| Chief Mouse 21.12.2014 16:17 |
|
| Chief Mouse 21.12.2014 16:21 |
It may seem that I made the colour look 'flat' or that the original was more colourful, well that's because the colour is going all over the place (in minimal amounts) in the original. I consider that as a defect. You can probably see what I mean in the first screenshot comparison. You can always choose which version you'd like to prefer because neither of them is perfect. For this we'd need a fresh transfer of the master tape :-) |
| BETA215 21.12.2014 16:23 |
Thanks Chief! I was trying to do something like that, but removing more all that noise. But I couldn't do it. |
| BETA215 21.12.2014 16:26 |
Chief Mouse wrote: It may seem that I made the colour look 'flat' or that the original was more colourful, well that's because the colour is going all over the place (in minimal amounts) in the original. I consider that as a defect. You can probably see what I mean in the first screenshot comparison. You can always choose which version you'd like to prefer because neither of them is perfect. For this we'd need a fresh transfer of the master tape :-) That is what I recognize while watching your latest Earls Court remaster. I looked normal. And when the video changed of source, your remaster started to look flat. |
| Chief Mouse 21.12.2014 16:34 |
BETA215 wrote:Chief Mouse wrote: It may seem that I made the colour look 'flat' or that the original was more colourful, well that's because the colour is going all over the place (in minimal amounts) in the original. I consider that as a defect. You can probably see what I mean in the first screenshot comparison. You can always choose which version you'd like to prefer because neither of them is perfect. For this we'd need a fresh transfer of the master tape :-)And when the video changed of source What do you mean with changing of source? But that Earls Court video was almost completely monochrome (apart from the colour stripes that went nuts in every frame) so that kind of treatment was okay. For this video it's different, but then again, as I explained, it's technically a defect - you either remove it or don't touch it. I had to do it since I decided to touch this video. At the end it comes down to personal taste :) I personally don't watch my own videos usually, unless they are so good that I like them (Rio maybe?), I just watch the source videos most of the time. I make my own versions mostly for fun and partly for other people who seem to like them. -- Merry Christmas (it's early, I know!) |
| Nitroboy 21.12.2014 17:02 |
Thank you! |
| BETA215 21.12.2014 17:39 |
Chief Mouse wrote:BETA215 wrote:What do you mean with changing of source? But that Earls Court video was almost completely monochrome (apart from the colour stripes that went nuts in every frame) so that kind of treatment was okay. For this video it's different, but then again, as I explained, it's technically a defect - you either remove it or don't touch it. I had to do it since I decided to touch this video. At the end it comes down to personal taste :) I personally don't watch my own videos usually, unless they are so good that I like them (Rio maybe?), I just watch the source videos most of the time. I make my own versions mostly for fun and partly for other people who seem to like them. -- Merry Christmas (it's early, I know!)Chief Mouse wrote: It may seem that I made the colour look 'flat' or that the original was more colourful, well that's because the colour is going all over the place (in minimal amounts) in the original. I consider that as a defect. You can probably see what I mean in the first screenshot comparison. You can always choose which version you'd like to prefer because neither of them is perfect. For this we'd need a fresh transfer of the master tape :-)And when the video changed of source Well... When I watched the video, in the medley's part there's a source change: it starts with your remaster, then it changes to a color footage (from a documentary surely), and finally it changes again to your source. In the doc. part, the video started to have depth. And then, when it changed to your remaster, it felt quite flat. That's the only thing that bothers me. But if that's the pay for a better-looking video, it's ok. Merry Christmas too! :) Mine is going to be very weird, I'm very sick. |
| Chief Mouse 21.12.2014 17:59 |
I haven't merged any different sources. Took it straight from Pittrek's DVD and I think I took only the LQ source. But I may have to check that video again. Either way, it sounds like it's to do with the original source. That particular LQ source was monochrome nevermind the stripes. What is happening the Great Pretender video is a bit like rainbowing, but it is pretty mild and scattered throughout the frame and it's in larger patches. Theoretically videos shouldn't have that and also a million other issues, but once you fix some or all of them, it is inevitable that something else will also suffer. Obviously, the higher quality source with less problems will also look much better when processed (I hate the word 'remaster' so I never use it :P ) because they require less filtering. Something like that. Lovely discussion :) And get well! |
