tomchristie22
Can't say I'm a fan of the boosted framerate on the Chief Mouse version, but nice touch-up otherwise. Many thanks to both of you for sharing!
Thread
Posts in chronological order
Nitroboy
Why do you dislike the higher framerate?
tomchristie22
Well, it's an artificial effect, but I wouldn't fault it for that if I liked the way it looks. I guess it's just a case of it looking 'cheap' as a result of the framerate being higher than usual (an argument which pertains more to film usually). Whether it's a matter of 60fps inherently looking 'too smooth' and resultantly displeasing to the human eye (I'm sure anyone who saw The Hobbit in 48 fps understands the resulting dizziness in the moving shots), or just that we're used to lower framerates in video presentation, I don't know.
tomchristie22
There's also the fact that it simply wasn't the intended style of presentation. One could liken it to colourising a black and white television show (though that's a much more extreme example).
Hub3
thank you for sharing and thank you again.
pittrek
[QUOTE] [b]tomchristie22 wrote:[/b]
Can't say I'm a fan of the boosted framerate on the Chief Mouse version, but nice touch-up otherwise. Many thanks to both of you for sharing![/QUOTE]
I'm not a big fan of it too. If it was shot on PAL video, why convert it to something else? But the cleanup is great as usual
Can't say I'm a fan of the boosted framerate on the Chief Mouse version, but nice touch-up otherwise. Many thanks to both of you for sharing![/QUOTE]
I'm not a big fan of it too. If it was shot on PAL video, why convert it to something else? But the cleanup is great as usual
Nitroboy
It was shot in the PAL format, with 50 fields per second.
Instead of blending two fields to make 25fps, each field is being presented whole as to make it 50fps. I believe this is how TV sets would do it as well - not blending the fields.
Instead of blending two fields to make 25fps, each field is being presented whole as to make it 50fps. I believe this is how TV sets would do it as well - not blending the fields.
Carlos Rivera
Hello people
Another link for download the original file. (Boh Rhap Trillion 2inch video transfer 1975.mov)
https://mega.co.nz/#!SUw1zCxB!UN-Xp7HCabgdBN5Z630q_nCpkG1K6Q6KVqSH2s6-k7o
Regards
Another link for download the original file. (Boh Rhap Trillion 2inch video transfer 1975.mov)
https://mega.co.nz/#!SUw1zCxB!UN-Xp7HCabgdBN5Z630q_nCpkG1K6Q6KVqSH2s6-k7o
Regards
Chief Mouse
[QUOTE] [b]tomchristie22 wrote:[/b]
Well, it's an artificial effect, but I wouldn't fault it for that if I liked the way it looks. I guess it's just a case of it looking 'cheap' as a result of the framerate being higher than usual (an argument which pertains more to film usually). Whether it's a matter of 60fps inherently looking 'too smooth' and resultantly displeasing to the human eye (I'm sure anyone who saw The Hobbit in 48 fps understands the resulting dizziness in the moving shots), or just that we're used to lower framerates in video presentation, I don't know. [/QUOTE]
[QUOTE] [b]pittrek wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]tomchristie22 wrote:[/b]
Can't say I'm a fan of the boosted framerate on the Chief Mouse version, but nice touch-up otherwise. Many thanks to both of you for sharing![/QUOTE]
I'm not a big fan of it too. If it was shot on PAL video, why convert it to something else? But the cleanup is great as usual[/QUOTE]
It depends on ones taste.
But you're wrong there though, about the artificial matter. As well as it is still PAL and not converted as Pittrek suggested.
It is merely a simple deinterlacing when done the way it's supposed to be done. There are 2 fields of picture per one frame. What deinterlacing does is separate them thus making two individual frames. So nothing artificial there - it's all real information that's on the video file.
(A comment for Nitroboy - blending is a way of deinterlacing but it's the worst way. Separating fields is the way to go :) Anyway, I see what you mean.)
Usually what I do (most of the times to save file space or if the source is film) is making it like this (double FPS) and drop every second or first frame thus making it 25 FPS progressive (or 29.97 NTSC, depends on your video). Why make it double FPS on first hand? Because that's what deinterlacers do. You can choose afterwards whether you like it smoother or not. When I don't want it smoother, I add this line to my Avisynth script "SelectEven()" or "SelectOdd()" - doesn't really matter that much which one you choose but you can probably see what these mean, you're selecting every other frame (dropping the other ones).
