<![CDATA[Fanrestore - Fan Restoration Forum - Restoration guides]]> https://fanrestore.com/ Thu, 23 Apr 2026 12:42:07 +0000 MyBB <![CDATA[Removal of Film Gate Weave]]> https://fanrestore.com/thread-6572.html Mon, 20 Oct 2025 21:02:14 +0000 Wak Nanook]]> https://fanrestore.com/thread-6572.html
I use DaVinci Resolve for my edits. I’ve tried all the stabilizations offered with the software, but without film sprocket information, it seems impossible to remove the gate weave except for frame by frame adjustments. Which I have done. It’s no fun, haha.

Does anybody have any software/procedure suggestions?]]>
I use DaVinci Resolve for my edits. I’ve tried all the stabilizations offered with the software, but without film sprocket information, it seems impossible to remove the gate weave except for frame by frame adjustments. Which I have done. It’s no fun, haha.

Does anybody have any software/procedure suggestions?]]> <![CDATA[Restore missing corners?]]> https://fanrestore.com/thread-5368.html Mon, 10 Jul 2023 11:35:56 +0000 bobbster574]]> https://fanrestore.com/thread-5368.html

I've been restoring some Dark Knight footage and as its an open matte + widescreen overlay there are inevitably missing corners. so far the overlap has been enough that i'm happy just cropping out the corners but there's one shot in particular that i'd like to at least explore the possibility of restoring the corners in some capacity.

I've done some research but mostly drew blanks. Undecided

There's the ambilight thing which uses the existing image and seems to blur/scale it to attempt to fill the rest of the frame. it does a decent job for empty sky where its all basically the same colour but as soon as some detail enters the corner area it becomes quite noticable imo. i dont think its really meant for any kind of restoration tho (more as just a way to fill a frame without just leaving it black)

I also came across AI in/outpainting. idea being use AI to fill the gaps. seems interesting, but kind of arkward to get working. for starters, filling in corners is neither true inpainting nor true outpainting. you got 2/4 sides where there is info, the other 2 theres nothing.

had a go using a couple inpainting models for ESRGAN, kinda promising for tiny corners, but beyond that it doesnt really help. understandable, im going beyond what the model is made for. and again, works well when theres no detail, but detail approaches the corner, it freaks out.

[Image: zG0oPk2.jpg]

you can see in the bottom left and sorta on the top right on the ambilight where details are skewing things. and ofc on the ESRGAN the bottom corners are very noticable.

I couldnt get AI outpainting to work on corners. found a website that did an ok job on a single frame but i havent seen anything thatd work on a batch of frames. and also after experiementation i dont think itd be consistent enough to be any good.

and i couldnt find anything else on the internet that would help.

the other option that jumps out to me is manual compositing which i would totally try if i knew what i was doing. plus i dont want to spend too much time fumbling on this side quest right now.

and so i thought id ask around for ideas and thoughts and stuff bc this would be helpful for not only my current project, but potentially future projects, and also other ppls projects Blush]]>

I've been restoring some Dark Knight footage and as its an open matte + widescreen overlay there are inevitably missing corners. so far the overlap has been enough that i'm happy just cropping out the corners but there's one shot in particular that i'd like to at least explore the possibility of restoring the corners in some capacity.

I've done some research but mostly drew blanks. Undecided

There's the ambilight thing which uses the existing image and seems to blur/scale it to attempt to fill the rest of the frame. it does a decent job for empty sky where its all basically the same colour but as soon as some detail enters the corner area it becomes quite noticable imo. i dont think its really meant for any kind of restoration tho (more as just a way to fill a frame without just leaving it black)

I also came across AI in/outpainting. idea being use AI to fill the gaps. seems interesting, but kind of arkward to get working. for starters, filling in corners is neither true inpainting nor true outpainting. you got 2/4 sides where there is info, the other 2 theres nothing.

had a go using a couple inpainting models for ESRGAN, kinda promising for tiny corners, but beyond that it doesnt really help. understandable, im going beyond what the model is made for. and again, works well when theres no detail, but detail approaches the corner, it freaks out.

[Image: zG0oPk2.jpg]

you can see in the bottom left and sorta on the top right on the ambilight where details are skewing things. and ofc on the ESRGAN the bottom corners are very noticable.

I couldnt get AI outpainting to work on corners. found a website that did an ok job on a single frame but i havent seen anything thatd work on a batch of frames. and also after experiementation i dont think itd be consistent enough to be any good.

and i couldnt find anything else on the internet that would help.

the other option that jumps out to me is manual compositing which i would totally try if i knew what i was doing. plus i dont want to spend too much time fumbling on this side quest right now.

and so i thought id ask around for ideas and thoughts and stuff bc this would be helpful for not only my current project, but potentially future projects, and also other ppls projects Blush]]> <![CDATA[Integration of an element in a scene?]]> https://fanrestore.com/thread-5174.html Sat, 25 Mar 2023 13:52:00 +0000 framemaster]]> https://fanrestore.com/thread-5174.html I isolated the chair from the blu ray 3D and I try to integrate it into the UHD but I don’t know which is the most suitable tool.
I tried with premiere pro and chroma key effects, but the results are not great


The missing chair (UHD / BD) :

https://i.imgur.com/jRIzxRb.jpg

BD 3D :
https://i.imgur.com/AiHxf6J.jpeg

My integration of the chair on the UHD (Premiere Pro WIP) :

https://i.imgur.com/PNbeN6o.jpg

The legs of the chair cross the character.

I can't properly put the chair behind Gaston and Lefou on Premiere Pro.
I think the only solution would be to clean up every frame, but that would take way too long.

If I can't integrate the chair on the 4k, I'll just use the scene from the 35mm scan when it's funded.]]> I isolated the chair from the blu ray 3D and I try to integrate it into the UHD but I don’t know which is the most suitable tool.
I tried with premiere pro and chroma key effects, but the results are not great


The missing chair (UHD / BD) :

https://i.imgur.com/jRIzxRb.jpg

BD 3D :
https://i.imgur.com/AiHxf6J.jpeg

My integration of the chair on the UHD (Premiere Pro WIP) :

https://i.imgur.com/PNbeN6o.jpg

The legs of the chair cross the character.

I can't properly put the chair behind Gaston and Lefou on Premiere Pro.
I think the only solution would be to clean up every frame, but that would take way too long.

