(2018-04-21, 12:04 AM)CSchmidlapp Wrote:

(2018-04-20, 11:27 PM)crampedmisfit1990 Wrote: I might need a few pointers on re-inserting the corrected frames back into the film after TomArrow corrects them. I do edit films sometimes but I am still learning a few things. I would need to know how to do it as lossless as possible. Any help and advice will be greatly appreciated and will enable me to fix other films myself.

Have a look at this piece of software bud. http://tmpgenc.pegasys-inc.com/en/product/tmsr5.html

Thanks! I saw in a recent search that this was a useful tool for these types of projects. Glad to see you back this one up, gives me more of a reason to learn to use it. I am also very excited to do a movie project now because I recently built myself a gaming pc and have a lot of power to work on these kinds of projects as well. A hell of a lot more than a few months ago.

(2018-04-20, 07:08 PM)zoidberg Wrote: As I understand it the film (ie intellectual property) is public domain. Anyone who has access to original materials can make a master and put it out there for public viewing. From what I can gather certain restorations, editing changes etc. can make public domain films eligible for a new copyright for that individual instance, this is the case for Criterion NotLD (licensed by MoMA/Image Ten). It's a similar situation to Triumph of the Will (as restored by Robert A. Harris).

This was discussed on OT. This appears NOT to be the case generally speaking, although some countries may have differing laws.

(2018-04-21, 06:37 AM)Valeyard Wrote: This was discussed on OT. This appears NOT to be the case generally speaking, although some countries may have differing laws.

Yes I saw that thread, there were some very confident assertions being made. Has anyone taken it upon themselves to put this to the test? If what they're saying is true they should be able to contact Image Ten, access the new 4K master effortlessly, make the fixes they want and release it themselves. They could even release it in 4K UHD HDR(with Dobly and HDR10+)!

In any case it looks like crampedmisfit is getting some help from Tom, I hope things work out OK

(2018-04-21, 08:10 AM)zoidberg Wrote: Yes I saw that thread, there were some very confident assertions being made. Has anyone taken it upon themselves to put this to the test? If what they're saying is true they should be able to contact Image Ten, access the new 4K master effortlessly, make the fixes they want and release it themselves. They could even release it in 4K UHD HDR(with Dobly and HDR10+)!

In any case it looks like crampedmisfit is getting some help from Tom, I hope things work out OK

There's no obligation on Image Ten to provide free access to their 4K master. The point was they can't put a copyright onto a public domain work, yes restorations are very expensive and they are perfectly within their rights to sell copies to make a profit, but at the end of the day if you want to copy the film (not the entire bluray, just the film) there is nothing they or Criterion can do to stop you, and you can sell your own copies of it if you want (just as long as you don't include anything that is copyrighted, like the bluray menus or extras).

I was thinking maybe it could be cool to use the workprint offered as bonus, and patch the missing parts with the final print, to create a hybrid version, maybe in widescreen as the film was shown originaly in 1.85:1. The workprint as more left and right info.

(2018-04-21, 10:39 AM)Stamper Wrote: I was thinking maybe it could be cool to use the workprint offered as bonus, and patch the missing parts with the final print, to create a hybrid version, maybe in widescreen as the film was shown originaly in 1.85:1. The workprint as more left and right info.

This sounds like a great idea

Well, I would have wanted to do this, but the new master shows that shot for a longer time than the old one, so it's not really possible to mask it out for those additional frames. So I guess the options are to either use some form of inpainting or repeat information from the previous frames, as it is in a spot that doesn't have much movement. Or combine both a little. I'm not sure I'm motivated enough to do that though. Also, for some strange reason the sources don't seem to be 100% in sync. Did they drop some frames for the Criterion remaster?

(2018-04-21, 12:36 PM)TomArrow Wrote: Well, I would have wanted to do this, but the new master shows that shot for a longer time than the old one, so it's not really possible to mask it out for those additional frames. So I guess the options are to either use some form of inpainting or repeat information from the previous frames, as it is in a spot that doesn't have much movement. Or combine both a little. I'm not sure I'm motivated enough to do that though. Also, for some strange reason the sources don't seem to be 100% in sync. Did they drop some frames for the Criterion remaster?

I actually noticed the new BD had that shot a bit longer but assumed you could match only the frames that needed fixing. I have no idea why that shot would have been shortened on older BD releases though. Seems odd.

Unfortunately the copyright notice is also over the frames that are not in the old master.

May someone post pictures of the guilty shot, with and without copyright notice? Thanks!