVD.

And DVDs should be considered interlaced. The only way to store a feature film in a progressive field order would be to use 25PsF, since the 3:2 cadence simply prevents it from being anything but interlaced when stored in a vertical resolution of 480 lines. Also, the decoded MPEG-stream is in fact either in 480i or 576i, always. This alone makes native progressive video an impossibility on DVD. It is always possible to de-interlace the signal afterwards of course.

 Jump to forum   Jump to topic

Posted: 31 Oct 2017, 17:43 

For larger quantities, 50 cent is a lot per unit but for the buyer it isn't. Adjusting the final price to cover up such an expensive will not really be noticed by anyone.

 Jump to forum   Jump to topic

 Post subject: Re: Laserdisc vs DVD
Posted: 05 Dec 2017, 17:36 

No, not really. While grain is technically possible on Laserdisc, it's never really what you see in major features. For films shot on 8mm (and, in best case, 16mm) Laserdisc could have some of the grain remaining although the noise of the medium itself will most likely be overwhelming. For 35mm, the grain is simply too small in order to be intact on Laserdisc.

With high enough resolution and decent compression algorithms, both H.264 and H.265 are capable of represent the grain of pretty much any film regardless of stock. And this can then be used for home video distribution.

I recommend having a look at Arrow's Blu-Rays for anyone who doubts my statement. They put more effort into their masters than Criterion and it looks fantastic. Easily among the most film-like experiences you can have in your own home.

 Jump to forum   Jump to topic

Posted: 09 Jan 2018, 10:19 

We all know that the infamous VNL1779 isn't manufactured anymore by Pioneer and for several years it has been both expensive and difficult to find. Since I'm studying 3D technology at college right now, I've decided to recreate the M holder with the help of IronCAD and several 3D printers. I'll do several prototypes and once I've managed to get it right I'll then be able to make some of these (hopefully with a Fortus) for those of you who need one. I'll also publish the final stl files on Thingiverse so anyone'll be able to download them and play for themselves.

Since this is a project for educational purposes, I cannot charge you for any of this (apart from the shipping). You may not use the finished parts to make any kind of profit neither. You may only get one for individual use.

 Global announcement   Jump to topic

Posted:  

 Jump to forum   Jump to topic

 Post subject: Re: The Matrix LD vs DVD
Posted: 27 Jul 2018, 16:20 

Photobucket really hates me, so it took me much more effort than I first thought to get these captures saved and so I uploaded them again. Also added two screenshots from the DVD.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1DBFWS ... lA2g5uGVfw

 Jump to forum   Jump to topic

 Post subject: Re: The Matrix LD vs DVD
Posted: 27 Jul 2018, 18:04 

Just a suggestion: Get the UHD-BD and forget about everything else. In fact, it's a really nice release that makes great use of the format. While both the LD and DVD were great for the time, it's very clear that we've moved a long way in terms of home video since then.

EDIT: I stopped using Photobucket several years ago, but have plenty of photos left there. Nowadays I just use Google Drive. Not convenient for forums but much easier to handle.

 Jump to forum   Jump to topic

 Post subject: Re: The Matrix LD vs DVD
Posted: 28 Jul 2018, 20:03 

It's so funny how all people are complaining about "history revision" yet have no experience whatsoever in this business. I'm a film restorer and colorist. Here's a little thing for you all to consider before you start yelling how inaccurate modern releases are:

During the 80s and 90s, most TV manufacturers (especially Sony with their Trinitron sets) had such terrible accuracy out of the box with major blue push. We do see this kind of torch mode today of course, but back then there was really not as much interest for consumers to calibrate their displays and as the movie studios have always been interested in making money, most films that appeared on home video and Laserdisc were to a certain point color timed to compensate for these inaccurate sets (hence red push was very common on masters in this era of time). This meant that pretty much every DVD you'll find by MGM released prior to 2005 or such will have an overly reddish tone and all share the exact same characteristic. Only problem however is that most of these films had much more sophisticated color timings than what we saw on VHS and DVD yet people still take this for granted.