If I can't integrate the chair on the 4k, I'll just use the scene from the 35mm scan when it's funded.]]> <![CDATA[How does one do reverse projection?]]> https://fanrestore.com/thread-4828.html Sun, 05 Jun 2022 19:45:08 +0000 Mediahead]]> https://fanrestore.com/thread-4828.html
Example image:
[Image: image.png]

That is all.. I hope you'll bear with my silly question Tongue]]>
Example image:
[Image: image.png]

That is all.. I hope you'll bear with my silly question Tongue]]> <![CDATA[spoRv Gauge calculator]]> https://fanrestore.com/thread-4583.html Sun, 02 Jan 2022 21:13:45 +0000 spoRv]]> https://fanrestore.com/thread-4583.html
https://blog.sporv.com/sporv-gauge-calculator
[Image: spo-Rv-Gauge-calculator.png]]]>
https://blog.sporv.com/sporv-gauge-calculator
[Image: spo-Rv-Gauge-calculator.png]]]> <![CDATA[Dc3up™ (Audio source combination)]]> https://fanrestore.com/thread-4346.html Tue, 02 Nov 2021 23:59:52 +0000 Mediahead]]> https://fanrestore.com/thread-4346.html audio sources to maybe increase quality. I was inspired by spoRv's PaNup to maybe combine the signals of both a decoded lossy AC3 and DTS track from the same DVD(or LD) and combine them to make something a bit less lossy, for editing purposes. (Mainly standards conversion through speeding up or slowing down. ) 

I wonder what people's thoughts are on this, or if I am completely crazy ?]]> audio sources to maybe increase quality. I was inspired by spoRv's PaNup to maybe combine the signals of both a decoded lossy AC3 and DTS track from the same DVD(or LD) and combine them to make something a bit less lossy, for editing purposes. (Mainly standards conversion through speeding up or slowing down. ) 

I wonder what people's thoughts are on this, or if I am completely crazy ?]]> <![CDATA[Simple Single Source Logo Removal]]> https://fanrestore.com/thread-4322.html Wed, 27 Oct 2021 22:35:35 +0000 Mediahead]]> https://fanrestore.com/thread-4322.html )
Whether you are trying to get an HD master of an obscure foreign film, or want something open matte, logos can be the bane of your existence.
[Image: image.png]
pictured: the bane of your existence
Also: the bane of your existence, manually repainting frames or D.I.Y. matte painting! Or, trying to find original matte paintings.
Before I share I will list what is required (or at least, what I used.):
rm_logo (avisynth)
Topaz Video Enhance AI(although we will be using it for unintended purposes)
Any compositing software
Any image editing software

First, load your video into AVISynth (I use the staxrip variety), and use rm_logo as you normally would, creating a mask and all that.
Since my logo(s) is transparent, I used deblend mode. I then ran 
Code:
MipSmooth(downsizer="lanczos", upsizer="bilinear", scalefactor=1.5, method="strong")
(default parameters for MipSmooth in staxrip) and crop()'d it down only to where the logo is.(I had to do this twice.)

Next, save that and drag the .avs file directly into enhance AI.
Select Proteus and change the parameters until the usual de-logoing artifacts go away, and it looks a bit like Peter Jackson got a hold of your clip (let's see how well that joke ages Tongue )
[Image: image.png]
These are the settings I used, and you can see the results here:
[Image: image.png]
(please excuse the poor cropping)
I saved this as an h.264 mp4 with a CRF of 12, but it doesn't matter too much.
Next, position your clip into the frame, and make a mask where your logos are. (this is so there isn't a jarring rectangle of smoothness)
[Image: image.png]
Import your original logo-ed footage into the composition, and apply the mask.
[Image: image.png]
...et voilà! Your video now has no logo!

(one last example):
[Image: image.png]
[Image: image.png]

Now, I heavily recommend applying a grain plate or something similar over this, as you likely should for all HDTV rips, but other than that, you would agree it looks pretty good? Right? (hopefully, for my sake Shy )

I hope this is helpful to anyone who needs it, and thank you for reading my post!
]]> )
Whether you are trying to get an HD master of an obscure foreign film, or want something open matte, logos can be the bane of your existence.
[Image: image.png]
pictured: the bane of your existence
Also: the bane of your existence, manually repainting frames or D.I.Y. matte painting! Or, trying to find original matte paintings.
Before I share I will list what is required (or at least, what I used.):
rm_logo (avisynth)
Topaz Video Enhance AI(although we will be using it for unintended purposes)
Any compositing software
Any image editing software

First, load your video into AVISynth (I use the staxrip variety), and use rm_logo as you normally would, creating a mask and all that.
Since my logo(s) is transparent, I used deblend mode. I then ran 
Code:
MipSmooth(downsizer="lanczos", upsizer="bilinear", scalefactor=1.5, method="strong")
(default parameters for MipSmooth in staxrip) and crop()'d it down only to where the logo is.(I had to do this twice.)

Next, save that and drag the .avs file directly into enhance AI.
Select Proteus and change the parameters until the usual de-logoing artifacts go away, and it looks a bit like Peter Jackson got a hold of your clip (let's see how well that joke ages Tongue )
[Image: image.png]
These are the settings I used, and you can see the results here:
[Image: image.png]
(please excuse the poor cropping)
I saved this as an h.264 mp4 with a CRF of 12, but it doesn't matter too much.
Next, position your clip into the frame, and make a mask where your logos are. (this is so there isn't a jarring rectangle of smoothness)
[Image: image.png]
Import your original logo-ed footage into the composition, and apply the mask.
[Image: image.png]
...et voilà! Your video now has no logo!

(one last example):
[Image: image.png]
[Image: image.png]

Now, I heavily recommend applying a grain plate or something similar over this, as you likely should for all HDTV rips, but other than that, you would agree it looks pretty good? Right? (hopefully, for my sake Shy )

I hope this is helpful to anyone who needs it, and thank you for reading my post!
]]> <![CDATA[Setting the standards: audio capture, release, comparison]]> https://fanrestore.com/thread-4240.html Fri, 01 Oct 2021 16:32:04 +0000 spoRv]]> https://fanrestore.com/thread-4240.html
There are my guidelines - please let me know if you agree or if not, state reason and alternative.

AUDIO CAPTURE

PCM tracks:
  • if a bit-perfect capture card is available, capture it at 44.1kHz/16bit
  • if a bit-perfect capture card or digital input is not available, capture it at 48kHz/24bit from analog outputs to avoid second conversion
Analog tracks: capture at 48kHz/24bit

AC-3 tracks: bit-perfect capture card with digital input and AC-3 demodulator are needed; capture at 48kHz

DTS tracks: bit-perfect capture card with digital input; capture at 44.1kHz/16bit

AUDIO RELEASE (captured tracks)

PCM tracks:
  • if captured with a bit-perfect capture card, release as 44.1kHz/16bit is mandatory; a 48kHz/16bit conversion is allowed
  • if captured through analog outputs, release as 48kHz/16bit
Analog tracks: release as 48kHz/16bit

AC-3 tracks: release as 48kHz/XXbit - where XX is the number of bit of the AC-3 track when de-encapsulated

DTS tracks: release as 44.1kHz/16bit is mandatory; a 48kHz/16bit conversion is allowed

Release formats: WAV, FLAC; DD ONLY for untouched AC-3 captures; DTS ONLY for untouched DTS capture

Note: releasing captures at more than 16bit is useless, while capturing at 96kHz is not only useless, but can also be harmful, introducing unwanted high frequencies and forcing the capture card to use slightly less dynamic range than 48kHz.

AUDIO CONVERSION

Question: what about captured track levels? Set the maximum at 0dB? Set the maximum according to other tracks if in sync?

AUDIO RELEASE (other tracks)

The following guidelines could be applied only if the audio is edited; if the track is untouched, release it "as is".

