From now on, I'll use UAR instead AAP-AR - what does it mean that "U"? U know it! Unconventional, Unexpected, Unorthodox, Ultimate, Unusual, Unified, Useless... pick your poison!

---

Resident Evil (2002): released the SD test version, feedbacks are welcome! https://fanrestore.com/thread-2043.html

---

Jurassic Park III first quick tests (top HDTV, bottom UAR 1.33:1+1.78:1 with magenta blanked removed, and *cinematic* contrast):







http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparis.../picture:1

as you can see in the first image, sometimes the fullscreen has just a little bit more on top and/or bottom, and cropped on one or both sides, but other times it has a lot more on top and bottom... so, even if usually I love the philosophy of "less is more", here I think it's better the "more is more"! (also, was tired of the magenta sky found in this trilogy, and in quite many other 80s and 90s flicks...

I like your Useless AR™.

(2018-02-20, 10:00 PM)TomArrow Wrote: I like your Useless AR™.

I knew it, wrote this thinking about you, and waiting for the comment!

Now, go get it - or watch it online - and let me know what do you think about...

What do you mean, watch it? I thought only first tests were done.

I was talking about Resident Evil...

Oh I would, but I'm not currently keen on watching those movies. I'll definitely check JP3 though, when it's done. *spam spam*

(2018-01-06, 09:41 PM)spoRv Wrote:

Theory: Axis-Aligned Polygon Aspect Ratio™ by spoRv

Practice: AutoOverlay Avisynth plugin by random.next

Long story short: AAP-AR combines two (or more) sources, usually letterbox and open matte or fullscreen, to get more image, using an unconventional aspect ratio, like the following (red letterbox source, green open matte source):



So far, random.next released some titles which overlay letterbox sources to an open matte sources, to get improved details; still, the AR is always 1.78:1.

He also made an experimental version of Terminator 2, which uses an AAP-AR, but fills the corner with something he defines "ambilight" (a technique that takes part of the surrounding image to fill the corners somehow, but it's not impainting); so, this version technically does not use AAP-AR at the end.

Now, using his wonderful plugin, it would be possible to release a complete film using AAP-AR with (almost no) manual intervention, a thing that prevented this in the past - it would be unthinkable for a fan to spend months of hard work to find out crop and resize settings for thousand shots and 150000+ frames!

Testing this plugin right now, and results are really promising; thinking to release an AAP-AR project really soon, as I thought about this since a very long time - as you can read in my restoration tip, which was originally posted almost four years ago.

So, I have three questions:

1. is there any interest in an AAP-AR project?
   
2. what is the best name for this kind of AR? (AAP-AR is not the easiest one, frankly)
   
3. would this worth a new moniker for a separate collection, or would fit in the existing one?
   

My answer to my own questions are

1. yes! Watching an AAP-AR movie is a great experience; it gives you much more image, having the "best of both worlds"; and the strange AR would pass soon unnoticed (or, at least, not that noticed) - much better than, say, wear 3D glasses for two hours!
   
2. AAP-AR, even if technically correct, is not "cool"; I thought about unconventional, unorthodox, unusual aspect ratio, that would all lead to UAR.
   
3. dunno! Would be the occasion also to release projects with a color grading "inspired by film, but not so close"...
   

Waiting for your opinions!

Edit: a picture worth more than thousand words... so, here you are an actual example of AAP-AR using three sources (still work in progress)

for example, this image has around 43% more image than BD... not that bad, huh?

A little strange, but satisfying at the same time. It's a cool idea.

(2018-02-21, 01:55 AM)scoobsmcdoobs Wrote: A little strange, but satisfying at the same time. It's a cool idea.

Agree! Thanks!

---

Resident Evil - received a third SDTV source, I'm working (again! ) on it to get even better quality for the whole film, and A LOT better one for the few shots missing in the main source, where I was forced to use a lower quality one; final quality is expected to be "phenomenal" (giving the fact fullscreen is from SDTV and not DVD!)

