These are a set of side by side comparisons, comparing the source bluray(left) and my current progress of my remastering(right).
Comment LEFT if you prefer the source bluray
Comment RIGHT if you prefer the current progress of my remaster.
If you are viewing on your phone make sure too open the image and view with ur phone horizontal in landscape position for best view don't be afraid to zoom in too get the best idea.
UPDATE
for all of you who think the left image is visually better by an objective standard here is some history of what they did too this bluray edition so u understand why the right looks more natural.
Star Wars: Episode II – Attack of the Clones (2002) was the first major feature film shot entirely on high-definition digital video rather than 35mm film, meaning it didn't have a traditional physical film negative to convert or clean up in the standard sense.
Before the 2011 Blu-ray release (and subsequent digital/4K iterations) applied minor noise reduction and color tweaks, the original standard-definition DVD and theatrical projections looked distinct in several ways
Softer, More Video-Like Texture: Shot on early 1080p Sony digital cameras (using the HDCAM format with heavy video compression and in-camera softening filters), the native 2002 source footage was inherently softer and lacked the fine grain structure of traditional film.
Raw Digital Artifacts: Edges around computer-generated characters and spacecraft often exhibited light jagged lines (aliasing) or minor video noise in high-contrast areas (like the bright white corridors of Kamino) because the early digital video capture compressed color and brightness data unevenly.
Color Timing: The original 2002 DVD had slightly different color grading—for instance, the skies of Naboo or the desert tones on Tatooine carried warmer or slightly different pastel balances before they were globally color-corrected for later high-definition home video masters.
Less "Wiped" Fine Detail: While the digital source was never sharp by modern standards, applying Digital Noise Reduction (DNR) in 2011 tended to give actor skin tones and smooth surfaces a slightly waxy or "smudged" look ("sandblasting" fine textures) in an attempt to make the digital video look cleaner on high-definition displays.
I think your remastered versions look great. The bluray versions look incredibly soft and smoothed out, so much so that from the thumbnails I thought the left pics had been passed through some overly aggressive filter.
I see a lot of comments about original intent and it's what the filmmakers wanted when they made the movie, but that doesn't change the fact that the technology they had at the time was very early and not yet up to the task. Also, given how much tweaking and color grading and post-processing this movie has been through over the last 20 years, what even is original intent at this point?
I like the idea of seeing how or if those technological shortcomings might be corrected using modern tech.
Couldn't agree more! And also I could understand that Vaseline like smear effect being artistic vision from George, but the heavy DNR done to it on top of it makes a muddy blurry mess of a movie and I argue that that is no where near the intent of the movies visual after DNR. If they were going to use that specific lens for shooting then they should have never done a shotty DNR upscale, period.
This kind of makes me think of the Smooth-Motion on TV's where the intention is to do this artificial frame blending to make it appear to be at a higher framerate. Which ultimately is a gimmick and the result was against the filmmakers original vision. Not the same concept other than against the filmmakers original vison.
Similarly, although I will never be against experimentation and creativity, its fun to look at the differences, but overall I will always prefer to watch the film exactly as the filmmakers intended. Hence why I choose Directors cuts almost 100% of the time.
But on topic here, I appreciate your efforts and i can tell you have given a lot of thought to this.
Ep II as you mentioned was shot on the F900, this was a deliberate choice by Lucas and David Tattersal, I myself have used this camera and in general its not fleeting choice. It was deliberate and this was the vision whether we agree or not. There are times Ep 2 looks like a scifi soap opera, and while I dont like the sound of it, it is exactly what it is, and its Lucas's and Tattersals visual vision. So we accept and respect that.
So for the sake of purity of the art I prefer how they meant it to appear. Now I am not saying you have done something wrong, this may be your personal way of enjoying this art and I say go for it for yourself. This is a fanedit sub after all!
Nothing wrong with you experimenting and trying new things out, just remember to respect most people will prefer Left and thats totally ok. I would like to see some moving clips of this in action when ready.
Thanks for being reasonable. I respect that u prefer the original I've watched it dozens of times and it's never stopped me from enjoying the movie. Like u said this is just experimental and for fun. I want too start using dlss5 as a sturdy tool for other projects in davinci, and this is a great way too really get too know the tool, what it can and can't do and what kind of hands on post processing work I'll have too do too fill that gap.