Dolby Digital: while professional encoders have good quality, the free ones are noticeable less refined; hence if you decide to release tracks in Dolby Digital using a free encoder, use a higher bitrate than the source

Examples:

DD source → DD release (minimum bitrate):
  • 192kbps → 256kbps
  • 256kbps → 384kbps
  • 384kbps → 448kbps
  • 448kbps → 640kbps
  • 640kbps → release as DTS or lossless
  • DD EX → release as DTS-ES or lossless
DD+ source → DD release (minimum bitrate):
  • 192kbps → 384kbps
  • 384kbps → 640kbps
  • 448kbps or higher → release as DTS or lossless
  • 6.1ch or more → release as DTS-ES or lossless
DTS: avoid to use half rate, as it has a rolloff at high frequencies; if you need to have small size track, use DD 640kbps instead.

Examples:

source → DD release (minimum bitrate):
  • DD/DD+ 448kbps or higher → DTS 1536kbps
  • DTS 1536kbps → release lossless
Lossless: PCM, Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD MA sources should be released as well as lossless; anyone of the three main format could be used - PCM, TrueHD, DTS-HD MA - even if different from the source; FLAC is accepted as added option, or only when an audio-only track is released

Bit depth and frequency: I continue to think that releasing track at more than 16bit is useless and more than 96kHz could be harmful; even if someone could theoretically manage to hear the dynamic difference of 98dB that 16bit allowed - maybe using great headphones and risking deafness - I bet it is not possible, using any speaker system, listening to a movie audio track.

AUDIO COMPARISONS

To show audio tracks features graphically, it's possible to post waveforms and spectrums; we have only to find a standard way to do it.

As not everyone could have access to paid tools, I guess we should stick to free software; I'd go with Audacity for waveforms and Spek for spectrums; so we have comparable screenshots.

Set Audacity fullscreen, tracks as wide and high as window, waveforms in dB, meter dB range at (I guess 60dB is the minimum; 96dB is already too much, while 36dB is not enough; sadly someone is posting screenshots from other software with range set at only 24dB; in that way, most of the track seems completely silent!!!); set Spek fullscreen too; release image at 1920px width (scale it if your resolution is bigger or smaller); height is dependant from the number or tracks - for example if you want to show more details in an 8-channel track, you could take two (or more) screenshot and glue them together as a single one.

Note: is there any Nyquist programmer? Would be nice to modify a plugin to get stats similar to professional softwares - nothing fancy, only highest and lowest peaks, noise floor, track length etc.

EDIT: written an article about waveform comparisons - contains different dynamic range from 18dB to 24bit full scale 145dB:
http://blog.sporv.com/comparing-tracks-waveforms/]]>
There are my guidelines - please let me know if you agree or if not, state reason and alternative.

AUDIO CAPTURE

PCM tracks:
  • if a bit-perfect capture card is available, capture it at 44.1kHz/16bit
  • if a bit-perfect capture card or digital input is not available, capture it at 48kHz/24bit from analog outputs to avoid second conversion
Analog tracks: capture at 48kHz/24bit

AC-3 tracks: bit-perfect capture card with digital input and AC-3 demodulator are needed; capture at 48kHz

DTS tracks: bit-perfect capture card with digital input; capture at 44.1kHz/16bit

AUDIO RELEASE (captured tracks)

PCM tracks:
  • if captured with a bit-perfect capture card, release as 44.1kHz/16bit is mandatory; a 48kHz/16bit conversion is allowed
  • if captured through analog outputs, release as 48kHz/16bit
Analog tracks: release as 48kHz/16bit

AC-3 tracks: release as 48kHz/XXbit - where XX is the number of bit of the AC-3 track when de-encapsulated

DTS tracks: release as 44.1kHz/16bit is mandatory; a 48kHz/16bit conversion is allowed

Release formats: WAV, FLAC; DD ONLY for untouched AC-3 captures; DTS ONLY for untouched DTS capture

Note: releasing captures at more than 16bit is useless, while capturing at 96kHz is not only useless, but can also be harmful, introducing unwanted high frequencies and forcing the capture card to use slightly less dynamic range than 48kHz.

AUDIO CONVERSION

Question: what about captured track levels? Set the maximum at 0dB? Set the maximum according to other tracks if in sync?

AUDIO RELEASE (other tracks)

The following guidelines could be applied only if the audio is edited; if the track is untouched, release it "as is".

Dolby Digital: while professional encoders have good quality, the free ones are noticeable less refined; hence if you decide to release tracks in Dolby Digital using a free encoder, use a higher bitrate than the source

Examples:

DD source → DD release (minimum bitrate):
  • 192kbps → 256kbps
  • 256kbps → 384kbps
  • 384kbps → 448kbps
  • 448kbps → 640kbps
  • 640kbps → release as DTS or lossless
  • DD EX → release as DTS-ES or lossless
DD+ source → DD release (minimum bitrate):
  • 192kbps → 384kbps
  • 384kbps → 640kbps
  • 448kbps or higher → release as DTS or lossless
  • 6.1ch or more → release as DTS-ES or lossless
DTS: avoid to use half rate, as it has a rolloff at high frequencies; if you need to have small size track, use DD 640kbps instead.

Examples:

source → DD release (minimum bitrate):
  • DD/DD+ 448kbps or higher → DTS 1536kbps
  • DTS 1536kbps → release lossless
Lossless: PCM, Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD MA sources should be released as well as lossless; anyone of the three main format could be used - PCM, TrueHD, DTS-HD MA - even if different from the source; FLAC is accepted as added option, or only when an audio-only track is released

Bit depth and frequency: I continue to think that releasing track at more than 16bit is useless and more than 96kHz could be harmful; even if someone could theoretically manage to hear the dynamic difference of 98dB that 16bit allowed - maybe using great headphones and risking deafness - I bet it is not possible, using any speaker system, listening to a movie audio track.

AUDIO COMPARISONS

To show audio tracks features graphically, it's possible to post waveforms and spectrums; we have only to find a standard way to do it.

As not everyone could have access to paid tools, I guess we should stick to free software; I'd go with Audacity for waveforms and Spek for spectrums; so we have comparable screenshots.

Set Audacity fullscreen, tracks as wide and high as window, waveforms in dB, meter dB range at (I guess 60dB is the minimum; 96dB is already too much, while 36dB is not enough; sadly someone is posting screenshots from other software with range set at only 24dB; in that way, most of the track seems completely silent!!!); set Spek fullscreen too; release image at 1920px width (scale it if your resolution is bigger or smaller); height is dependant from the number or tracks - for example if you want to show more details in an 8-channel track, you could take two (or more) screenshot and glue them together as a single one.

Note: is there any Nyquist programmer? Would be nice to modify a plugin to get stats similar to professional softwares - nothing fancy, only highest and lowest peaks, noise floor, track length etc.

EDIT: written an article about waveform comparisons - contains different dynamic range from 18dB to 24bit full scale 145dB:
http://blog.sporv.com/comparing-tracks-waveforms/]]> <![CDATA[Capture tips: grab laserdisc video and multiple audio in one pass]]> https://fanrestore.com/thread-4132.html Fri, 27 Aug 2021 11:35:59 +0000 spoRv]]> https://fanrestore.com/thread-4132.html https://fanrestore.com/thread-1107.html)

Now, most of capture cards can grab one video source along with a stereo audio track; so, what to do with a laserdisc with more than a single stereo track?