---

Jurassic Park III - still thinking "why I had to start to test with the latest episode of the trilogy" (Jurassic World is another story, let's talk about it in a near future...) - maybe because "Blessed are the last for they shall be first!", dunno... long story short, test seems finished very well, and end result seems great! Oh guys, I'm so deeply involved in this UAR "affaire" - always thought to do that, much earlier than even know what a fan edit was!

---

Thinking about other movies to do... of course, I should finish The Matrix - thanks to the amount of time and endless tests made with RE1, I have new knowledge and experience (I hope so) to get better results; less alignment errors, more color matching, better picture quality... we'll see, only times will tell!

Three sources UAR are a pain in the... neck; but it seems there are not so many films with real fullscreen AND open matte versions - I noted that many FS are simply cropped versions of OM - *luckily*!

More, a two sources UAR using open matte and letterbox version could always use YAO sub hack to mask added part of the image, so you end up with a "mere" letterbox edition, while you can *discover* the UAR version just disabling the YAO subtitle track... great hack, don't you think?

The same can be made with UAR using fullscreen and open matte, but there are two options here: retain the fullscreen version "as is", but have it placed left or right, or get the image centered, but have some instance of "kinda-not-centered-pan-and-scan" version (you know, when the fullscreen is placed offset); I noted there are not many instances of that, and most of the times they are like 50 pixel offset (less than 4%) so I think it would be less distracting for the viewer to get sometimes a part of the image missing on left or right, than have the whole fullscreen frame "dancing" left and right... what do you think?

Of course, no YAO hack for three sources UAR - that's an "all or nothing" situation, I'm afraid... and, at the end, while a two sources UAR is for (almost) everyone, a three sources UAR is just for the die-hard fans, or crazy ones like me and few others (you know I'm talking about you! )

(2018-02-23, 12:51 AM)spoRv Wrote: More, a two sources UAR using open matte and letterbox version could always use YAO sub hack to mask added part of the image, so you end up with a "mere" letterbox edition, while you can *discover* the UAR version just disabling the YAO subtitle track... great hack, don't you think?

Yes, sir. I also think YAO would work for 3-source versions, if a little bit less elegant (with the borders jumping around due to little consistency). This could probably be done programmatically, if you use the stats-file method and all the alignments are saved in that stats-file. The stats-files could then be parsed, analyzed and for every frame a kind of "3-way rectangular overlap" could be calculated, so that you would end up with a rectangular image for each frame, even if it wouldn't be consistent across the whole movie. Would need some really special project to make it worth doing tho, as programming that might be a little challenge.

(2018-02-23, 12:51 AM)spoRv Wrote: (you know I'm talking about you! )

Just who might you mean.

Well, YAO could not be used "wisely" with three sources UAR... let's take The Matrix screenshot for example; there you could select the fullscreen (but it is offset); few shots after there could be only two sources used, hence you would select the letterbox; all in all, you will get a VAR version, jumping from 2.35:1 to 1.33:1 (which often is not placed in the center, and would be "clumsy or random as a blaster"!

Don't think one would swap a hard-to-watch version with another of a different kind... my two cents, of course!

Tested right now the YAO with RE1 (the fixed center version) and it works pretty well; sure, sometimes you get one or two black angles at one side or the other, but it's a way less distracting than costantly changing aspect ratio - not to me, but for the "average joe" that took twenty years to be used to watch letterbox versions instead pan&scan!

I think the UAR - in particular thinking about two sources ones + YAO hack - has a lot of potential; one could watch it as it is intended, with more image on top/bottom or sides, or select the YAO hack and watch it as a normal fullscreen or letterbox version - where fullscreen would always be better than a simple upscale, using the center "slice" of the image from a real HD source (taking always in account that small erratic black angles that occurs sometimes, of course)

---

Creep - an example of a two sources UAR; this time I also tested the "horror" regrade preset, and it works quite well!

OM Vs UAR: http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/132543
OAR Vs UAR: http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/132942