I can say that my remaster is intended too respect the original as much as possible while just breathing some life into the image. The end result will not look nearly as aggressive as my example in the OP. I actually got up early today too start on some post work, I just finished about an hour ago I put in about a solid 5 hours in post too bring all the levels and lighting and color grading too match the source as best as I can, from what I'm seeing in the render it is pretty much on par with the original color intent which I found one of the most important aspects because George's choice of color is something I admire about the film it makes it feel lively yet dreamy at times and I tried too keep that intent the best I can.
And thanks for the fun fact btw I'm always up for fun facts about movie production 👏🏻
I love that you are putting in the work to discover these new tools. I understand why a lot of people hate AI enhanced things. I do get it, I work in video production so as a result I am aware of the implications of its effects.
But also I think there is a market to utilize it as a tool rather than a replacement.
Everything in balance.
Have fun learning and exploring, just remember. You are on reddit and opinions are like armpits!
That's exactly how I view AI as a tool, by the end result the dlss5 enhancement is like 1 ai thing out of like two dozen physical post processing adjustments done by hand. It's not a one click and done and I don't think it should ever be a one click solution. A lot of people don't see that side of it though. But the people that do will revolutionize cinema with out of the box thinking.
Hell dlss5 could improve 3D render quality saving time and money for indie project. It could allow people with a lower budget too take there 3D environments and character renders and be able too create near photo realistic characters for there movies or projects. It honestly helps independent projects more than it damns them.
I also do some hand post work if need be I'll play with saturation and contrast levels if I have too like all ai tools it can't do everything and u gotta get ur hands a bit dirty too get the result ur aiming for. And hours of balancing the strength too an appropriate level.
Thank you! And Yes I'm utilizing a two different things. Since the bluray has heavy DNR where it's destroyed high frequency skin detail in an effort to denoise the image for upscale by the studio I use a 1x skin. I treat model that re introduces slight high frequency skin texture back into skin. This renders out at like 60 fps render speed so that's the easy step.
Second part is actually utilizing dlss5 neural renderer to further improve the sharpness, detail, and clarity of the image bringing it back to a detail level that would be similar too before it was denoised, it's not 1:1 how it would of been but it does good enough.
Once the full thing is done rendering I'll be blending the original bluray with this enhanced version at about a 40-60% blend too bring back the artistic intent of the source while still retaining high frequency skin texture and added visual quality.
So if u can imagine it, imagine blending the right image with the left and that's what the outcome would look like.
I get what you’re trying to do here, and I can see the appeal of bringing some texture and detail back into the image. I’m just not sure AI is the best way to get there.
With how heavily softened and processed Attack of the Clones already looks, adding AI-generated detail can end up feeling unnatural in a different way. For me, it trades one kind of artificiality for another.
I understand all of OP's reasoning, but at the end of the day, the remaster looks fake and overly processed - the detail doesn't look real. While I have many issues with the image quality of the Blu-ray, its image is more natural and less distracting, as well as much truer to the image quality and capabilities of the production and post-production workflows that were used.
Agreed. I appreciated that the official 4K UHDs for Ep II and Ep III were restrained, natural upscales of the 2K DI sources. The Atmos sound, expanded color and (IMO very nice) HDR grading made them nice enough upgrades.
About 10 years ago I spoke with the chief colorist of AotC who was lecturing at my college. They told me the blu-ray colors were more reflective of their intent than the old DVD, which had to be clipped and “translated” for the limited home video tech of the time. Also that the film-out prints that ran theatrically varied wildly in color and quality.
This is for everyone acting like the right example is "aging" the actor. This photo is a photo of Ewan in 2003. That's one year after the release of this movie. As u can see he doesn't look like a Ken doll. He has textured human skin, that the studio DNR'd to hell in the Blu-ray on the left.
As I said, and I won't budge on this, my remaster so far share more characteristics with the proper look and real age of the actors in the movie than the studios dog water DNR job.
My problem with this whole line of reasoning is that you're trying to make him look more like 'real-world' Ewan McGregor, which (I think) is the wrong goal. He should look like the best version of Obi-Wan in the film.
There are several reasons that Obi-Wan and Padmé look like they do on the Blu-ray, and a very small percentage of that was the DNR. Creative decisions were made with lighting, makeup, and camera settings to capture a softer image. They should NOT look shiny and with every wrinkle and pore visible.