1. capture it twice (or three times), then eventually mux the other audio track(s) to the first audio/video track

OR

2. use more computers, each one with a capture card, to grab video along with first audio track (PC1) and video along with second audio track (PC2) - and eventually grab video along with third audio track (PC3)

OR

3. use the capture card to grab video along with first audio track AND use further audio card(s) to capture other audio track(s)

OR

4. use the capture card to grab video only AND an audio card with multichannel input to capture all audio tracks


Now let's see briefly the procedures to follow to capture laserdisc with more than a single track:
  • [1] one PC with single capture card
no single pass possible; you have to record each audio track on its own; it means that if, for example, the movie is two hours long, and it has a PCM stereo (or DTS) track, and an analog stereo track (or two mono analog tracks), it will take four hours to capture it twice; if it has an AC-3 (Dolby Digital) track, a PCM stereo track, and an analog commentary track, it will take six hours to capture it not twice, but three times!
  • [2] more PCs each one with its own capture card
you can record first track with the first PC and its capture card, and second track with second PC and its capture card, so a two hours movie will take only two hours to be captured; still, in the case of AC-3/PCM/analog combo, you have to capture the third track in a second pass - unless one computer has two audio cards or a single multichannel cards (see next points) - OR use a third PC and its capture card
  • [3] one PC with two audio cards
or a capture card with its own audio capture plus a second audio card.

Depending on which OS you use, it is possible to use two audio cards at the same time; on Windows (unless you use the same brand and/or model with a proper driver that allows to do that natively) you must rely on ASIO4ALL; it's a software that let two or more audio cards work at the same time; although there could be some sync problems, many users did not report any problem at all. On MAC, you can "aggregate" two or more audio cards - do not ask me how, because I just read about it briefly and I have no idea, but I know it could be possible. On Linux, frankly I don't know, but I guess there are not many Linux users around here with a capture card that works under this OS and with a laserdisc player...

With a laserdisc with PCM (DTS) + analog tracks, you need two stereo audio cards; with a laserdisc with AC-3 + PCM + analog track, you need three stereo audio cards, or a stereo card and an audio card with at least four channels input
  • [4] one PC with an audio card with multichannel input
you can capture every laserdisc ever made with this option - depending on the audio card!

With a laserdisc with PCM (DTS) + analog tracks, you need an audio card with at least four channels input; with a laserdisc with AC-3 + PCM + analog track, you need an audio card with at least six channels input

[1] is the most common; many guides are written here and somewhere else; as this is the basic procedure, you HAVE to know how to do it if you want to follow another option.

[2] is technically relatively easy, but quite expensive; my hint is, if you already have your main PC with a capture card, just get a second very cheap used PC that will be used only for that - and eventually a third one; it's useless to buy a brand new multicore PC with a high-end capture card and use that as second capture setup, when an hundred quid used PC could lead to the same result!

[3] less expensive than previous but technically a bit more difficult; the capture software could not accept more than one card at the time, so you can be forced to use two softwares (if not three) at the time, with subsequent possible problems; this last instance could occur also if you decide to use two (or three) capture cards (video+audio) instead of a single capture card (video+audio) and a second audio card; can't know which could be less or more problematic.

[4] this could be the ultimate solution: a single capture card (with or without audio, it doesn't matter) along with an audio card with multichannel input; this should avoid any problem connected with using several audio cards. But another problem is, even if multichannel audio card could be found relatively inexpensively in the used market, it's difficult to find the right one for this procedure...


I want to go a bit deeper on [4] because [1] is not inherent to the topic grab laserdisc video and multiple audio in one pass while [2] is quite expensive and [3] could be more technically challenging.

What you can do with a [4] type setup?
  • capture a laserdisc with two or three audio tracks in one pass, sparing:
    • time - in a case of two hours movie, only two hours capture instead of four or six
    • wear - mainly of laserdisc player, secondly PC/HDD etc.
    • electricity - not a lot, I must admit, still some
    • work - to put in sync two or three tracks
  • capture a laserdisc with its own tracks AND decoded one by an external decoder
  • capture two (or more) laserdiscs from two (or more) players at the same time
first two options are feasible, while last one, albeit technically possible, I'm not sure if it can work properly; leave the last aside for the moment.

So, what you need?
  • a laserdisc disc with (at least) two audio tracks
  • a laserdisc player with both digital and analog outputs
  • optional: a laserdisc with AC-3 output AND an AC-3 demodulator, if you want to capture AC-3
  • optional: an external audio decoder if you want to capture decoded audio
  • analog and digital cables to connect laserdisc player to the capture card
  • a computer
  • a capture card (that can grab at least video)
  • an audio card with multichannel input
  • a capture software that can grab video AND multichannel audio
    OR
  • a capture software to grab video AND another that can record multichannel audio at the same time
If you want to capture PCM and analog tracks, you need a card with AT LEAST four channels input; better if two of them are via digital input for PCM

If you want to capture AC-3 and PCM tracks, you need a card with AT LEAST four channels input, two of them MUST be via digital input WITH bit-perfect audio for AC-3

If you want to capture DTS and analog tracks, you need a card with AT LEAST four channels input, two of them MUST be via digital input WITH bit-perfect audio for DTS

If you want to capture AC-3, PCM and analog tracks, you need a card with AT LEAST six channels input, two of them MUST be via digital input WITH bit-perfect audio for AC-3

If you want to capture AC-3 and DTS tracks from a single laserdisc... well, you cant, because there are NO laserdisc with both AC-3 and DTS on the same disc!

If you want to capture PCM and analog tracks, PLUS a Dolby Pro Logic decoded track, you need a card with AT LEAST eight channels input; further two will be used for the PCM or analog tracks, and the last four ones for the L/C/R/S channels from the Dolby decoder

If you want to capture AC-3 and PCM tracks, PLUS a Dolby Pro Logic decoded track, you need a card with AT LEAST eight channels input, two of them MUST be via digital input WITH bit-perfect audio for AC-3; further two will be used for the analog tracks, and the last four ones for the L/C/R/S channels from the Dolby decoder

If you want to capture DTS and analog tracks, PLUS a Dolby Pro Logic decoded track, you need a card with AT LEAST eight channels input, two of them MUST be via digital input WITH bit-perfect audio for DTS; further two will be used for the analog tracks, and the last four ones for the L/C/R/S channels from the Dolby decoder

Many multichannel cards have only one digital input, or can use it only one at the time, so in those cases you can have AC-3 and PCM but the latter will be NOT bit-perfect

As many cards with multichannel inputs with one (or more) of them are digital (S/PDIF), are used by musicians, AFAIK their digital input *should* be bit-perfect


IMPORTANT NOTE:
  • to capture AC-3 you NEED an audio card with digital input AND bit-perfect AND external AC-3 demodulator
  • to capture DTS you NEED an audio card with digital input AND bit-perfect
  • to capture PCM you can use an audio card (from best to worst):
    • with digital input AND bit-perfect
    • with digital input BUT NOT bit-perfect
    • with only analog input
  • to capture analog you can use any audio card
  • to get DVD/BD/UHD-BD compliant audio tracks, audio cards must be at least 48kHz

Last thought: how much important is to have bit-perfect digital input for PCM track? Unless you use the result track at 44.1kHz "as is" (in which case it would be VERY important) I'm not sure how much important it will be in other cases; because if you want to mux the track to a project that will be DVD/BD/UHD-BD compliant, you are forced to convert the 44.1kHz track to 48kHz; even if this conversion has an obvious quality degradation - albeit small - could you hear the difference between a bit-perfect 44.1kHz -> converted to 48kHz and a laserdisc D/A 44kHz 16bit -> capture card A/D 48kHz 20bit (or 24 bit)? Which one will "sound better"? And we are talking about NTSC here... what's about PAL tracks, that need also slowdown? A comparison would be very interesting!


