Posts: 7,153
Threads: 601
Joined: 2015 Jan
Thanks: 1081
Given 1466 thank(s) in 963 post(s)
Country: 
Fact: there is A LOT of movies which OAR was 1.85:1, released on BD at 1.78:1... until now, I haven't seen a project (yet) that has restored the OAR cropping the 1.78:1 to 1.85:1... maybe because difference is negligible (in comparison to, for example 1.85:1->1.66:1 or 2.35:1->1.78:1), or because "the more (image seen) the better"... 
In this case, it seems that the 1.85:1 version is cropped too tightly at the top; I add that probably it occurred also on one or more sides; at the end, an open matte 1.78:1 will reveal most details, including ALL the ones found on the theaters, and something more... so, would it be a better solution to get an OAR 1.85:1 with some missing details? Again, in this case I think not, but I'd like to hear what you all think about this.
Color grading: I made a JP project using the laserdisc as source, because I didn't like at all 3D BD colors in some instances; what I have learned so far is the 3D BD colors are similar to the ones saw in the threaters, BUT... it should be taken in account the fact it's a 2D->3D conversion, so it's could not be said it has the *right* color grading... hope to find out a good compromise, though!
Comparisons between WOWOW and Canal+: Mr. DNA, DNA->dino, Brachiosaurus
http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/128618
I can't believe "they" dared to cut Mr. DNA's eyebrows!!!
Posts: 2,290
Threads: 39
Joined: 2015 Jan
Thanks: 177
Given 187 thank(s) in 133 post(s)
If that's the case, since the nzb is that old, even if there are search engine that would "see" it, there is a good chance that a lot of the files would be missing and would not have enough PAR2 files to re-construct the original upload.
There are always exceptions to the rule, but (DAMN) that is an old upload 
Posts: 859
Threads: 5
Joined: 2015 Apr
Thanks: 184
Given 210 thank(s) in 144 post(s)
Country: 
2015-05-25, 01:30 PM
(This post was last modified: 2015-05-25, 01:54 PM by X5gb.)
(2015-05-25, 01:13 PM)jerryshadoe Wrote: If that's the case, since the nzb is that old, even if there are search engine that would "see" it, there is a good chance that a lot of the files would be missing and would not have enough PAR2 files to re-construct the original upload.
There are always exceptions to the rule, but (DAMN) that is an old upload I think newshosting (over 2400 days retention) or giganews will have it.
As already mentioned spoRv the loss is negligible on the Wowow compared with the Bluray, still prefer the Wowow by a long shot unless like already said extra information can be overlayed onto Wowow without any artifacts from the Sky capture or the Sky can be used totally for them instances moving the picture down and creating a new 1.85:1 crop with a little bit of information removed from the bottom. Sky's picture quality is not good enough to use as complete source, it's filtered.
Posts: 2,290
Threads: 39
Joined: 2015 Jan
Thanks: 177
Given 187 thank(s) in 133 post(s)
@ X5gb - agree with you that the SkyHD source is crap and we are talking about using the superior Canal+ version instead which in comparison to the WOWOW is VERY close in quality and if the two are layered together would probably create the "best" quality result
Will have to look into newshosting and giganews due to the high retention rate. Thanx a lot for sharing this info 
Posts: 859
Threads: 5
Joined: 2015 Apr
Thanks: 184
Given 210 thank(s) in 144 post(s)
Country:
2015-05-25, 03:16 PM
(This post was last modified: 2015-05-25, 03:21 PM by X5gb.)
(2015-05-25, 03:07 PM)jerryshadoe Wrote: @ X5gb - agree with you that the SkyHD source is crap and we are talking about using the superior Canal+ version instead which in comparison to the WOWOW is VERY close in quality and if the two are layered together would probably create the "best" quality result
Will have to look into newshosting and giganews due to the high retention rate. Thanx a lot for sharing this info I don't think the Canal+ should be used as source even if the original capture is able to be gotten. The re-code like spoRv has agreed with me is a definite no,no. One because getting rid of logo perfectly is very hard and time consuming, and needs to be checked on a frame by frame basis and two the Wowow still has the edge when it comes to grain retention and detail, I think spoRv will agree with me. I personally don't think the cropping of the Wowow is bad, minimal, but instances like what spoRv has shown with the computer graphics can be replaced or overlayed with a re cropped Sky / Canal+ moving the picture down slightly and creating a new 1.85:1 crop losing a mininal amount of picture at the bottom which is mainly surplus.
This is all up in the air until it is seen if the original Canal+ can be got, otherwise it will have to be the Sky used for overlay. Later today I,ll hopefully know.
Posts: 2,290
Threads: 39
Joined: 2015 Jan
Thanks: 177
Given 187 thank(s) in 133 post(s)
I see what you're saying... I was just trying to say that the SkyHD copy, IMHO, would be a worse option for using as an overlay due to it's inferior quality in comparison to the Canal+. I'm NOT saying that the Canal+ version doesn't have it's own issues which result from the logo being present in the original source. I am VERY aware of how much "patching" a logo can be a pain in the a** and at times (or even more than that) needs to be adjusted on a frame-by-frame basis which is extremely time-consuming. Looking forward to the info about the "original" Canal+ (with logo) version.
On side note: Even though the Canal+ (delogo'd version) is NOT perfect, I'm wondering why you guys are saying it's a "no-no." I understand that it's a re-encode, but it's still miles ahead (quality-wise) of the SkyHD source. Please understand, I'm am NOT trying to argue with anyone here, just trying to figure out how you guys reached this conclusion
Posts: 7,153
Threads: 601
Joined: 2015 Jan
Thanks: 1081
Given 1466 thank(s) in 963 post(s)
Country:
Even if I think it's better to NOT use a re-encoded source, if I'd use another one apart WOWOW, the available Canal+ version must be taken in account, because it's not bad at all, even if it's a re-encode...
I thought, too, to use another source - apart WOWOW - for the top and bottom "slices"... going to make some tests!
Posts: 701
Threads: 109
Joined: 2015 Apr
Thanks: 257
Given 672 thank(s) in 280 post(s)
Country: 
Are you sure it's worth going to all the trouble of adding 'slices' of other sources just to get an uncropped 1.85:1 when the difference in the open-matte 1.78:1 ratio is barely noticeable?
In my view, this is just creating more digital hacking and chopping which actually gets us further away from the original source. At least using the open-matte, what you have is all from the same source and all the picture info is there. As Andrea said, it's common for 1.85:1 movies to have home media releases at 1.78:1.
My opinion is that either the open-matte Canal+ should be used or the WOWOW with its framing left as is.
Posts: 749
Threads: 6
Joined: 2015 Jan
Thanks: 7
Given 66 thank(s) in 45 post(s)
2015-05-25, 09:08 PM
(This post was last modified: 2015-05-25, 09:13 PM by TServo2049.)
Looking at the WOWOW versus the 2DBD, the WOWOW at least isn't as badly cropped at the top. In image #2, the dinosaur outline at least fits inside the screen. So I do agree, if we use the WOWOW, it may not be worth it to put in slices of the 1.78:1.
But the Brachiosaurus shot I was really looking for was that big wide shot where it goes up on its hind legs and eats from the branch. In both the 2D and 3D, when it roars, and when it lands back on its front legs (right before it cuts away to Gennaro), its head is slightly out of frame. If you could do a comparison of the last frame right before it cuts to Gennaro, that'd be perfect. Thanks, Andrea.
Posts: 7,153
Threads: 601
Joined: 2015 Jan
Thanks: 1081
Given 1466 thank(s) in 963 post(s)
Country:
|