And this becomes extremely clear when you start to have a look at the physical films in an archive. Theatrical prints, even though they never tend to have much sharpness, are usually what we go after. And they rarely have much in common with an outdated VHS, Laserdisc or DVD. Of course we can still have a look at a home video release just for the sake of it, but we know that it has been going through way too many compromises to be used as a reference.

For instance, I had the chance to check out Thief on a Swedish 35mm print from the early 80s. I kept the new grade that's used on the Criterion and Arrow releases (Director's Cut only), as people have complained for years for it being inaccurate. Look at this comparison: http://www.caps-a-holic.com/c.php?go=1&a=0&d1=3606&d2=5422&s1=33376&s2=50607&i=6&l=0
And guess what? This scene was so cold and blue, even when only going through a photochemical process, that's it's not even debateable. The MGM was so off you wouldn't believe it, while the restoration by Criterion keeps it all intact.

Many people complained about the Scanners Blu-Ray by Criterion yet relatively few (in contrast) seem to even have seen it. I've got the BD myself and have honestly no doubt that it's an accurate presentation of the films intended look. The entire process was also supervised by David Cronenberg himself and from my experience, both directors and cinematagraphers tend to remember the color timings and gradings that were used for their films.

As a colorist at one the oldest film archives in the world, I have no intention in changing how the films I grade are supposed to look. I can do plenty of research before I settle down with my work, but sometimes you will have to take a chance if it's unclear just how the film was really supposed to look. Then I will have to look at other factors that play in and try to make a decision from there, but I don't go to Blu-Ray.com or this forum to ask for suggestions. I have a very difficult time believing that someone who hangs around there or at this place, who I don't know through my job, would be of any help when I'm facing a problem like that.

 Jump to forum   Jump to topic

Posted: 29 Dec 2018, 23:19 

HDR consists of so much more than just the light output. The entire EOTF is completely different from that of SDR, which on fixed pixel displays emulates the way CRT monitors operates and that is also how the Kuros operates. Also, AFAIK the Kuro is bound to BT.709 and BT.601.

Very few displays are limited to sub 100cd/m² light output from my experience. Certain Grade1 CRT monitors have a maximum light output of 70-80cd/m² (which is tolerable by the EBU standards). Guess it can also occur on very old plasmas if we're talking consumer grade products but I'm not completely sure I've seen it.

 Jump to forum   Jump to topic

Posted: 05 Jan 2019, 14:58 

There are actually decent telecine solutions today for both 16 and 35mm film. In comparison to Datacine and similar solutions (Scanity, GoldenEye, Cintel etc) their main pro is speed, which is certainly a factor for all those thousands of newsreels and such that the archives want digitized in high quality but don't feel like spending more than a couple of years to complete. Modern professional cameras are actually in many cases more than good enough to capture most of the information from celluloid film right away unless it's in rather poor condition - especially if the colors are very faded. In those cases you really want high quality RAW or DPX files to work with rather than ProRes. Most telecine machines nowadays offer quite decent grade solutions which may not remove the need of post-grading completely but it makes the entire process so much easier.

I've been working with a Blackmagic Cintel 2 scanner for the past month and it's really fantastic considering its pricepoint. It does have certain flaws, like the lack of WTW coverage (though BTB is still intact) and the bayern sensor can be a bit noisy if you're not using the chroma NR tools in Davinci but overall I'm pretty much stunned. However, if you're visiting TV studios and film archives you'll actually notice that many of them have rebuilt their old telecine scanners from the 80s and 90s by reverse engineering so they now output HD formats instead. Quite fascinating to say the last. I'd really love to get hold of an old Mark 3 or something like that for a low price and try to make it useable in a modern, digital workflow at some point.