Note: at the moment I have not my capture hardware with me - it's at home waiting for me getting it back to work; hence, it's only pure theory at the moment, but, as I have certain experience, I'm pretty sure it should be 99% right; surely, if someone can/want to experiment and post results here, it will be great!]]> https://fanrestore.com/thread-1107.html)

Now, most of capture cards can grab one video source along with a stereo audio track; so, what to do with a laserdisc with more than a single stereo track?

1. capture it twice (or three times), then eventually mux the other audio track(s) to the first audio/video track

OR

2. use more computers, each one with a capture card, to grab video along with first audio track (PC1) and video along with second audio track (PC2) - and eventually grab video along with third audio track (PC3)

OR

3. use the capture card to grab video along with first audio track AND use further audio card(s) to capture other audio track(s)

OR

4. use the capture card to grab video only AND an audio card with multichannel input to capture all audio tracks


Now let's see briefly the procedures to follow to capture laserdisc with more than a single track:
  • [1] one PC with single capture card
no single pass possible; you have to record each audio track on its own; it means that if, for example, the movie is two hours long, and it has a PCM stereo (or DTS) track, and an analog stereo track (or two mono analog tracks), it will take four hours to capture it twice; if it has an AC-3 (Dolby Digital) track, a PCM stereo track, and an analog commentary track, it will take six hours to capture it not twice, but three times!
  • [2] more PCs each one with its own capture card
you can record first track with the first PC and its capture card, and second track with second PC and its capture card, so a two hours movie will take only two hours to be captured; still, in the case of AC-3/PCM/analog combo, you have to capture the third track in a second pass - unless one computer has two audio cards or a single multichannel cards (see next points) - OR use a third PC and its capture card
  • [3] one PC with two audio cards
or a capture card with its own audio capture plus a second audio card.

Depending on which OS you use, it is possible to use two audio cards at the same time; on Windows (unless you use the same brand and/or model with a proper driver that allows to do that natively) you must rely on ASIO4ALL; it's a software that let two or more audio cards work at the same time; although there could be some sync problems, many users did not report any problem at all. On MAC, you can "aggregate" two or more audio cards - do not ask me how, because I just read about it briefly and I have no idea, but I know it could be possible. On Linux, frankly I don't know, but I guess there are not many Linux users around here with a capture card that works under this OS and with a laserdisc player...

With a laserdisc with PCM (DTS) + analog tracks, you need two stereo audio cards; with a laserdisc with AC-3 + PCM + analog track, you need three stereo audio cards, or a stereo card and an audio card with at least four channels input
  • [4] one PC with an audio card with multichannel input
you can capture every laserdisc ever made with this option - depending on the audio card!

With a laserdisc with PCM (DTS) + analog tracks, you need an audio card with at least four channels input; with a laserdisc with AC-3 + PCM + analog track, you need an audio card with at least six channels input

[1] is the most common; many guides are written here and somewhere else; as this is the basic procedure, you HAVE to know how to do it if you want to follow another option.

[2] is technically relatively easy, but quite expensive; my hint is, if you already have your main PC with a capture card, just get a second very cheap used PC that will be used only for that - and eventually a third one; it's useless to buy a brand new multicore PC with a high-end capture card and use that as second capture setup, when an hundred quid used PC could lead to the same result!

[3] less expensive than previous but technically a bit more difficult; the capture software could not accept more than one card at the time, so you can be forced to use two softwares (if not three) at the time, with subsequent possible problems; this last instance could occur also if you decide to use two (or three) capture cards (video+audio) instead of a single capture card (video+audio) and a second audio card; can't know which could be less or more problematic.

[4] this could be the ultimate solution: a single capture card (with or without audio, it doesn't matter) along with an audio card with multichannel input; this should avoid any problem connected with using several audio cards. But another problem is, even if multichannel audio card could be found relatively inexpensively in the used market, it's difficult to find the right one for this procedure...


I want to go a bit deeper on [4] because [1] is not inherent to the topic grab laserdisc video and multiple audio in one pass while [2] is quite expensive and [3] could be more technically challenging.

What you can do with a [4] type setup?
  • capture a laserdisc with two or three audio tracks in one pass, sparing:
    • time - in a case of two hours movie, only two hours capture instead of four or six
    • wear - mainly of laserdisc player, secondly PC/HDD etc.
    • electricity - not a lot, I must admit, still some
    • work - to put in sync two or three tracks
  • capture a laserdisc with its own tracks AND decoded one by an external decoder
  • capture two (or more) laserdiscs from two (or more) players at the same time
first two options are feasible, while last one, albeit technically possible, I'm not sure if it can work properly; leave the last aside for the moment.

So, what you need?
  • a laserdisc disc with (at least) two audio tracks
  • a laserdisc player with both digital and analog outputs
  • optional: a laserdisc with AC-3 output AND an AC-3 demodulator, if you want to capture AC-3
  • optional: an external audio decoder if you want to capture decoded audio
  • analog and digital cables to connect laserdisc player to the capture card
  • a computer
  • a capture card (that can grab at least video)
  • an audio card with multichannel input
  • a capture software that can grab video AND multichannel audio
    OR
  • a capture software to grab video AND another that can record multichannel audio at the same time
If you want to capture PCM and analog tracks, you need a card with AT LEAST four channels input; better if two of them are via digital input for PCM

If you want to capture AC-3 and PCM tracks, you need a card with AT LEAST four channels input, two of them MUST be via digital input WITH bit-perfect audio for AC-3

If you want to capture DTS and analog tracks, you need a card with AT LEAST four channels input, two of them MUST be via digital input WITH bit-perfect audio for DTS

If you want to capture AC-3, PCM and analog tracks, you need a card with AT LEAST six channels input, two of them MUST be via digital input WITH bit-perfect audio for AC-3

If you want to capture AC-3 and DTS tracks from a single laserdisc... well, you cant, because there are NO laserdisc with both AC-3 and DTS on the same disc!

