FarooqBhai the problem with enhancing it your way is this;



...the halo it create around the finders appears unnatural. Screen sizes from <50" it doesn't probably matter, but imagine that projected on a bigger screen.

Ali

I've seen your still and have shown it to a leading HD encoder and Editor, who has done a lot of HD work for Technicolor and BBC. He is also a close friend of mine.

While he knows that the original DPX image file has its own set of problems, he feels that your "work" adds more injury to the image, instead of enhancing it.

Sorry

That is understandable...give ME an UNTOUCHED set of frames...then I can show you what I can do.

do you really think MY work is exemplary ? I used a jpeg image...i can ONLY do so much. That was done so I can show you what COULD HAVE BEEN DONE WITH AN UNTOUCHED SOURCE...IF SOMEONE WITH SKILLS can work on it. that was the point i was trying to make...NOTHING ELSE.

this above applies to ali as well...i don't mean to be confrontational or anything...i'm just frustrated with the LACK OF SKILLS these companies have...they just do NOT care about quality...only MONEY

Ali bhai,

EVERYONE IS MISSING THE POINT...what did I have to work with? A JPEG file!!! NOT a film print...a single frame in a format that is lacking for details because of the TYPE OF FILE.

MY WORK that was shown was to show this:

1) the amount of NOISE that still remains
2) the lack of details...and look at what was brought out from a JPEG image...NOT an original frame...

I might have oversharpened which creates the halos...and also my denoising was not sufficient, but there was a POINT to be made.

Anytime I make a comment on any of these threads...I KNOW what I am talking about. I have seen over 500DVD9s go through my hands...and I know what errors were made in the transfers. Some people who know me here, see the work I've done on a handful of DVDs and remaking them MY way...and will ALL AGREE that the work done was SUPERIOR to what was released on the original DVD9.

NOW if ANYONE can improve the quality from a 7.95GB set of files...this doesn't speak VOLUMES for people like YOU (the people who do the transfers) who really don't know what you are doing. This is the brutal truth of things.

ELITE HOME VIDEOS might take advice and use it for their releases...but it has been quite evident that Ayngaran doesn't care for advice from others. What Shahran did about showing his coworker that screenshot was CORRECT...but the reasoning behind it was NOT.

I give honest & brutal advice. It is up to the companies to take the advice or not...up until 2008, it has been evident very lucidly that NONE of you who work on the transfers knows ANYTHING about it.

On the first page, I don't know WHAT the heck all those codes mean...4k, 2k as MY experience is only with DVD9s...I don't know all that terminology. No matter what terminology you use to describe the process of transfers...the fact remains - YOU STILL HAVE GARBAGE...nothing more.

I say this as a consumer...I buy everything I work on...and since this is a forum where we discuss different DVD releases, I think I have a right as a respected user to voice my opinion. And someone who is NOT exactly a novice to film quality, I can say that I, as a video encoder who TAUGHT myself everything so far ON MY OWN TIME, with ONE single JPEG image put Ayngaran to shame...not that I am proud of that - but it really should tell Ayngaran that n00bs are better than ANY PERSON they have in their own labs.

Listen Guys, the thread Poster has Given a Jpeg shot,which is Lossy compression u easily loose Details there

nobody Cant Judge the Quality from a Screenshot ,unless a Sample is posted,the Fact from all this is AYN can never get there Act together,gone are the days when they produced Good DVDs

i am sure AYN will Screw the Bluray too ,dont have much expectation from this Bluray Release,after they Screwed up the DVD set

The still Sunny posted isn't amazing but I wouldn't want the image to be artificially sharpened with edge enhancement or other sharpening techniques. If the source is compromised it shouldn't be further compromised by trying to "enhance" it with EE, DNR, etc.

Is it just me or is that sky an unnatural shade of blue?

I KNOW HOW TO ENHANCE ANY SOURCE PROPERLY...

and so do MANY other people...yes the colours are also messed up...I only gave them a fact that the STILL IMAGE still was crap, no matter WHAT THEY HAVE DONE so far...it's Garbage...

i'll just spend my money buying a BluRay of Lord of the Rings...

Let's hope the BR versions look better than this...

Since BR is even more revealing of source defects than DVD, I fear that problems with DNR, etc. will become worse. I hope this isn't the case.