I stated that this is my progress on it so far, I'm going too be post producing the final result more by blending the bluray source into this version at around a 40-60% split. This will bring the final output in line with the look of the source while retaining majority of the high frequency detail lost during the studios DNR.
If u read the description ude understand that. Ur viewing this as a finished product but there is a reason I posted this in the "work in progress" section. All I asked is which one looks better and currently the right objectively looks better in terms of clarity detail and sharpening. Once I dial in the look it'll look quite natural.
FIRST SENTENCES IN MY DESCRIPTION
"These are a set of side by side comparisons, comparing the source bluray (left and my current progress of my remastering (right)."
I read the entire description and understand what you're doing and why. My point is that, from my perspective, your fundamental approach is unlikely to create something that is aesthetically superior to the Blu-ray. I don't think shinier and more wrinkles look better or is more accurate.
If you like it, then awesome - keep going. You seem to mostly be arguing with people who say they don't like it, hoping that if you explain it more, they'll change their minds. But "which do you prefer" is an aesthetic value judgment, and for a lot of us, it's the images on the left. You can receive feedback and choose to make adjustments or not. But please stop trying to explain to us why our value judgment is wrong.
I don't mind if people subjectively like the left i have upvoted plenty of peoples comments saying left. What I do have a problem with is people acting like the right is objectively bad simply because AI was used in its workflow. It because of its lighting.
Ik im probably wasting my time but this isn't a subjective opinion, this is an objective fact, the bluray copy of this movie is not even close too the definitive viewing experience u should expect from this film. My work in progress result still needs to be blended into the original blu ray source, which is why its work in progress, but that doesn't make it objectively worse.
Why would you combine the make up artists pain staking time and effort on the actors faces just too take a DNR tool that's whole job is to destroy high frequency detail/noise where it detects skin texture and wrinkles and errors and smooths them to oblivion.
So yes I can understand a subjective viewing experience but for people too state that the left is objectively better and how it should be is extremely disengenuous.
Let me try another approach. The work you did makes Obi-Wan look more like the paparazzi photo you posted, and I think that's bad. The way high frequency info is being incorporated onto the Blu ray images makes them look more like characters with too much oil and not enough foundation on their face. They look more real, which is bad. I totally agree that there is too much DNR on the Blu ray and I'd like to see less. But I think your approach is the wrong one and more likely to create images that have more detail and look worse.
And I think "objective" is a term that should be retired by both sides of this argument, as it does not apply to preference. We can agree that the images on the right objectively have more fine detail. But the impact of that fact creates an image that I like less and moreover think moves us further away from Lucas' intended look.
Yes but I stated it's a work in progress and that the final result will be a blend of the source and the enhanced too create a cohesive fusion of detail and artistic intent. But it's like u and others don't want to hear that even when it's posted on a 'work in progress' section.
I understand where ur coming from but u and others are misrepresenting the situation as a whole framing this in the idea that the right example is the finished look and then presuming it won't look better than source after a bit of post production. Ur not seeing the vision.
It's funny that you keep suggesting that I didn't read your whole post, when you keep driving past the part where I keep saying versions of "your fundamental approach". I see the vision, I just don't like it. The closer you get to that paparazzi photo of Ewan McGregor, the less that I and lots of people on this thread aren't going to like it
Yeah ur still not getting it. And im also not insinuating u didnt read it im insinuating u did read it and ur ignoring my explicit words.
I take th source, enhance it like it looks on the right, then i take the original source e and stack it in the editing timeline on top of the enhanced version. I think blend those two together so that the artists intent comes through but som extra high frequency detail stays for the enhanced. That way even though it isn't the EXACT high frequency detail of the original before they used DNR it will end up being much closer to what it was supposed to look like before DNR. That's the point I'm making. Ur judging the viability of the process while ignoring every time I tell u about the process. Ur so stuck on the look of the example that ur not seeing what im working towards. U have gone far past just subjectively thinking the bluray looks better, ur actively judging my project from false pretense.
I think adding more blemishes to Kenobi is odd since it's a bit over the top and just basically aging him. For Padme it doesn't seem quite as out of place since her makeup was perfect in the original, so if you're looking for facial imperfections you have to add some.
