Posts: 701
Threads: 109
Joined: 2015 Apr
Thanks: 257
Given 672 thank(s) in 280 post(s)
Country: 
The problem is that, with any 3D source, you have two different video streams (one for the left eye, one for the right eye). Each will have objects within the frame in a slightly different position and neither alone will be theatrically accurate.
To convert a 3D video source to 2D, you select which 'side' you want and discard the other. For example; I have a 2D rip of Jurassic Park 3D which is basically just the left-eye video only. As a result, in the scene where the T-Rex eats the Gallimimus, the T-Rex's head is partially obscured by the branch in the foreground - much more so than the original 2D version. If I were watching the right-eye version of this scene then the T-Rex head would be more visible but then objects to the right of the frame in other scenes would be obscured.
This is why 3D-converted movies are unsuitable for theatrical preservations. Everything has been chopped-up, cut out and shifted around to create the 3D effect. Some troublesome areas are even badly clone-stamped out as illustrated by the comparison posted by bendermac. In fact, in this shot the surrounding foliage is riddled with these artifacts:
http://www.caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergleich...#vergleich
This is why I'd love to see the 2DBD retimed to the colours of the 3DBD as I believe those colours represent an honest attempt to recreate the theatrical look of the film.
Posts: 2,290
Threads: 39
Joined: 2015 Jan
Thanks: 177
Given 187 thank(s) in 133 post(s)
Wow, I didn't realize that the 3D conversion can create such nasty artifacts. In that screenshot you can clearly see where there is (basically) a "doubling" of part of the grass scheme (there is a clear black circle amongst the grass that appears exactly the same about 2.5cm to the right)
I am hoping that as more and more 3D conversions are made using new transfers that the studios don't start "ignoring" the 2D transfers like we have seen with a few titles lately. The fact that they can't include the new transfers (even uncorrected, which would be fine with the way they love to DNR and EE everything to death) before they start the 3D conversion is ridiculous.
Thanx for your patience in explaining this to me as I realize that some of my questions here might appear a little stupid. On that note, I have one final, last question - You mention how certain things are obscured in the 3D "left-eye" versus the 3D "right-eye" and the first thing that came to mind is whether (granted, this would be a lot of work) a "theatrical" preservation could be done utilizing the "correct" eye (i.e. left or right) depending on shot/scene/angle and interchanging them based on "need" using the 2D as a reference. Please understand that I am NOT trying to be "hard-headed" here, just trying to see if there is any possible way of "salvaging" footage from the 3D conversion and if ALL the 3D conversions are like this (i.e. create nasty artifacts)
Posts: 701
Threads: 109
Joined: 2015 Apr
Thanks: 257
Given 672 thank(s) in 280 post(s)
Country:
2015-05-20, 11:51 AM
(This post was last modified: 2015-05-20, 11:51 AM by Turisu.)
I see what you're saying but it isn't just the left-eye/right-eye skew you'd have to contend with. Have a look at all the 2D/3D comparison screenshots here:
http://www.caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergleich...34#auswahl
If you look at the fullscreen comparisons of each shot, you'll see all kinds of shifted objects and weird perspective things going on with the 3D version.
I don't know if all 3D conversions suffer as badly as JP from this sort of thing. Here are some comparisons for Top Gun:
http://www.caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergleich...13#auswahl
From those shots, it actually seems like Top Gun doesn't suffer too badly. There are a couple of shots where foreground objects are shifted slightly but there don't appear to be any of the weird anomalies that appear on the JP conversion. Overall, if these shots are representative of the entire movie then I'd say a respectable theatrical preservation could be derived from the 3D version.
Posts: 7,153
Threads: 601
Joined: 2015 Jan
Thanks: 1081
Given 1466 thank(s) in 963 post(s)
Country: 
(2015-05-20, 11:51 AM)Turisu Wrote: Overall, if these shots are representative of the entire movie then I'd say a respectable theatrical preservation could be derived from the 3D version.
Only IF there are no other 2D sources to use...  I'd prefer a "mere" HDTV broadcast, rough, low bitrate with compression artifacts, but that contain the original version, instead of a super defined left (or right) channel of a 3D BD, where there are some objects in different positions (or totally remade, like the JP grass)...
My 2c, of course... hope in the future studios will not go on the 3D train exclusively, and will continue to release the good ol' plain 2D versions! 
Posts: 2,290
Threads: 39
Joined: 2015 Jan
Thanks: 177
Given 187 thank(s) in 133 post(s)
Again, thanx for your patience with all my questions and the extensive answers. Indeed, based on all of those screenshots, it appears that the 3D BD of JP can only be used as a color-reference but for Top Gun, this isn't the case. I'm now looking forward to getting that BD in the mail (should be here day after tomorrow) and taking a detailed look at both the "left/right" eye views and comparing them to the 2D master to see how much things have been moved around. As you can see in the screenshots that you posted, the 2D version suffers from excessive DNR and EE. I won't mention Top Gun here anymore, as not to hijack your thread, but will start a new one after I have the 3DBD.