| DepeX 22.12.2014 03:38 |
Thanks Chief! Merry Christmas also to you, mate! :-) |
| Chief Mouse 22.12.2014 04:17 |
BETA215 wrote:Chief Mouse wrote:Well... When I watched the video, in the medley's part there's a source change: it starts with your remaster, then it changes to a color footage (from a documentary surely), and finally it changes again to your source. In the doc. part, the video started to have depth. And then, when it changed to your remaster, it felt quite flat. That's the only thing that bothers me. But if that's the pay for a better-looking video, it's ok. Merry Christmas too! :) Mine is going to be very weird, I'm very sick.BETA215 wrote:What do you mean with changing of source? But that Earls Court video was almost completely monochrome (apart from the colour stripes that went nuts in every frame) so that kind of treatment was okay. For this video it's different, but then again, as I explained, it's technically a defect - you either remove it or don't touch it. I had to do it since I decided to touch this video. At the end it comes down to personal taste :) I personally don't watch my own videos usually, unless they are so good that I like them (Rio maybe?), I just watch the source videos most of the time. I make my own versions mostly for fun and partly for other people who seem to like them. -- Merry Christmas (it's early, I know!)Chief Mouse wrote: It may seem that I made the colour look 'flat' or that the original was more colourful, well that's because the colour is going all over the place (in minimal amounts) in the original. I consider that as a defect. You can probably see what I mean in the first screenshot comparison. You can always choose which version you'd like to prefer because neither of them is perfect. For this we'd need a fresh transfer of the master tape :-)And when the video changed of source I skipped through the RNR Medley video and I can't see any jump to documentary sources. Seems the same source to me throughout the video. Can you give the timecodes where the sources are supposed to be changing? If you mean some colour changes, well, it's all in that source. I merely made a temporal median in chroma and some other filters to get rid of the stripes and stuff. At the end the colours are evened out through the frames in time (imagine like 10 or whatever number of frames' colour merged together). So it's up to source when it turns B&W, when there's more colour and when it starts looking monochrome. It was all done to get rid of the stripes. The very same technique was applied to Rock In Rio 2nd night video.I didn't use this for The Great Pretender though - evened out the colour spatially. So, apart from the colour changes I'm pretty sure it all comes from the same source. Or maybe you just meant the lack of contrast or weak dark areas? We need to sort this out man :-) |
| Chief Mouse 22.12.2014 04:18 |
Nitroboy, DepeX, you're welcome! |
| Barry Durex 22.12.2014 07:38 |
Thanks |
| Vali 22.12.2014 08:31 |
wow Chief, fantastic job as usual :-) tks for sharing ! |
| princetom 22.12.2014 12:06 |
fine. if you people now would get the title of the show right, please ? :-) it's "4 gegen Willy" (four against Willy). while willy was a hamster, btw. whatever. |
| Chief Mouse 22.12.2014 12:10 |
princetom wrote: fine. if you people now would get the title of the show right, please ? :-) it's "4 gegen Willy" (four against Willy). while willy was a hamster, btw. whatever. Okay. |
| Nitroboy 22.12.2014 13:26 |
That is actually correct. link |
| Chief Mouse 22.12.2014 13:29 |
Nitroboy wrote: That is actually correct. link :P |
| pittrek 22.12.2014 14:15 |
I was quite sure I have a better looking version but I can't find it, so thanks for this one :) |
| Barry Durex 22.12.2014 14:25 |
I can' t find my Hangman acetate either. |
| Queenman!! 22.12.2014 15:32 |
Barry Durex wrote: I can' t find my Hangman acetate either.======================================= I want that acetate too... want to trade it for the Urk gig 1983? :-) |
| Barry Durex 22.12.2014 17:54 |
princetom wrote: fine. if you people now would get the title of the show right, please ? :-) it's "4 gegen Willy" (four against Willy). while willy was a hamster, btw. whatever.It's Willi actually. |
| MackMantilla 23.12.2014 07:41 |
This looks nice. Thanks, Chief :) |
| princetom 24.12.2014 06:21 |
Barry Durex wrote: It's Willi actually.*shitting in my smarty pants* :-) of course you're right. |
| Chief Mouse 24.12.2014 06:36 |
So I gotta change it again?? Each time I do that I gotta copy the embed links to screenshots and repost because if I don't do that, the pictures don't show up after I save the edit. Okay, I'm gonna do it anyway. |
| tassilo 30.12.2014 13:37 |
Thanks. |