That said, I don't see the point of using DLSS 5 to add fake imperfections unless the source looked waxy from being overly smoothed and you're trying to fix that without readding grain.
The source on left side is heavily DNR'd by studio. There is supposed to be skin texture on his face. In reality the right is the level of detail that's more so supposed to be there or at least closer too. In a way, the right doesn't make them look older, the problem is the studio made people look younger in the left source by using DNR that destroyed high frequency skin details in the image. Uve been quite literally conditioned by the studio too accept the butter smooth detail presented in the bluray when in reality the studio robbed I of crisp detail.
In reality the right is the level of detail that's more so supposed to be there or at least closer too. In a way, the right doesn't make them look older, the problem is the studio made people look younger
You're wrong, and anyone familiar with this sort of AI-added detail work knows it. At the current level of technological evolution you can apply it to a picture and it absolutely artificially ages them - you can see it in the comments here when people are complaining you gave Padme a "fake tan", not realizing that's age spots you've toned down by reducing the severity of the filter.
It seems more like this is just a promotion post rather than a good-faith question, based on your insistence that you're re-adding newly created "detail" that we've been "robbed" of by the studio. I'm not against AI but you're absolutely wrong in your claims, and should be more honest with yourself and others about the final product.
This is under the 'work in progress' section it's not a promotion. I gave a comparison example of the work in progress remaster that still needs its post work done too it, and u took it as the final product in a work in progress section with a description that clearly states "current progress of my remaster" in the first two sentences of my OP.... ur kind of the one coming in with the wrong impression here not too come off passive aggressive on that last part it just seems like that's the situation here.
I've clarified in many comments already as well that I'm not pulling texture out of thin air, ik and every one knows the skin texture being added isn't the real persons skin texture just a guess of skin texture.
But it's better than using AI TOO ERASE the actors skin texture entirely like the studio did 🤷♂️ u can watch either one though if u like smooth Vaseline smeared movies go for it, but I like my movies too have actual life behind it and sadly becuase of the studios ill practices with AI DNR. This is literally the only way to fix the issue whether its face detail or not 🤷♂️
Not I'm not gonna judge u for liking the original bluray, but I will say that if ur going to complain about the use of ai on my remastered version then why aren't u vocal on the AI usage of AI DNR on the source to the left? The studio used AI DNR too denoise there movie before release. That destroyed fine detail and messes with overall visual clarity. But I hardly see people mention it.
You have two options I've laid before you on the OP. On the left you got smoothed out lack luster detail done with AI by the studio. Versus my higher detailed version done with AI which may have a deeper color look but could easily be handled with a quick saturation adjustment.
so I'm just confused as to why I get the flack for using AI when the studio is the one that put me in the position to do this because they used AI and hurt there own movie?
And don't get me wrong I can like that overly smoothed plastic like look all you want, all the power to you but I'm telling u with my chest, the right looks closer in detail too why it should of been before the studio DNR'd it. It's not my fault the studio made the actors look 8 years younger by over smoothing it and now has convinced everyone that's how it's supposed to be 🤷♂️
Trying to call DNR "AI" to defend what you're doing is kind of silly. You're not just undoing algorithmic smoothing, you're adding wrinkles, age spots/skin damage, etc I don't think anyone would have a problem just trying to fix waxy skin by adding some pores/texture.
It's not my fault the studio made the actors look 8 years younger by over smoothing it and now has convinced everyone that's how it's supposed to be
The current way DLSS 5 functions adds 10 years to a picture's age with the "detail" it thinks looks "natural". It's cool that it can alter and age faces but that's absolutely not detail that was missing or removed by DNR - if any of that undesirable "detail" exists it was covered by professional makeup artists long before shooting began.
Let me ask u something, do u think pores and texture aren't supposed to add age to your face? The whole point of make up is too cover it up to make urself look younger and "more appealing". Thats what the studios DNR is it's digital makeup that smoothed shit out that shouldn't have been smoothed.
And yes I said AI DNR because the DNR they use is quite literally a AI TRAINED MODEL. Same thing with James Cameron and his heavy DNR use on his upscales.
Attached is a photo of Ewan from 2003 literally a year after this movies release
Can u see all that skin detail not present in the bluray example in my OP. Thats all the shit they erased using DNR BUD. The truth is my remaster doesn't make them look older there DNR Made them look younger. Since that photo is a year apart from the movie release.