If you want to capture PCM and analog tracks, PLUS a Dolby Pro Logic decoded track, you need a card with AT LEAST eight channels input; further two will be used for the PCM or analog tracks, and the last four ones for the L/C/R/S channels from the Dolby decoder

If you want to capture AC-3 and PCM tracks, PLUS a Dolby Pro Logic decoded track, you need a card with AT LEAST eight channels input, two of them MUST be via digital input WITH bit-perfect audio for AC-3; further two will be used for the analog tracks, and the last four ones for the L/C/R/S channels from the Dolby decoder

If you want to capture DTS and analog tracks, PLUS a Dolby Pro Logic decoded track, you need a card with AT LEAST eight channels input, two of them MUST be via digital input WITH bit-perfect audio for DTS; further two will be used for the analog tracks, and the last four ones for the L/C/R/S channels from the Dolby decoder

Many multichannel cards have only one digital input, or can use it only one at the time, so in those cases you can have AC-3 and PCM but the latter will be NOT bit-perfect

As many cards with multichannel inputs with one (or more) of them are digital (S/PDIF), are used by musicians, AFAIK their digital input *should* be bit-perfect


IMPORTANT NOTE:
  • to capture AC-3 you NEED an audio card with digital input AND bit-perfect AND external AC-3 demodulator
  • to capture DTS you NEED an audio card with digital input AND bit-perfect
  • to capture PCM you can use an audio card (from best to worst):
    • with digital input AND bit-perfect
    • with digital input BUT NOT bit-perfect
    • with only analog input
  • to capture analog you can use any audio card
  • to get DVD/BD/UHD-BD compliant audio tracks, audio cards must be at least 48kHz

Last thought: how much important is to have bit-perfect digital input for PCM track? Unless you use the result track at 44.1kHz "as is" (in which case it would be VERY important) I'm not sure how much important it will be in other cases; because if you want to mux the track to a project that will be DVD/BD/UHD-BD compliant, you are forced to convert the 44.1kHz track to 48kHz; even if this conversion has an obvious quality degradation - albeit small - could you hear the difference between a bit-perfect 44.1kHz -> converted to 48kHz and a laserdisc D/A 44kHz 16bit -> capture card A/D 48kHz 20bit (or 24 bit)? Which one will "sound better"? And we are talking about NTSC here... what's about PAL tracks, that need also slowdown? A comparison would be very interesting!


Note: at the moment I have not my capture hardware with me - it's at home waiting for me getting it back to work; hence, it's only pure theory at the moment, but, as I have certain experience, I'm pretty sure it should be 99% right; surely, if someone can/want to experiment and post results here, it will be great!]]> <![CDATA[Dr. Strangelove or: How I learned to Stop Worrying and Love Digital Noise Reduction]]> https://fanrestore.com/thread-3953.html Wed, 19 May 2021 19:52:54 +0000 apzlsoxk]]> https://fanrestore.com/thread-3953.html Project Info:

This project is more of a proof of concept of advancements in Digital Noise Reduction algorithms, and that DNR no longer needs to be considered a wholly destructive process. The algorithm I used for this can by found at https://arxiv.org/pdf/1811.12758.pdf which is a GPU-accelerated neural-network based non-local denoising algorithm.

I chose this movie for a couple reasons:

  1. It was given a 4K HDR release relatively recently, meaning the film grain would be essentially losslessly preserved from the scan.
  2. It's black and white, which reduces the processing power required by 2/3s relative to color film.
  3. It's my favorite movie.
I've attached some screenshots below of results so far. The plane is pretty easy to denoise given its lack of fine textures: 


[Image: pf7ThfMG_o.png]

But check out the results of the DNR algorithm in this shot: Group Captain Lionel Mandrake's uniform goes from a noisy, homogeneous uniform, to a heather wool pattern. And the logo resting on top of the computer goes from a blurry mess to a clearly legible "IBM 7090" text.

[Image: 11cn5hk8_o.png]

This will probably take a couple weeks given the denoising processing power required (each frame takes a couple minutes) but I'll keep this updated on features of note, or ask any questions if there are any stylistic choices I'm stuck choosing between.]]> Project Info:

This project is more of a proof of concept of advancements in Digital Noise Reduction algorithms, and that DNR no longer needs to be considered a wholly destructive process. The algorithm I used for this can by found at https://arxiv.org/pdf/1811.12758.pdf which is a GPU-accelerated neural-network based non-local denoising algorithm.

I chose this movie for a couple reasons:

  1. It was given a 4K HDR release relatively recently, meaning the film grain would be essentially losslessly preserved from the scan.
  2. It's black and white, which reduces the processing power required by 2/3s relative to color film.
  3. It's my favorite movie.
I've attached some screenshots below of results so far. The plane is pretty easy to denoise given its lack of fine textures: 


[Image: pf7ThfMG_o.png]

But check out the results of the DNR algorithm in this shot: Group Captain Lionel Mandrake's uniform goes from a noisy, homogeneous uniform, to a heather wool pattern. And the logo resting on top of the computer goes from a blurry mess to a clearly legible "IBM 7090" text.

[Image: 11cn5hk8_o.png]

This will probably take a couple weeks given the denoising processing power required (each frame takes a couple minutes) but I'll keep this updated on features of note, or ask any questions if there are any stylistic choices I'm stuck choosing between.]]> <![CDATA[Quick and easy regrade using Gaussian Blur]]> https://fanrestore.com/thread-2806.html Sun, 01 Sep 2019 19:46:12 +0000 deleted user]]> https://fanrestore.com/thread-2806.html
It has one major downside and that is: You can't really regrade any part of the image that isn't in both sources. So for example it won't work to regrade an Open Matte version with a scope versions colors. Well, I haven't tried it, but I can't imagine how it would work. Feel free to try it obviously.

Another downside is that it's not nearly as precise as the DrDre method, but on the other hand it's very quick so it may be something nice for tests or quick projects.

An upside is that it's not very susceptible to problems from noise, since it works with a strong blur.



Anyway, here's an example from Matrix. UHD, CAM, REGRADE

.jpg   aligned-uhd.jpg (Size: 256.68 KB / Downloads: 25)
.jpg   aligned-cam.jpg (Size: 129.66 KB / Downloads: 18)
.jpg   aligned 50px gaussian regrade.jpg (Size: 279.96 KB / Downloads: 26)


Proper screenshot comparison:

http://www.framecompare.com/image-compar...n/D77WPNNX

Here's how it works

This guide is based on Photoshop, but you can very likely easily adopt it for AviSynth+

1. Align both your source images. Convert the image to linear RGB in 32 bit floating point. I'm not sure how important the linear part is here, you can do your own experiments. If you're wondering how to do this, you need to create a Custom RGB profile with Gamma 1.0. There are guides for this on Google if you struggle. 32 bit floating point is important because some intermediate values may be over 100% and would be clipped in 8 or 16 bit.

2. Put the image you want to regrade on the bottom.

3. Duplicate this image and apply a 50 pixel radius Gaussian Blur. You can experiment with the radius, this one was simply my initial test.

4. Set the blurred duplicate to "Divide" layer mode.

5. Put the (aligned) reference image on top of these two layers and also apply a 50px Gaussian Blur (or whatever radius you used in step 3).

