Mr.QueenFan
This is great. Thanks to Ghostwithasmile is BACK! for the video and to Chief Mouse for the outsanding work. Always appreciated.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
brians wig
Thanks for working on this Chief and Thanks to Sikke for sharing.
So. 39gb (pro res 422?) to 6.8gb to 1.52gb?
Is there a higher quality processed file available? Surely Chiefmouse kept a high quality "master"....
(Sorry for being a quality freak, but we all whinge over mp3 when there's a lossless recording available, and I see video in the same light)
So. 39gb (pro res 422?) to 6.8gb to 1.52gb?
Is there a higher quality processed file available? Surely Chiefmouse kept a high quality "master"....
(Sorry for being a quality freak, but we all whinge over mp3 when there's a lossless recording available, and I see video in the same light)
Chief Mouse
[QUOTE]
[b]brians wig wrote: [/b] Thanks for working on this Chief and Thanks to Sikke for sharing.
So. 39gb (pro res 422?) to 6.8gb to 1.52gb?
Is there a higher quality processed file available? Surely Chiefmouse kept a high quality "master"....
(Sorry for being a quality freak, but we all whinge over mp3 when there's a lossless recording available, and I see video in the same light)
[/QUOTE]
With video it's a bit different than the audio though. I suppose you mean there must be a lossless version that I rendered? Well, there's not, as I encoded this directly to H.264 MKV file with x264. Even if I did encode it in lossless form it would look 99% the same as it does now with 1.52 GB. That's because H.264 has a great compression :) I understand your principle but it's not practical for me. It is the way to go, though, if you make tape/reel transfers. That way you capture 100% what's on the source tape.
[b]brians wig wrote: [/b] Thanks for working on this Chief and Thanks to Sikke for sharing.
So. 39gb (pro res 422?) to 6.8gb to 1.52gb?
Is there a higher quality processed file available? Surely Chiefmouse kept a high quality "master"....
(Sorry for being a quality freak, but we all whinge over mp3 when there's a lossless recording available, and I see video in the same light)
[/QUOTE]
With video it's a bit different than the audio though. I suppose you mean there must be a lossless version that I rendered? Well, there's not, as I encoded this directly to H.264 MKV file with x264. Even if I did encode it in lossless form it would look 99% the same as it does now with 1.52 GB. That's because H.264 has a great compression :) I understand your principle but it's not practical for me. It is the way to go, though, if you make tape/reel transfers. That way you capture 100% what's on the source tape.
Barry Durex
^ Did you work on the St Johns Wood KYA promo?
brians wig
I understand where you're coming from Chief.
As one of the guys who got a lot of the early DVDs on the market, most of which have appeared here over the years (can I say decades now as I did the first in 2001?), I'm always mindful of quality loss when re-encoding to a much smaller filesize even with more up to date compression codecs.
I suspect that the original print will have been scanned in at either a DPX file sequence or a 1920x1080 HD transfer which would account for the 30gb file size. compressing to a bitrate of 10mb/s would leave that at the 6.8gb size and personally I never re-encode HD material to less than 10mb/s, hence my concern over quality loss.
To be fair, I've yet to pop it on a drive and view on my 42" HD TV, but old habits die hard and I'm generally fighting for quality these days in a world where even 480p youtube quality is deemed acceptable by most of the world because they only ever view it on a 5" screen!
As one of the guys who got a lot of the early DVDs on the market, most of which have appeared here over the years (can I say decades now as I did the first in 2001?), I'm always mindful of quality loss when re-encoding to a much smaller filesize even with more up to date compression codecs.
I suspect that the original print will have been scanned in at either a DPX file sequence or a 1920x1080 HD transfer which would account for the 30gb file size. compressing to a bitrate of 10mb/s would leave that at the 6.8gb size and personally I never re-encode HD material to less than 10mb/s, hence my concern over quality loss.
To be fair, I've yet to pop it on a drive and view on my 42" HD TV, but old habits die hard and I'm generally fighting for quality these days in a world where even 480p youtube quality is deemed acceptable by most of the world because they only ever view it on a 5" screen!
Chief Mouse
[QUOTE]
[b]brians wig wrote: [/b] I understand where you're coming from Chief.
As one of the guys who got a lot of the early DVDs on the market, most of which have appeared here over the years (can I say decades now as I did the first in 2001?), I'm always mindful of quality loss when re-encoding to a much smaller filesize even with more up to date compression codecs.
I suspect that the original print will have been scanned in at either a DPX file sequence or a 1920x1080 HD transfer which would account for the 30gb file size. compressing to a bitrate of 10mb/s would leave that at the 6.8gb size and personally I never re-encode HD material to less than 10mb/s, hence my concern over quality loss.
To be fair, I've yet to pop it on a drive and view on my 42" HD TV, but old habits die hard and I'm generally fighting for quality these days in a world where even 480p youtube quality is deemed acceptable by most of the world because they only ever view it on a 5" screen![/QUOTE]
The original hasn't been scanned to HD as far as I know. Not sure it would be worth to do it because it wasn't shot on film in first place.
As far as I understand it -
[b] 2" tape[/b] -> [b]35mm film conversion[/b] -> [b]39 GB lossless version[/b] -> [b]6.8 GB[/b] (a little more lossy conversion from the 39 GB) -> [b]H.264 MKV encode[/b] (or the DVD files shared a while ago that also fit in the last section of this chain)
[b]brians wig wrote: [/b] I understand where you're coming from Chief.
As one of the guys who got a lot of the early DVDs on the market, most of which have appeared here over the years (can I say decades now as I did the first in 2001?), I'm always mindful of quality loss when re-encoding to a much smaller filesize even with more up to date compression codecs.
I suspect that the original print will have been scanned in at either a DPX file sequence or a 1920x1080 HD transfer which would account for the 30gb file size. compressing to a bitrate of 10mb/s would leave that at the 6.8gb size and personally I never re-encode HD material to less than 10mb/s, hence my concern over quality loss.
To be fair, I've yet to pop it on a drive and view on my 42" HD TV, but old habits die hard and I'm generally fighting for quality these days in a world where even 480p youtube quality is deemed acceptable by most of the world because they only ever view it on a 5" screen![/QUOTE]
The original hasn't been scanned to HD as far as I know. Not sure it would be worth to do it because it wasn't shot on film in first place.
As far as I understand it -
[b] 2" tape[/b] -> [b]35mm film conversion[/b] -> [b]39 GB lossless version[/b] -> [b]6.8 GB[/b] (a little more lossy conversion from the 39 GB) -> [b]H.264 MKV encode[/b] (or the DVD files shared a while ago that also fit in the last section of this chain)
Oscar J
Looks great! What do you use for the temporal noise reduction? Neat Video?
Chief Mouse
[QUOTE] [b]Oscar J wrote:[/b]
Looks great! What do you use for the temporal noise reduction? Neat Video?[/QUOTE]
I never use it. At least not anymore, ever since I learned Avisynth. I use MVDeGrain2.
Looks great! What do you use for the temporal noise reduction? Neat Video?[/QUOTE]
I never use it. At least not anymore, ever since I learned Avisynth. I use MVDeGrain2.