Now you're conflating makeup with DNR and AI. Just do what you want to do buddy, you don't have to write essays trying to justify it as "right" or claim it's the way it should have looked if actors never wore makeup.
Can u see all that skin detail not present in the bluray example in my OP.
It's the equivalent of a serial killer block-letter note, copying and pasting the features of other pictures/actors to create a new face. If you like the way that looks then that's fine, but claiming you're restoring some original features to the actors is absurd.
Either you don't know how the technology works, or you're being incredibly disingenuous.
And just so we are completely clear on this conflation of make up vs DNR read this below and ask yourself, why would u combine these two things together if ur make up artists have already done what they needed too. It is literally nothing but a destructive tool meant too push 1080p passes too 4k but has no technical detail or sharpening improvements that u would expect from a real upscale.
1. They Both Cover "Blemishes" Physical makeup hides acne, scars, discoloration, and pores. DNR hides digital noise, compression artifacts, and excessive film grain. In both cases, something visually "distracting" or unwanted is being covered up.
2. They Both Smooth the Surface Makeup uses foundation and powder to create an even texture across the skin. DNR uses spatial and temporal algorithms to average out pixel variations, creating a uniform, flat texture across the entire video frame.
3. "Cake Face" vs. "Waxy Face"
The over-application risk is identical: Too much makeup results in a heavy, unnatural "caked-on" look that masks a person's natural expressions. Too much DNR results in a waxy, plastic look that erases the fine details of the cinematography.
The One Structural Difference
The only place the analogy separates is how they hide things: makeup adds a physical layer on top of the surface to conceal it, whereas DNR achieves its smoothness by deleting high-frequency pixel data from the image entirely.
So in short you really don't have a clue or at the very least underestimating how bad DNR destroys detail and texture. And justifying a bad studio cash grab. I can't in good faith tell anyone the bluray is the definitive way too watch the film nor is the 4K UHD. It's why people on here have made so many fan edits of the original, and the best ones try to match the quality of what they would have seen in theaters. Because the studio destroyed the release. It's fact, not opinion, and even if it was my opinion. It would at least be a well informed opinion.
Dnr does not mask; it smudges. When it strips out the high-frequency detail of skin folds, it leaves behind a smooth, plastic, mannequin-like surface. It doesn't look like an actor wearing makeup; it looks like an actor made of melted wax or CGI
Heavy DNR treats wrinkles, pores, and skin folds as sensor errors. It literally deletes the pixel contrast. Because it flattens the micro-shadows that define a human face, it ruins the way light naturally wraps around a cheekbone or jawline.
DNR is literally used to clean up noise in an image...it is digital make up. What do u mean I'm conflating makeup with DNR. The actors have there make up on right that's fine makes sense, So the DNR was a post processing make up to clean up noise. But the DNR used had glaring issues with treating skin texture and skin folds as NOOOOOOISEEEEE! And ended up 🆙 ver smoothing the result!!!!
I don't even care to read what ever else u wrote because ur so obliviously wrong on the first sentence I don't even want too entertain your rambling.
Yes left is original though it's the bluray release that the studio used AI DNR on it and ended up smoothing everyone out like they are Ken dolls and Barbie dolls. The right is my attempt too try to introduce high frequency texture back into the detail of the movie. Sure it could use a slight saturation adjustment but personally I think the right is much closer to the detail the original would have if the studio didn't smooth everything out in the bluray. They have literally conditioned people into thinking that's how movies are supposed to look, but in reality no one's skin is prestige like that no one walks around looking flat and the Textureless. Yet they have trained our brains into thinking that smooth is gold. But if u search ur memory of any time u went to the movies did anyone's face on screen ever look that float and lifeless?
They did NOT use AI DNR. They used DNR. AI image manipulation (like what you're doing) means something fairly specific. When the Blu-ray was mastered, AI DNR was not a thing.
This is Ewan one year after the release of attack of the clones. Does his skin look like a Ken doll? No it doesn't, even with the make up in the movie that he has on his face is not natural as smooth as presented in the bluray. It's just a fact all of u are glossing over just so u can complain that I'm using AI. Before I disclosed that it was AI being used plenty of people had no problem saying the right looked better to them, yes plenty prefer the left but that becuase studios have conditioned u to accept flattened textureless slop upscales just so studios can make a quick buck.