 Jump to forum   Jump to topic

Posted: 06 Jan 2019, 09:29 

Nobody believes the VHS/LD look that misty; anyway watch the blue color how natural it is (right) and how it is oversaturated on the HD release

https://tamashii.jp/images/item/item_0000012456_MV0Dmd7f_14.jpg
The more apparent blue color on the recent release is actually due to the smaller dynamic range. I am not familiar with any of the animes you've posted images from but based on what I see I think there's a chance that those old VHS versions are sourced from low-contrast prints which by nature have high black level as well as greyish whites and usually end up with muted colors unless properly color corrected.

I did a small test with my quoted example in Photoshop. All I adjusted was the white and black clipping plus middle grey point. And as you can clearly see, they offer much of the same characteristics with some minor differences in hue. It's just that the old master was improperly mastered in a very basic way, which I believe was very common at the time.
https://i.imgur.com/cAMSxqd.png

I'd say low contrast prints most certainly need to be graded in post though usually a telecine transfer is a decent enough source most of the time for that purpose.

 Jump to forum   Jump to topic

Posted: 05 Aug 2019, 19:35 

Major downside with this release is that it won't have the new 4K masters, probably because Toho won't want to license those before they put out their own box set. Considering how much more expensive this collection would've been in Japan and that there are no restrictions regarding region coding between Asia and North America, Toho would probably lose way too much money to let Criterion put them out in the US. A shame but that's the way it is. :(

 Jump to forum   Jump to topic

Posted: 11 Aug 2019, 11:07 

I've got to agree with Signofzeta in his his Spotify and SACD comparison. If we were talking about a pre 50s film, were many prints were indeed made directly from the camera negative (which is sacrilege), those old theatrical prints on nitrate film that still exist can actually hold up very well. But in this case, without knowing anything really about SW, I believe we are talking about prints that have gone through multiple generations due to optical effects and have most likely been screened many times over so scratches and damages would be very apparent. Color fading will probably also be a problem, depending on the film stock. No official, "serious" restoration would be done with such a source unless there's nothing else available. Sure you can do digital restoration but anyone who've spent hours in Phoenix or DRS Nova knows for sure that those prints are in many cases just like polishing a turd. The end results may admittedly have a certain charm in its visual appearence and the fan work would certainly be appreciated, but still a long way from a "regular" restoration even on a minimum basis.

Also, if you're scanning a theatrical print the results will be highly dependent on your scanner due to the high contrast. The Cintel II, which I'm working with, tend to struggle with shadow details when scannings prints, but duplicate positives/negatives and camera negatives are much easier to achieve good results with. The HDR mode can certainly get the job done with prints but at the cost of taking four times as long to scan the film. Scanity, Scanstation and ArriScan all fare clearly better in this regard but are also much more expensive.

While there may not be an original camera negative left that's actually usable, I'm fairly sure there are still IPs that would still be up to the task. Still, as a film archivist I know for sure you cannot be completely certain about the availability of a specific film. But, in this case... I believe there are still ways for Disney to create an unaltetered version of the film.

 Jump to forum   Jump to topic

Posted: 24 Aug 2019, 20:52 

What restoration software are you using? I've been using Phoenix Touch with plugins for video restoration for around 1½ year but I mostly use that software for film restoration. Believe that PFClean also offers such tools as well.
I try everything to use that I have. In this case I used PFclean. I will show the final result of the video.
Updated: It is ready - https://vimeo.com/355738086/d58da3b15b
Nice work! :) Looks very clean to be sourced from a Laserdisc, though it looks like you've kept the 7.5IRE black level untouched. Could be for archival purposes however.

I'll see if I can get some LD content off my digitizing setup and run through Phoenix next week (got a CLD-D604 with external TBC plus a Teranex as well as Hyperdeck for processing and capturing).

 Jump to forum   Jump to topic

 Post subject: Re: Looking for Pokemon LD
Posted: 18 Sep 2019, 19:20 

I once bought this LD on Yahoo Auctions for a fellow of mine. It sold for 700 yen, back in 2015. Hard to believe it have gone up in price this much.
Page 1 of 1 [ Search found 18 matches ]


All times are UTC [ DST ]


Jump to:  

cron