-
No audio tracks when importing avi file with Vegas 15.0
-
Hi George,
Well, I seem to need some guidance to load the image files, or I will need to run a tutorial on Vegas before anything.
I run the veg file, but it can’t find a file called HD.jpg.
The DVD version is not such a good quality as the HD one. There’s a bit more detail in the HD version, but it certainly is not as high definition, with lots of detail, as I might expect.
It’s possible that what they did was really upscale the SD version, but I don’t think so. But the color correction they did was very poor.
If you look at the images I posted you will not such more detail in the HD version. But it may look better on other frames.
-
It seems that I can not upload images from a commercial film to Creativecow.
So the other option might be the only one I can use, putting the links here.
Is that alright?
Some progress: I could import the “water” jpg image to Vegas.
But I think I will have learn a bit about understanding the images through the vectorscope, which might be the precision way to try to equalize both versions.
In fact what I would like is to get them closer, as the DVD image is a bit too saturated. The HD image is more brownish, gloomy and flatter in contrast.
In the water image, equalizing the water color to the SD one might be a way to start. The HD is too green.
-
Hi Carlos,
Carlos @ “It seems that I can not upload images from a commercial film to Creativecow.”
Yes, as in most all internet forums, you cannot post copyright material unless you hold the copyright. I thought the material you were working on was your personal DVD, or a friends, until your more recent post. As I rerread your thread there are some slight references that I did not pick up on.
Carlos @ “I run the veg file, but it can’t find a file called HD.jpg”
Start Vegas and load the .veg file. When Vegas cannot find the still image ‘HD.jpg’, it will prompt with several options. Select the 2nd option from the top “Specify a new location or replacement file”. Then navigate to the folder you have the still comparison that you posted here and select it. It will then prompt for the ‘SD.jpg’, and again select the 2nd option from the top “Specify a new location or replacement file”. Then navigate to the folder you have the still comparison that you posted here and select it.
I used the still image you posted with two copies, one named HD.jpg and the other SD.jpg.
Carlos @ “The DVD version is not such a good quality as the HD one. There’s a bit more detail in the HD version, but it certainly is not as high definition, with lots of detail, as I might expect.”
Programs and FX’s we commonly have available will not and cannot turn SD resolution into HD resolution and gain the same sharpness of detail. For that it requires a very expensive restoration program tools that run on huge workstation computers and the charge for such a service is cost prohibited for most folks.
Carlos @ “In fact what I would like is to get them closer, as the DVD image is a bit too saturated. The HD image is more brownish, gloomy and flatter in contrast.”
Well, the sky is pretty much the limit as to how many and how much change you can make. Watch the tutorials, and apply the image FX’s sparingly. It doesn’t make much difference what the original looks like as long as you are happy with the look of the end results. It’s more difficult to color correct and color grade a poor image, as you are starting with in either of your samples, but I’m sure you will come out with something much better. Good Luck with your project.
Best Regards……George
-
Hi George,
Does this mean you can’t help me anymore? Even if I do not upload any images?
For me this is a training exercise for Vegas. One if the films is from ’49, certainly with expired copyright. 70 years is quite a long time to still have valid ones.
That film was never released in HD, and it’s the one I had mentioned on my first text. Of course I’m aware SD can’t be turned into HD: you can’t what it’s not there. Except with CGI or things like that, which I’m not interested in.
But you can cheat quite well into make images look “sharper”. It’s how they look that matters, sometimes more than the resolution. Of course I’m not talking about more recent movies, as lenses got also sharper and with more contrast.
Many classic films that have been remastered do not look so far away from the DVDs they were first released in. Probably because of the silk filters they used on the lenses for close-ups.
On a doc I shot, we used an HD as A camera and an SD for close-ups. What I had to do was to de-focus the background on the SD images, and it “looked” up front. I cheated and it worked.
I’m not interested in making the DVD version of this film look like HD, but to make the other look better. Even if I’m not sure if they didn’t use the SD video masters to upscale it to HD, because it doesn’t look that sharp for a film of that era. It should.
Perhaps you, or someone reading this thread, can tell which FX filters I may try. That is the hardest part.
Thanks!
-
Carlos,
You can always get help here, the forum is for helping others, sharing tricks and sharing techniques. Not so much for tutorials, but some step-by-steps and how-to’s are always available from members who wish to participate.
I think it is best not to post any part of a commercial product unless you can provide absolute proof that you have the copyrights or the material is public domain. To be safe I like to avoid any precieved conflict.
In Vegas Pro 15 you have the Smart Upscale FX, which includes a slider for the strength of upscale, as well as noise reduction. You also have the Sharpen FX if used sparingly may be useful. If it were me, I would first apply the Smart Upscale, then render out using a visually lossless codec such as DNxHD, Cineform, Magic YUV, or perhaps Magix Intermediate. Then use that as a master source and apply the Sharpen and color fx’s. Beyond those, if you are going to view these videos on a rather recent smart flat panel TV, they are quite amazing at upscaling. I took your sample still, rendered it out to 720p and displayed it on my 60 inch Sony TV and it looked much better than when I view it full screen on my desktop monitor.