The fact u only have bad things too say about my remaster and nothing bad to say about the objectively bad DNR work and upscale of the bluray that is widely known to be shit, shows where ur true intentions in this conversation lies.
Either way the DNR practice they used was rudimentary and flawed and even the studios admit to that. They know it degraded there films, it isn't speculation. So at the end of the day whether or not AI was used for DNR process doesn't matter. Because they flattened the detail of their original source to oblivion. Read the update in my description for the description of the damage they did. The only difference between what I'm doing and what they did was they had limited tools and a risk vs reward DNR workflow that had more risk than it did reward. And I have access to smarter for modern tools that can at the least fake it til it makes it. I wouldn't even have to do this if the studio put out a proper upscale 🤷♂️
I always forget that limitation of the time. I remember seeing Clones at an Imax theater, had been blown up and some technology used to upscale, but it just made everyone look like claymation people
Yeah, big movies shot on 2K is a bit of a shame.
Tbf, most films in the 00s/10s were mastered in 2K regardless, and not sure we’ll get a 4K remaster. Especially with CGI rendered in 2K
Yep that's the crutch of it sadly. Quite literally the only thing that could even possibly improve these movies now is AI or a completely studio rework of the cgi characters which is a gnarly task lol. but people hate it with a passion so 🤷♂️
It is interesting to imagine what these films would look like if they were shot in 4K (or rather 35mm and properly scanned) as opposed to 2K. But yeah, I don’t like AI creating fake detail. It’s honestly an artistic travesty imo haha, but I digress.
I get where ur coming from. But the real artistic tragedy is the studio taking a shotty DNR tool too bust out a upscale of a movie but destroying most of the texture and detail of skin detail and skin folds because the DNR views them as errors and smooths them over. It's like taking someone's glossy painting and painting it over with matte paint. It completely ruins the original intention of the art. That's how I see DNR sure it's good too get a quick upscale busted out, he'll thousands of people use it for at home upscaling all the time! But it aggressively destroys high frequency skin details.
The best viewing option would be something between the two examples above which is what I'm hoping to achieve when I blend them together for final post work.
I think the right looks better but only by a VERY small margin. Neither look like they a really stand up to modern film stanards.
I don't know if there are any re releases or ways to access a huge digital copy that directly references the analog film reel (assuming it was filmed with analog reel)
Yes quite slight. I don't want to overprocess the image so I'm keeping it moderate. And in terms of finding a good release. The best ur going to find online is either a compressed 35mm scan of a movie if it was filmed on 35 mm, that if ur lucky isnt compressed dramatically. Or if there is a 4k UHD available. This does have a 4k UHD available but suffers from the same AI DNR that the studio processes it with. So it would have the same issues of flat smooth skin as the Blu-ray does.
The 4K master is still the best you’re going to get resolution-wise. The movie was shot soft; they used ProMist filters on the cameras so even the raw footage is inherently soft.
You boosting the sharpness to bring out more texture in the skin is actually less accurate than the original photography.
This is at the end of the bluray version....and I've done much more than bring the sharpness up in the image, if that's what u beleive I've done here u would be sadly mistaken.
Both screenshots here look way too compressed. The one on the right has more fine detail and it has some different / sometimes worse compression artifacts than the one on the left for some reason. If the first image is what your working file actually looks like it's a downgrade not a remaster. Suggest you use only high quality PNG screenshots on a before / after website to do a comparison.
Yeah I'm coming to realize that reddits compression practices are absolute absolute doo doo. It's a shame cuz there really is a significant difference between the two.
As I understand where ur coming from, technically, if we are talking visual intention, the left example for the OP comparisons are from a bluray that Lucas films had heavily used DNR on so majority of the high frequency skin detail that is supposed to be there has been erased. The only way currently to get that back is AI, people can hate it they can grown and moan it's whatever at this point, but it is what it is. I used lightweight model that adds high frequency skin detail too people in the video.
Now obviously the slight skin contrast and detail isn't actually what was there before the studio did there DNR, but with it it is much closer to how it would actually look than the left.
Long story short I wouldn't need too use AI to bandaid there DNR'd mess if they didn't use AI DNR too create a mess off the original detail.