Now, back on topic of JP: very much looking forward to your color regrade. I can't believe just how much things are "moved" around on the 3DBD. It almost looks like a "newly" shot film. WTF?! I understand that some of it had to be done, but the artifacts that it created in this case are atrocious.
As far as the 2D master of JP, from what I understand you will be using the 2DBD, correct? Is the 10.89GB 1080p HDTV copy (still available on rutracker) a "better" source? It's relatively sharp (but not due to EE) has very nice, clean colors, doesn't look to suffer from any DNR, and retains some grain. Maybe this could be used as an "overlay" with the 2DBD footage...
Here are the three screenshot that are posted there:
[Image: c37f05e2b8495c5bdaeaaafddaff5011.jpg]
[Image: faa032e443c81c8a3313d3724c47c74e.jpg]
[Image: 8b48efdea2b51a090959bed2540b6ca3.jpg]
Posts: 701
Threads: 109
Joined: 2015 Apr
Thanks: 257
Given 672 thank(s) in 280 post(s)
Country:
(2015-05-20, 12:15 PM)jerryshadoe Wrote: As far as the 2D master of JP, from what I understand you will be using the 2DBD, correct? Is the 10.89GB 1080p HDTV copy (still available on rutracker) a "better" source? It's relatively sharp (but not due to EE) has very nice, clean colors, doesn't look to suffer from any DNR, and retains some grain. Maybe this could be used as an "overlay" with the 2DBD footage...
Unfortunately, this thread is just a request in the hope that someone with the knowledge and skills will take on the project. I would love to have a crack at it myself but wouldn't have a clue where to start and besides, I very much doubt my aging laptop would be up to the task. 
Thanks for the tip about the HDTV version. I'll grab it and compare to the 2DBD to see which is the superior source.
Posts: 7,153
Threads: 601
Joined: 2015 Jan
Thanks: 1081
Given 1466 thank(s) in 963 post(s)
Country:
Turisu, let us know if the HDTV is better than the 2D BD; you could use the images Jerry has posted for a quick'n'dirt comparison meanwhile...
Posts: 701
Threads: 109
Joined: 2015 Apr
Thanks: 257
Given 672 thank(s) in 280 post(s)
Country:
Here is a quick comparison of the HDTV vs. 2DBD based on the rutracker screenshots:
http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/128017/
The HDTV looks way more natural. There is none of the BD's ugly sharpening or edge enhancement and no cold colour cast. Oddly the HDTV is open-matte at 1.78:1 compared to the BD's theatrical 1.85:1 ratio. Of course, it's preferable to have the theatrical aspect ratio but the BD is overly cropped (as can be scene in the brachiosaur scene, T-Rex finale, and Mr. DNA video) so I would say this is another point to the HDTV.
On the surface the HDTV appears to be a much better source (though perhaps too green). Now I'm going to try and download the whole thing so I can see how the more colours look in other scenes and if the 3DBD is still closer to the limited theatrical sources I've found.
Posts: 7,153
Threads: 601
Joined: 2015 Jan
Thanks: 1081
Given 1466 thank(s) in 963 post(s)
Country:
The HDTV seems very good, and not so far from the BD, talking about resolution; now, if you can make the same comparison using the 3D BD for just these three frames, I'll try to test my color grading script to see if it's able to get good results...
Posts: 859
Threads: 5
Joined: 2015 Apr
Thanks: 184
Given 210 thank(s) in 144 post(s)
Country: 
2015-05-21, 02:52 PM
(This post was last modified: 2015-05-21, 03:49 PM by X5gb.)
(2015-05-21, 11:04 AM)spoRv Wrote: The HDTV seems very good, and not so far from the BD, talking about resolution; now, if you can make the same comparison using the 3D BD for just these three frames, I'll try to test my color grading script to see if it's able to get good results... The Below Japanese Wowow cap would be best with only a few Jap Subs for headers / couple of Wowow logo flashes which need removing. There is also a wicked Dts laserdisc sound cap available which could be used along with the Dts-HD Bluray. Both are available on Usenet.
Jurassic Park 1080i AAC5.1
File Size Processed: 18.88 GB, Play Time: 02h:06m:24s
1920 x 1080, 29.97 fps (24.00 fps Telecine), 24.00 Mbps (20.48 Mbps Average).
Average Video Quality: 104.17 KB/Frame, 0.41 Bits/Pixel.
AAC Audio.
0 of 182004 video frames found with errors.
0 of 0 audio frames found with errors.
0 corrupted video bytes in file.
0.000000 seconds of video timestamp gaps.
0.000000 seconds of audio timestamp gaps.
|