6. Set this blurred reference image to mode "multiply".

7. That's it.

It's pretty self-explanatory, as you can see. It basically equalizes the rough color tone in an area by dividing through the average (50px radius) color tone of that area and then multiplying with the average of that area in the reference image. And since the radius (50px) is so big, it of course misses small details, but on the other hand it's absolutely not distracted by noise and slight misalignment and shitty reference quality (like a cam) and stuff like that.

And the nice thing is, it doesn't even seem to produce any ringing artifacts, at least with the example I used, because while you are of course multiplying with a blurred image, you are dividing by another blurred image first which has (ideally) the same image geometry, so you should end up with an image that still looks good and smooth. Though I can't vouch that it will work for all examples. Maybe it won't work for some high contrast scenes, who knows.

Not a magic trick or anything, but I was kind of happy with my initial result and I think it might be good whenever you don't need 100% precision or your reference has really bad image quality. Maybe it falls apart with other examples, I'm not sure, but hey, it's something.

Feedback always welcome.]]>
It has one major downside and that is: You can't really regrade any part of the image that isn't in both sources. So for example it won't work to regrade an Open Matte version with a scope versions colors. Well, I haven't tried it, but I can't imagine how it would work. Feel free to try it obviously.

Another downside is that it's not nearly as precise as the DrDre method, but on the other hand it's very quick so it may be something nice for tests or quick projects.

An upside is that it's not very susceptible to problems from noise, since it works with a strong blur.



Anyway, here's an example from Matrix. UHD, CAM, REGRADE

.jpg   aligned-uhd.jpg (Size: 256.68 KB / Downloads: 25)
.jpg   aligned-cam.jpg (Size: 129.66 KB / Downloads: 18)
.jpg   aligned 50px gaussian regrade.jpg (Size: 279.96 KB / Downloads: 26)


Proper screenshot comparison:

http://www.framecompare.com/image-compar...n/D77WPNNX

Here's how it works

This guide is based on Photoshop, but you can very likely easily adopt it for AviSynth+

1. Align both your source images. Convert the image to linear RGB in 32 bit floating point. I'm not sure how important the linear part is here, you can do your own experiments. If you're wondering how to do this, you need to create a Custom RGB profile with Gamma 1.0. There are guides for this on Google if you struggle. 32 bit floating point is important because some intermediate values may be over 100% and would be clipped in 8 or 16 bit.

2. Put the image you want to regrade on the bottom.

3. Duplicate this image and apply a 50 pixel radius Gaussian Blur. You can experiment with the radius, this one was simply my initial test.

4. Set the blurred duplicate to "Divide" layer mode.

5. Put the (aligned) reference image on top of these two layers and also apply a 50px Gaussian Blur (or whatever radius you used in step 3).

6. Set this blurred reference image to mode "multiply".

7. That's it.

It's pretty self-explanatory, as you can see. It basically equalizes the rough color tone in an area by dividing through the average (50px radius) color tone of that area and then multiplying with the average of that area in the reference image. And since the radius (50px) is so big, it of course misses small details, but on the other hand it's absolutely not distracted by noise and slight misalignment and shitty reference quality (like a cam) and stuff like that.

And the nice thing is, it doesn't even seem to produce any ringing artifacts, at least with the example I used, because while you are of course multiplying with a blurred image, you are dividing by another blurred image first which has (ideally) the same image geometry, so you should end up with an image that still looks good and smooth. Though I can't vouch that it will work for all examples. Maybe it won't work for some high contrast scenes, who knows.

Not a magic trick or anything, but I was kind of happy with my initial result and I think it might be good whenever you don't need 100% precision or your reference has really bad image quality. Maybe it falls apart with other examples, I'm not sure, but hey, it's something.

Feedback always welcome.]]> <![CDATA[Mixing metadata]]> https://fanrestore.com/thread-2488.html Tue, 29 Jan 2019 14:14:45 +0000 CaveDoctor]]> https://fanrestore.com/thread-2488.html <![CDATA[Stabilise your film scan]]> https://fanrestore.com/thread-2356.html Thu, 01 Nov 2018 09:54:28 +0000 Valeyard]]> https://fanrestore.com/thread-2356.html
First go and grab Davinci Resolve and Blackmagic Fusion. Two terrific free products. You can load your clip in Fusion or use the Fusion tab in Resolve it's up to you, but I'll be using Fusion stand-alone.


Here is a video guide:



You can do it that way, but it is preferable to use the film perfs if available. For one thing the perfs always appear the same (except when damaged), whereas the image border might change or disappear throughout the film.

Here is an example with a generic 16mm source at 2K (2048x1556). Starting with the first frame we place two trackers at a curving point on the film perfs:

[Image: fusion1.png]

If this was 8mm we would simply place both trackers on the same perf one at the top and one at the bottom. As you see we have another curving point at the bottom of the top film perf where we could place a 3rd tracker, and in fact it wouldn't be a bad idea to do this. More trackers equals better result. Notice that the trackers are quite small - there's a reason for this. The image on the film appears very close to the edge, and I don't want the film image being considered as a part of the trackers so it is narrow enough that it won't happen. Also because this scan is already pretty steady the search area only needs to be quite small - but if you have a less steady scan you may need a wider search area.

As per the Youtube video we set up the Operation settings:

[Image: fusion2.png]

And then go back to the Trackers tab and click the "track forward from current frame" button:

[Image: fusion3.png]

And that's it. If your tracking points are good and the perfs aren't damaged etc your output should now be steady. If things go awry you may need to split the footage up into chunks and process different bits separately.]]>
First go and grab Davinci Resolve and Blackmagic Fusion. Two terrific free products. You can load your clip in Fusion or use the Fusion tab in Resolve it's up to you, but I'll be using Fusion stand-alone.


Here is a video guide:



You can do it that way, but it is preferable to use the film perfs if available. For one thing the perfs always appear the same (except when damaged), whereas the image border might change or disappear throughout the film.

Here is an example with a generic 16mm source at 2K (2048x1556). Starting with the first frame we place two trackers at a curving point on the film perfs:

[Image: fusion1.png]

If this was 8mm we would simply place both trackers on the same perf one at the top and one at the bottom. As you see we have another curving point at the bottom of the top film perf where we could place a 3rd tracker, and in fact it wouldn't be a bad idea to do this. More trackers equals better result. Notice that the trackers are quite small - there's a reason for this. The image on the film appears very close to the edge, and I don't want the film image being considered as a part of the trackers so it is narrow enough that it won't happen. Also because this scan is already pretty steady the search area only needs to be quite small - but if you have a less steady scan you may need a wider search area.