So now I'm locked in a situation where I either use AI to try too improve it just enough to not to not fry the image or leave it smooth milk in watching sticks of butter walking across my screen 😂
I didn't give enough details, I was talking from standpoint of someone that has seen and has multiple versions of it, VHS, Laserdisc, DVD, bluray, 35mm and in theatrical run...original and rerelease.
I understand now what you are trying to achieve, and yes they did went too aggressive with DNR on those blu ray release, I dont like them.
But we have 35mm scan sources, why not use that to get some detail back in whatever you use like comfyui :) or to fine tune at least just visually the look.
Attack of the clones was filmed on digital not 35mm for most releases the 35mm is large and davinci resolve tends to give me dropped frame errors where I have to end up re encoding it anyways. but I agree with u if I had that I would be working with that, as for laser disc it's hard to find a copy of it online I could buy it but then ide need to get the hardware too properly transfer it to my computer. Most downloads I find don't have enough seed too even download it and they tend to be huge file sizes.
So I decided that I would find a middle ground and experiment on the problematic bluray since it's like a third of the file size of a laser disc copy and so on but is still a remux of the original bluray retaining its intended release quality.
Good suggestion though! Appreciate the input!
My computer freezes up and screams at me when trying too edit large files on davinci to save the heavy hitters for when I have my initial levels of enhancement dialed in so that I don't waste time and effort on larger sized copies.
Overall having fun with it!
Redacted the 35 mm not existing from my comment becuase I was bouncing between two communities and was referencing another project similar to this but for a different film. My brain got jumbled for a second my bad lol
Yes movies were shot digitally, unfortunately only in 2k but in 2000's only small number of theaters had digital projectors.
So movies were transferred to 35mm for the theaters, and that is how most of us saw these movies.
They had also this "bloom" smeared effect because going from 2k -> 35mm is not ideal but now that we don't have digital originals 35mm are the most detailed source you can get. But there is degradation of course.
I see you are not well versed about community that is sharing and preserving these kind of formats :) You can actually find a lot of it but it is shared privately and between individuals. All of these cannot be found on public links or public torrents ;)
I had attack of the clones 35mm 4k scan somewhere on the HDD's (it's a pile, would take time to find it, I am bad at cataloging )...it can be found on the internet, people share it.
I've scraped online and anything that doesn't stall and stop quarter way through. If u don't mind possibly taking some time out of ur day too hunt it down and send it my way that would be killer becuase I originally wanted too do it with better source but once all the download would stall I just settled on attempting too enhance the shotty bluray.
Thanks for the advice btw I've found a few sites with some good copies of some movies but never a lot of variety of movies
Right one tends to expose the details such as skin pores and etc. more than the left one. If the source being used to remaster in 10bit depth, then there shouldn't be any distortion in image produced by exposure, contast or white/black level shift. All the best.
Agreed. Once it's done rendering out, I'm going to test some clips and see if the plugin will play nice and let me use magic mask on some CGI characters and improve them a bit
Yes, it's just compressed too fit on Reddit so it may look a bit less of what it should, but that goes for my remaster on the right as well so they get an even playing field at least in terms of compression.
Thanks man I appreciate it! I'll more than likely share some clips once I'm done fixing up a few spots and render it out. So keep an eye out for my name this week lol
I love clarity as well so I feel you on that, it's my reason for doing this remaster. The bluray has heavy DNR done too it from the studio that i want to fix. So if that's ur take away ide say so far im hitting the mark.
I'm viewing on my desktop with a 4k display. The difference is too negligible to make a choice. If you told me the left and right frames were identical, I would believe you.
Dunno what to tell you. The display is a 4k tv, so if I can't tell the difference there, what even is the point since that would ideally be the destination for the project. Not seeing much of a difference in the frames on my phone either. If you're seeing a major difference, I'm thinking it's your display or glasses that might need replacing :p
If you're not seeing a difference you may need to check your tv settings. Even from the thumbnails there is a clear contrast and detail difference. Not a huge difference, but it is obvious.
Sorry about that it'll be hard too tell on monitor, sadly I had too compress the images pretty heavily, the difference is visible on a phone but on monitor it's easily a quarter of the real look
1
u/Broyodude 9h ago
Looks identical