My point is that, this is natural not artificial and the look or effect is to blame, since you're just not used to it. This is NOT the same thing as adding fake frames which I did for stuff like St Paul and San Francisco (8 mm films which are originally about 18 FPS and look jerky). Nothing fake here, just working with what we got - the fields.
Anyway, it is easily fixed, just convert it to 25 FPS with some sort of software. Or if you're familiar with Avisynth, you can add SelectEven() in your script.
I hope I made sense!
Well, it's an artificial effect, but I wouldn't fault it for that if I liked the way it looks. I guess it's just a case of it looking 'cheap' as a result of the framerate being higher than usual (an argument which pertains more to film usually). Whether it's a matter of 60fps inherently looking 'too smooth' and resultantly displeasing to the human eye (I'm sure anyone who saw The Hobbit in 48 fps understands the resulting dizziness in the moving shots), or just that we're used to lower framerates in video presentation, I don't know. [/QUOTE]
[QUOTE] [b]pittrek wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]tomchristie22 wrote:[/b]
Can't say I'm a fan of the boosted framerate on the Chief Mouse version, but nice touch-up otherwise. Many thanks to both of you for sharing![/QUOTE]
I'm not a big fan of it too. If it was shot on PAL video, why convert it to something else? But the cleanup is great as usual[/QUOTE]
It depends on ones taste.
But you're wrong there though, about the artificial matter. As well as it is still PAL and not converted as Pittrek suggested.
It is merely a simple deinterlacing when done the way it's supposed to be done. There are 2 fields of picture per one frame. What deinterlacing does is separate them thus making two individual frames. So nothing artificial there - it's all real information that's on the video file.
(A comment for Nitroboy - blending is a way of deinterlacing but it's the worst way. Separating fields is the way to go :) Anyway, I see what you mean.)
Usually what I do (most of the times to save file space or if the source is film) is making it like this (double FPS) and drop every second or first frame thus making it 25 FPS progressive (or 29.97 NTSC, depends on your video). Why make it double FPS on first hand? Because that's what deinterlacers do. You can choose afterwards whether you like it smoother or not. When I don't want it smoother, I add this line to my Avisynth script "SelectEven()" or "SelectOdd()" - doesn't really matter that much which one you choose but you can probably see what these mean, you're selecting every other frame (dropping the other ones).
My point is that, this is natural not artificial and the look or effect is to blame, since you're just not used to it. This is NOT the same thing as adding fake frames which I did for stuff like St Paul and San Francisco (8 mm films which are originally about 18 FPS and look jerky). Nothing fake here, just working with what we got - the fields.
Anyway, it is easily fixed, just convert it to 25 FPS with some sort of software. Or if you're familiar with Avisynth, you can add SelectEven() in your script.
I hope I made sense!
tassilo
Thanks a lot!
Oscar J
I for one love this version. Gorgeous quality and the smooth playback almost makes you feel like you're there with them watching them play.
tomchristie22
[QUOTE] [b]Chief Mouse wrote:[/b]
But you're wrong there though, about the artificial matter. As well as it is still PAL and not converted as Pittrek suggested.
It is merely a simple deinterlacing when done the way it's supposed to be done. There are 2 fields of picture per one frame. What deinterlacing does is separate them thus making two individual frames. So nothing artificial there - it's all real information that's on the video file.
(A comment for Nitroboy - blending is a way of deinterlacing but it's the worst way. Separating fields is the way to go :) Anyway, I see what you mean.)
Usually what I do (most of the times to save file space or if the source is film) is making it like this (double FPS) and drop every second or first frame thus making it 25 FPS progressive (or 29.97 NTSC, depends on your video). Why make it double FPS on first hand? Because that's what deinterlacers do. You can choose afterwards whether you like it smoother or not. When I don't want it smoother, I add this line to my Avisynth script "SelectEven()" or "SelectOdd()" - doesn't really matter that much which one you choose but you can probably see what these mean, you're selecting every other frame (dropping the other ones).
My point is that, this is natural not artificial and the look or effect is to blame, since you're just not used to it. This is NOT the same thing as adding fake frames which I did for stuff like St Paul and San Francisco (8 mm films which are originally about 18 FPS and look jerky). Nothing fake here, just working with what we got - the fields.