As per the Youtube video we set up the Operation settings:

[Image: fusion2.png]

And then go back to the Trackers tab and click the "track forward from current frame" button:

[Image: fusion3.png]

And that's it. If your tracking points are good and the perfs aren't damaged etc your output should now be steady. If things go awry you may need to split the footage up into chunks and process different bits separately.]]> <![CDATA[Nvidia's AI noise removal]]> https://fanrestore.com/thread-2219.html Wed, 11 Jul 2018 14:00:13 +0000 Colek]]> https://fanrestore.com/thread-2219.html https://news.developer.nvidia.com/ai-can...ny-photos/

Sounds and looks very interesting, I can see it having use in restoring videos as well, what you think?]]> https://news.developer.nvidia.com/ai-can...ny-photos/

Sounds and looks very interesting, I can see it having use in restoring videos as well, what you think?]]> <![CDATA[project analysis: The Arrival (1996) UAR]]> https://fanrestore.com/thread-2069.html Sun, 04 Mar 2018 03:13:23 +0000 spoRv]]> https://fanrestore.com/thread-2069.html
Previous versions:
The Arrival [spoRv] *BD-25* - OriginalTrilogy - FanRes
The Arrival (1996) [Fundamental Collection™ #008] - FanRes

I did also an upscaled fullscreen 1.33:1 version, but as it seemed nobody cared about this, I deleted the file - that wasn't that great, indeed; still, has a lot of potential, as the BD frame is mainly the center of the fullscreen frame, obviously cropped, with a bit more image on one or both sides, apart few shots where the added image is bigger, but not so much.

So, I thought to do a UAR version (Hybrid Vs UAR - a simple guide), that will do justice to the fullscreen. Of course, as source for the latter the PAL Italian DVD is used, while for the letterbox version I had the BD, what else? Well, yes and no... yesterday I've found a letterbox DVD, so it is there as well.

Let's see one frame in particular, randomly chosen, but with vertical lines to see better the alignment between the two sources used in the UAR:
[Image: The_Arrival_frame_028010_DVD_bicubic.jpg]
[Image: The_Arrival_frame_028010_DVD_WS_bicubic.jpg]
[Image: The_Arrival_frame_028010_BD_untouched.jpg]
as you can see, fullscreen and letterbox DVDs are almost identical, while BD is very different regarding colors and contrast.

So, first attempt was to combine FS DVD and BD, as I had no other LB source (at that moment); of course, BD was regraded to be as closer as FS DVD as possible... I was sure to get a good result, as previously tested UAR projects: WRONG! Yes, BD it has a lot better detail than DVD, but the image doesn't align perfectly, as well as color grading:
[Image: The_Arrival_frame_028010_test1b.jpg]

Then, I found the LB DVD, so I thought to regrade the BD using is as reference; this should be better than using the FS DVD, which has a different aspect ratio, hence now color matching could be as good as it can be; I was sure to achieve the right result: WRONG! Yes, now it's better than previous attempt, color wise, but still not aligned:
[Image: The_Arrival_frame_028010_test5.jpg]

I gave up, end using the LB DVD instead of the BD, as they both have the same contrast and color grading: RIGHT! Yes, alignment and color grading were OK, as expected; as well as inferior resolution due to SD sources:
[Image: The_Arrival_frame_028010_test4.jpg]

I was almost happy with it, when suddenly I had a flash of genius: why don't I reform the BD, to be as closer as LB DVD? So, after various resize and related crop trials & errors, thanks to WarpedResize, that stretches only sides or center of the image, I finally get a version that is almost right for the whole film (I hope, still finish to test):
[Image: The_Arrival_frame_028010_BD_reformed_and..._WS_BD.jpg]

Then, feed both to first pass of the AutoOverlay plugin, to get the BD better aligned with the LB DVD, then result was used to feed the second pass of the AutoOverlay align:
[Image: The_Arrival_frame_028010_test6.jpg]

I was almost there; a little tweak to colors, a grain plate... et voilà le jeux sont fait!
[Image: The_Arrival_frame_028010_test7.jpg]

Comparison between fullscreen DVD and UAR: http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/133547

About color grading: after few days of testing, I realized that slightly corrected DVD colors are not that bad, and *may* be more theatrically accurate than BD - due to some clues like fullscreen format, dirt and speckles and the fact that at the time was not infrequent to use interpositive prints as sources instead negative.]]>
Previous versions:
The Arrival [spoRv] *BD-25* - OriginalTrilogy - FanRes
The Arrival (1996) [Fundamental Collection™ #008] - FanRes

I did also an upscaled fullscreen 1.33:1 version, but as it seemed nobody cared about this, I deleted the file - that wasn't that great, indeed; still, has a lot of potential, as the BD frame is mainly the center of the fullscreen frame, obviously cropped, with a bit more image on one or both sides, apart few shots where the added image is bigger, but not so much.

So, I thought to do a UAR version (Hybrid Vs UAR - a simple guide), that will do justice to the fullscreen. Of course, as source for the latter the PAL Italian DVD is used, while for the letterbox version I had the BD, what else? Well, yes and no... yesterday I've found a letterbox DVD, so it is there as well.

Let's see one frame in particular, randomly chosen, but with vertical lines to see better the alignment between the two sources used in the UAR:
[Image: The_Arrival_frame_028010_DVD_bicubic.jpg]
[Image: The_Arrival_frame_028010_DVD_WS_bicubic.jpg]
[Image: The_Arrival_frame_028010_BD_untouched.jpg]
as you can see, fullscreen and letterbox DVDs are almost identical, while BD is very different regarding colors and contrast.

So, first attempt was to combine FS DVD and BD, as I had no other LB source (at that moment); of course, BD was regraded to be as closer as FS DVD as possible... I was sure to get a good result, as previously tested UAR projects: WRONG! Yes, BD it has a lot better detail than DVD, but the image doesn't align perfectly, as well as color grading:
[Image: The_Arrival_frame_028010_test1b.jpg]

Then, I found the LB DVD, so I thought to regrade the BD using is as reference; this should be better than using the FS DVD, which has a different aspect ratio, hence now color matching could be as good as it can be; I was sure to achieve the right result: WRONG! Yes, now it's better than previous attempt, color wise, but still not aligned:
[Image: The_Arrival_frame_028010_test5.jpg]

I gave up, end using the LB DVD instead of the BD, as they both have the same contrast and color grading: RIGHT! Yes, alignment and color grading were OK, as expected; as well as inferior resolution due to SD sources:
[Image: The_Arrival_frame_028010_test4.jpg]

I was almost happy with it, when suddenly I had a flash of genius: why don't I reform the BD, to be as closer as LB DVD? So, after various resize and related crop trials & errors, thanks to WarpedResize, that stretches only sides or center of the image, I finally get a version that is almost right for the whole film (I hope, still finish to test):
[Image: The_Arrival_frame_028010_BD_reformed_and..._WS_BD.jpg]

Then, feed both to first pass of the AutoOverlay plugin, to get the BD better aligned with the LB DVD, then result was used to feed the second pass of the AutoOverlay align:
[Image: The_Arrival_frame_028010_test6.jpg]

I was almost there; a little tweak to colors, a grain plate... et voilà le jeux sont fait!
[Image: The_Arrival_frame_028010_test7.jpg]

Comparison between fullscreen DVD and UAR: http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/133547

About color grading: after few days of testing, I realized that slightly corrected DVD colors are not that bad, and *may* be more theatrically accurate than BD - due to some clues like fullscreen format, dirt and speckles and the fact that at the time was not infrequent to use interpositive prints as sources instead negative.]]>