FarooqBhai saab, I agree with what you say, esp with these DVD companies lacking the skills to encode video (although sometimes the way you deliver your message has certain amount of arrogance about it, but I put that down to the Americanism in you ). I've been there and shouted down many throats without results, hope you get better results. I think Ayngaran should put up the money to fly you out to London to work on the Blu-ray (although you might have sign papers to say that the Blu-ray doesn't end up on bwt )

Ali

I'm sorry but I'd really prefer if such enhancement was NOT ON THE SOURCE as I find it highly distracting and ugly. You can use your player's and TV's controls to do such processing if you crave it. No need to spit in my soup at the same time.
The Ayngaran jpeg looks pretty good and really needs no sharpening applied on the master.
Actually, looking at the 1080p picture again I completely fail to see how this is supposed to be crap. It is a pleasing looking film like frame with no obvious digital tampering. I like it. I hope all of the film looks like this or better.

Well, yes the arrogance is there...but trust me yaara...I do it with a good heart. Nothing evil. I just know the capabilities of what I can do with a source. After seeing SO MANY sources go through my hands, I think I have a pretty good idea of what to do.

IF I ever get the chance to work with a DVD company trust me, my work will not be showing up @ BwT from me...I will stop...
I'll sign any papers...

@ mhafner...you are entitled to your opinion. I say what I say from experience and expertise on sources...and finally a few people see what I am saying for what it is... I respect your opinion...you can respect mine as well.

I encode video every day...I test everyday. BluRay in MY opinion is about details and excellence in quality. With this in mind, from looking at the one jpg image...I have to say that FAILS to be anywhere NEAR BluRay quality...no matter HOW soft the print is...I know that I personally can bring out the details withOUT halos or other artifacts and I know HOW to take off that white smudge as well...granted my script JUST to process this one frame took 52 minutes on a slow computer, this whole movie would take me nearly 1 or 2 months to master properly. And that to ME is worth it for a movie such as this...it deserves the best. Unfortunately in MY opinion alone, it shall not be.

I have uploaded two uncompressed DPX stills taken directly from the DI file.

Remember I believe in encoding close to the quality of the DI source (as the film-maker intented).

While Farooq believes in detail and sharpeness.

Here are the files. Download and unrar them.
http://www.uploading.com/files/L1U04HMY/DIStill.rar.html

Maybe you can test and see if you encode a decent MPEG-4 AVC frame?

If anyone is wondering Photoshop or free xnview - http://pagesperso-orange.fr/pierre.g/xnview/enhome.html - will allow you to view the .dpx files.

Ali

Excellence in quality on HD means giving a faithful rendition of the source (film element etc.), NOT making it something it is not and enforcing a look it does not have! Some film is tack sharp, some is not. Some has vivid colors, some not. Some has little shadow detail, some pleny. HD is here to show me how it is and what the film makers wanted me to see. Not more, not less.
Your improved version as presented here was severly degrading the quality. Exactly what HD is NOT here for.

So what is wrong with it except you don't see the detail/sharpness you apparently inist every HD must have? What is it?? Do you want to reprocess every film ever made and eradicate all shots that don't have flat frequency response up to 1080p?

Let's not mix up the speckle or what it is and the detail in general. Removing speckles, scratches etc. is ok if not perfectly fine since it's an unwanted film flaw on some frames. The sharpness and detail on the other hand is part a decision of the film makers and part technical limitations of focus(ing), film, lens, scanning and processing. What it is has to be decided on a case by case/shot by shot basis. A general "I want more sharpness" simply won't do. In this case detail is nice (and well beyond DVD) and there is no need at all to try to push it unless the film makers are not happy with it. But in that case a better solution is to go back to the negative and apply no DNR this time before any digital sharpening is applied.

What software are you using? What kind of processing are you suggesting? If you used 52 minutes for one frame than at least show us the 1080p version, please, and not this artifact ridden scaled version, so we can have a fair assessment of before and after.

Well, one frame looks nice (the one we had already), the other is, sorry, DNRed crap. With frames like this a good quality BD that looks like film is not possible. Garbage in, garbage out. 4K is an utter waste for this kind of waxy DNR. I don't know what film makers are thinking when they ask for 4K and DNR like this.
Maybe they were better off with a HD camera instead, or a Genesis, a RED.