Anyway, it is easily fixed, just convert it to 25 FPS with some sort of software. Or if you're familiar with Avisynth, you can add SelectEven() in your script.
I hope I made sense![/QUOTE]
Aha, thanks for explaining - I'll try and be more open to it.
But you're wrong there though, about the artificial matter. As well as it is still PAL and not converted as Pittrek suggested.
It is merely a simple deinterlacing when done the way it's supposed to be done. There are 2 fields of picture per one frame. What deinterlacing does is separate them thus making two individual frames. So nothing artificial there - it's all real information that's on the video file.
(A comment for Nitroboy - blending is a way of deinterlacing but it's the worst way. Separating fields is the way to go :) Anyway, I see what you mean.)
Usually what I do (most of the times to save file space or if the source is film) is making it like this (double FPS) and drop every second or first frame thus making it 25 FPS progressive (or 29.97 NTSC, depends on your video). Why make it double FPS on first hand? Because that's what deinterlacers do. You can choose afterwards whether you like it smoother or not. When I don't want it smoother, I add this line to my Avisynth script "SelectEven()" or "SelectOdd()" - doesn't really matter that much which one you choose but you can probably see what these mean, you're selecting every other frame (dropping the other ones).
My point is that, this is natural not artificial and the look or effect is to blame, since you're just not used to it. This is NOT the same thing as adding fake frames which I did for stuff like St Paul and San Francisco (8 mm films which are originally about 18 FPS and look jerky). Nothing fake here, just working with what we got - the fields.
Anyway, it is easily fixed, just convert it to 25 FPS with some sort of software. Or if you're familiar with Avisynth, you can add SelectEven() in your script.
I hope I made sense![/QUOTE]
Aha, thanks for explaining - I'll try and be more open to it.
peckery
Sorry for wasting time if this has been said before (I tried a "search" first) but I'd love to see what the Chief could do with Earl's Court 77. Pittrek did a very good job a few years ago but maybe various aspects could be "enhanced" eg clarity of detail. I know it would be a huge job but maybe it could be done gradually, with the aim of making it a Christmas present .... Likewise Houston 77. I remember that one being good quality but again, maybe there is room for improvement.... Just an idea....
Chief Mouse
[QUOTE] [b]peckery wrote:[/b]
Sorry for wasting time if this has been said before (I tried a "search" first) but I'd love to see what the Chief could do with Earl's Court 77. Pittrek did a very good job a few years ago but maybe various aspects could be "enhanced" eg clarity of detail. I know it would be a huge job but maybe it could be done gradually, with the aim of making it a Christmas present .... Likewise Houston 77. I remember that one being good quality but again, maybe there is room for improvement.... Just an idea....[/QUOTE]
Only thing I could do to make an improvement over his version, is reduce the red colour bleeding and shifting chroma a bit.
But overall, I feel it's not worth my time, sorry :P The upgrade wouldn't be that much noticeable, especially to those people who don't pay as much attention to video details.
Sorry for wasting time if this has been said before (I tried a "search" first) but I'd love to see what the Chief could do with Earl's Court 77. Pittrek did a very good job a few years ago but maybe various aspects could be "enhanced" eg clarity of detail. I know it would be a huge job but maybe it could be done gradually, with the aim of making it a Christmas present .... Likewise Houston 77. I remember that one being good quality but again, maybe there is room for improvement.... Just an idea....[/QUOTE]
Only thing I could do to make an improvement over his version, is reduce the red colour bleeding and shifting chroma a bit.
But overall, I feel it's not worth my time, sorry :P The upgrade wouldn't be that much noticeable, especially to those people who don't pay as much attention to video details.
hobbit in Rhye
Terrific sharing, thanks a lot Sikke and Chief ^^
The video is so clear that I can actually see how much acting they put into it, except John who was like "Hell no, another take again?!"
Both the original and the color correction are much appreciated.
Remind me of the first time I saw this BR video, it was on MTV. I got hooked immediately. And that was the first time I saw the faces of Queen :)
The video is so clear that I can actually see how much acting they put into it, except John who was like "Hell no, another take again?!"
Both the original and the color correction are much appreciated.
Remind me of the first time I saw this BR video, it was on MTV. I got hooked immediately. And that was the first time I saw the faces of Queen :)