In classic Hollywood productions they had excellent glass, many still used today and many far superior to some lens used today. They captured on 70mm emulsion which is far superior to our 4K of today. But similar to how today when we render multiple times we lose resolution and detail, some was lost when they shot secondary master and then more was lost when they printed for distribution in 35mm. Many of the old classic that have been digitized and available on DVD were done from a 35mm distribution print, and the poor quality was due tot he budget they had for restoration.
I had a Canon lens on an XL2 SD camera that could record detail as good as the lens I have for my Panasonic 4K camera, but they were still SD level tape recordings that needed to be digitized before they could be enlarged to HD and then the lack quality started to show. In your case, you not only have Standard Definition originals, but they are also from a DVD, and MPEG-2 pretty much kills the quality. It looked good at the time because we were willing to take a hit going from theater viewing to viewing at home. In comparison to FHD and 4K in our home the SD is quite the letdown. Often worth it if the story is good, but other than that, it is pretty much a labor of love to get SD to something that looks goof enough for us to enjoy on our home big screens. Just my opinion of course.
Best Regards……George
-
Oh, I’m very much aware of the lenses that were used along the years in film.
When I mean classic I mean very old films. All shot in 1.33 35mm film, mostly B&W, as you know color was very rare until the mid ’50s. Particularly when they used the Technicolor process, with the three B&W camera rolls.
In the ’50s they started shooting in color negative, even on low budget productions, using color to attract public. It was the time when color Deluxe and Warnercolor appeared, and a few others. Pathe, Afga, etc.
Only in the late ’50s did they start using 70mm negative.
The Arriflex camera started being used in Europe, usually dubbing the films, and their primary lenses were very good. Usually Zeiss.
The lenses I meant were mostly from the B&W era, and they were softer themselves or used with filters on close-ups, particularly feminine ones.
Things in VCR times were very primitive, in a way, and they didn’t pay much attention to the quality of the film they were capturing in video. 100% of them came from positive copies, sometimes even 16mm ones.
With DVD things started to improve a lot, as they started to capture from internegatives, which were much more closer to the shooting film. When they used positive copies they were better ones, and it’s also when the original shooting ratio started to become the norm.
When HD and BD arrived things really improved a lot, particularly because by then the negatives were captured in video, and even if they still released the films in positive for a long time, they produced an HD video master that was used for the BD copies.
This ’79 film DVD in particular, object of my interest, was certainly made from a positive copy. Not an internegative. You got a much better image if you did that, even in DVD’s resolution.
I remember when I started converting HD BD video to DVD that the quality you got was amazing. Probably because it was non-interlaced. I also got angry at the quality of the DVDs they were releasing, as I had proof that they could be much better, and they didn’t care.
The captured images I uploaded were captured on my computer, using Irfanview. Captured from Vegas and from VLC, so they can be used just as reference. The DVD had already been upscaled by me to 720p with Vidcoder. The HD copy is already 1080p, straight from the BD disk. If it through any upscaling it was done by the 20th Century Fox conversion lab. I do guess it might be the case, even if there’s a bit more detail on some years. Quality, for a film of that year, should be much much better than what it is.
As it’s already 1080p, I can process it in Vegas directly, applying all the filters.
The SD to HD upscale I would like to do is for a different film, from ’49. I did get a DVD copy which is quite reasonable. I already did a first processing, just with some sharpening, and the results were quite promising. Didn’t watch them on my large screen projector yet, but I will.
BTW, I project a 4.50 meter wide by 3.00 meter high screen size, directly on the wall, so I can see detail quite well.
When the HD copies are from old good masters, I always think that I’m watching these films with much better quality than on the original movie theaters.
-
Carlos @ “BTW, I project a 4.50 meter wide by 3.00 meter high screen size, directly on the wall, so I can see detail quite well. ”
I used to have a DLP I projected on a pull down screen 92″ wide screen. It was massive and I liked it, but in reality it was much too large for the room and was only viewable at night as I could not darken the room enough during daylight hours. When we remodeled, I went to the 60″ flat TV and actually like it a bit better. But would rather have a few more inches of viewing. Maybe it the old eyes, maybe not, I just have always liked large screens!
Best Regards……George
-
My projector is an Optoma DLP 1080p, designed to be be positioned close to the screen.
As the projector have no zoom, I have it at 2.40m from the wall, and I am planning to get even closer to have less keystone correction.
The projector is now behind a roof fan, so I had to lower it a little from the “no keystone correction” position. So I plan to invert the fan an projector positions, And also gain some more light, the projector being closer to the wall.
In any case, the image I get now is impressive, better than many movie theaters I usually go.
The only problem is that, even if was stepped the sofa back a little, the screen is still “tall” and we have to look up when viewing. But I can’t lower the screen any more, because of the loudspeakers height.
-
Hi George,
Sorry to insist, but which is the better way to adjust my LED TV and my projector? What videos should I use?
Yesterday, as every Thursday in the last two weeks, I had the pleasure to watch Game of Thrones in my 4.50m wide screen.
Even if I have sat TV and HBO, the HBO logo is larger than it should and stays on all the time.
So I’d rather wait two days and download the video.
Large logos and advertising are something pay-TV shouldn’t have but has. Something is twisted on that arrangement.
-
Hi Carlos,
I think perhaps I live in a different world, I have no idea what “Game of Thrones” is, other than maybe like in the title it is a computer game!
As for tuning your TV and DLP, does this link help: https://www.pcmag.com/article/180698/how-to-calibrate-your-tv
Best Regards……George
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up