Posts: 730
Threads: 114
Joined: 2015 Apr
Thanks: 278
Given 765 thank(s) in 309 post(s)
Country:
2015-05-24, 01:00 PM
(This post was last modified: 2015-05-24, 01:02 PM by Turisu.)
Thanks for the comparisons.
I like the open frame of the Canal+ version and the detail is clearly better than the Sky HD capture. I have the following questions if you don't mind:
How does the Canal+ compare to the WOWOW in motion?
Does the Canal+ have the Universal logo at the beginning?
Are there any channel logos or foreign subtitles in the Canal+?
Is the Canal+ available on rutracker or any other non-Usenet source?
Andrea, which version in your opinion would be the best source for a preservation? I'm conscious that the extra work involved in removing the logos from the WOWOW may be too much.
Also, a small correction to your summary of sources: the 2DBD has no DNR as far as I know. It's just a over-sharpened version of the HDTV master. In fact, if you apply heavy sharpening to the HDTV you end up with it looking almost identical to the 2DBD.
Posts: 7,151
Threads: 601
Joined: 2015 Jan
Thanks: 1081
Given 1497 thank(s) in 969 post(s)
Country:
Posts: 730
Threads: 114
Joined: 2015 Apr
Thanks: 278
Given 765 thank(s) in 309 post(s)
Country:
Posts: 7,151
Threads: 601
Joined: 2015 Jan
Thanks: 1081
Given 1497 thank(s) in 969 post(s)
Country:
As I wrote before, Sky has the logo, so I'll use it instead BD, because it's open matte.
About your Canal+ file: please post Mediainfo video data here, inside a CODE
Posts: 730
Threads: 114
Joined: 2015 Apr
Thanks: 278
Given 765 thank(s) in 309 post(s)
Country:
Posts: 7,151
Threads: 601
Joined: 2015 Jan
Thanks: 1081
Given 1497 thank(s) in 969 post(s)
Country:
Posts: 730
Threads: 114
Joined: 2015 Apr
Thanks: 278
Given 765 thank(s) in 309 post(s)
Country:
Yours seems to have been encoded earlier so perhaps mine is a re-encode of yours or perhaps (as you suggest) they are both re-encodes of a superior master capture. Yours does seem to have the higher bitrate though so it's undoubtedly the better source.
Posts: 2,289
Threads: 39
Joined: 2015 Jan
Thanks: 177
Given 192 thank(s) in 134 post(s)
I have both versions and can verify the above info and that they are both from Canal+ Film HD. Due to the fact that the settings are identical, I am guessing that the video stream is THE SAME encode. When remuxing with different versions of mkvmerge (same as in this case of version 2.1.0 vs version 2.4.0) it will give a slightly different "final" mediainfo streamsize by about that difference.
For the most part, the Canal+ encode is superior to all others, however I believe that the "best" result would still be achieved by way of layering the Canal+ and WOWOW (delogo'ed, of course) sources together. The SkyHD version is by far the lowest quality of all the HDTV encodes.
Posts: 953
Threads: 6
Joined: 2015 Apr
Thanks: 229
Given 257 thank(s) in 177 post(s)
Country:
2015-05-25, 12:14 AM
(This post was last modified: 2015-05-25, 12:57 AM by X5gb.)
Posts: 750
Threads: 6
Joined: 2015 Jan
Thanks: 7
Given 66 thank(s) in 45 post(s)
2015-05-25, 01:10 AM
(This post was last modified: 2015-05-25, 01:18 AM by TServo2049.)
The problem with using the 1.85 ratio is that the 1.85 versions are all framed too tightly at the top. If the WOWOW is used, I think the Canal+/Sky/whatever should be used to lay in the extra picture on the edges (and maybe if we do want 1.85.1, a little could be shaved off the final combined image?)
I can't figure out why multiple transfers have had the same tightened cropping at the top. It can't be right...
And I do prefer the glowy subtitles, it feels more "optical" than the sharp ones of the other transfers. If the sharp ones are a recomposite, then I think the glowy ones should be used.
|