Lonesome Dove re-mastered

gwsat · 04-20-08, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rdgrimes

I've always suspected that the DVDs and VHS releases of this series were taken from the network's original videotape masters. It would explain a lot. *IF* this release is taken from a fresh transfer from the 35mm film, then it can only be a huge improvement. Being a collector at heart, I'd buy this anyhow.

I agree that the remastering of Lonesome Dove would make sense only if the original 35mm film were used for the job. I hope that’s what happens. I would have to think twice about buying a version reframed to 16:9 if the new version’s PQ was as bad as it was on the original DVDs. After all, garbage in is still garbage out.

Laserfan · 04-20-08, 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rdgrimes

I've always suspected that the DVDs and VHS releases of this series were taken from the network's original videotape masters. It would explain a lot. *IF* this release is taken from a fresh transfer from the 35mm film, then it can only be a huge improvement. Being a collector at heart, I'd buy this anyhow.

Once again, a reasonable thing to hope for, particularly given the advertised "digitally remastered" terms used. I'm rooting for it/you.

If it *looks better* (I recall in particular that colors were not a strong suit), and looks less "TV flat" ie. is more filmlike, I will buy as well. But I agree as well that as a true fan, I'll probably want to collect it too. Let us know when you get it, and if you can, post a few screen grabs as well. Thanks!

Geremia P. · 04-20-08, 09:20 PM

If you reformat Lonesome Dove to 16:9 you are losing 25% of the picture. Cutting off the tops and bottoms off an old TV program is no different than cutting the sides off a movie. All the same issues apply.

Gary McCoy · 04-21-08, 02:07 AM

I agree. It doesn't really matter if you chop the top/bottom of a 4:3 image or the sides of a 2.35:1 movie, in each case 25% of the original image is lost to fit a 16:9 screen. OAR is OAR.

The three commonest AR's for video and film are 4:3, 16:9 (or 1.85:1 which is real close), and 2.35:1. You need a plan to display all of these in OAR.

rdgrimes · 04-23-08, 06:12 PM

It's here! Very nice! Haven't watched it yet on the big screen, but on the PC it looks great. Much better AQ too. So far, most scenes have quite a bit of image added to the sides in comparison to the original, with some cropped from the bottom.

I'm not an expert on taking or posting screen caps. These are jpgs that I took as frame caps on PowerDVD. They are resampled and re-resed to true 16:9 and 4:3 due to the aspect ratio being off on the caps. I left the horizontal res the same in each example, so there shouldn't be any difference due to PAL vs NTSC.
Anyway, my own ineptitude notwithstanding, I think most anyone can see the differences.

rdgrimes · 04-23-08, 06:14 PM

rdgrimes · 04-23-08, 06:15 PM

rdgrimes · 04-23-08, 06:37 PM

The other good news is that these discs are not CSS encrypted, so if you have a good upscaling region 2 player, they won't be locked at SD and will upscale VERY nicely.

Geremia P. · 04-23-08, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geremia P.

If you reformat Lonesome Dove to 16:9 you are losing 25% of the picture. Cutting off the tops and bottoms off an old TV program is no different than cutting the sides off a movie. All the same issues apply.

Quoting myself here. Obviously, they did have more picture information to work with, so it was obviously shot with widescreen tv or a theatrical run in mind.

However, in all of your screenshots, only the left side of the screen has more image. Is every shot like this or is that just a coincidence? It would be odd if most the action takes place on the right side of the screen while the left side is more or less dead space.

rdgrimes · 04-23-08, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geremia P.

Quoting myself here. Obviously, they did have more picture information to work with, so it was obviously shot with widescreen tv or a theatrical run in mind.

However, in all of your screenshots, only the left side of the screen has more image. Is every shot like this or is that just a coincidence? It would be odd if most the action takes place on the right side of the screen while the left side is more or less dead space.

In 2 of these 3, there also a bit added to the right. Looks to me like they had something like a 1.5 - 1.66:1 image to work with. It appears to be painstakingly done, and is totally cleaned up. The old DVD has loads of flecks and dust and even hairs in the transfer, this has none. My hunch is that I'll see some careful panning and zooming to maintain the composition of the scenes. But this is so purty, I doubt I'll spend a lot of time comparing the 2. One thing for sure, this further demonstrates what a truly horrible transfer was done on the original.

Roger Lococco · 04-23-08, 08:33 PM

looks much better than I thought it would, hopefully there will be a region 1 release.

Cyrano · 04-23-08, 08:58 PM

WOW - Looks really good. I'm ordering one. It looks like it is improved in all ways possible. And it does look like the intent was a theatrical release in framing.

And you say the AQ is better. I'm looking to see where I can get it.

Thanks for letting us know how good it is.

EDIT: Just ordered it (2008 remastered edition) for 13.28 GBP delivered (6 - 10 days.), via http://www.amazon.co.uk
EDIT: This is a region 2 Disc. (Just in case someone reading this doesn't realize that.)

gwsat · 04-23-08, 10:20 PM

It does, indeed, look wonderful, better than I had dared hope.

rdgrimes · 04-23-08, 11:37 PM

rdgrimes · 04-23-08, 11:38 PM

Cyrano · 04-23-08, 11:39 PM

Nice captures.

Gary McCoy · 04-23-08, 11:40 PM

That shows every sign of being a pan & scan job. The video camera pans to keep all the active objects in frame. It's not OAR and the image is being cropped in every frame.

The transfer is better, but the original Cinematography has been violated. Only Douglas Milsome (the original Cinematographer) has any right to modify the work. If he did the DVD, I'd buy it.

rdgrimes · 04-23-08, 11:46 PM

rdgrimes · 04-23-08, 11:53 PM

Looks wonderful on the big screen, even after re-encoding to NTSC. I really don't give a rodent's hind end who did it.

Laserfan · 04-24-08, 08:30 AM

Fabulous. Wildly better. More cinematic. Let the whiners and crybabies watch their old, muddly 4:3s.

Thanks for posting rdgrimes. I'd already placed my order last week (my US ID worked w/amazon.uk!?) so now have something to look forward to!

Laserfan · 04-24-08, 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rdgrimes

Looks wonderful on the big screen, even after re-encoding to NTSC. I really don't give a rodent's hind end who did it.

BTW anyone reading this thread who has a ShowCenter media player, you can play PAL discs by ripping and applying DGPulldown to convert from 25fps to an acceptable framerate e.g. 29.97, without any re-encoding at all. Just rip, demux, apply DGPulldown, re-mux, play as single VOB file.

gwsat · 04-24-08, 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gary McCoy

That shows every sign of being a pan & scan job. The video camera pans to keep all the active objects in frame. It's not OAR and the image is being cropped in every frame.

The transfer is better, but the original Cinematography has been violated. Only Douglas Milsome (the original Cinematographer) has any right to modify the work. If he did the DVD, I'd buy it.

Surely you jest.

rdgrimes · 04-24-08, 09:12 AM

There are no credits of any kind for the restoration. Acorn certainly does not appear to have the resources for this sort of thing, so I presume that we may well see this released in other regions as well, but I can't find any indication that it will be anytime soon. Halmark Home Entertainment still owns the rights according to the packaging.

rdgrimes · 04-24-08, 02:45 PM

Cyrano · 04-24-08, 03:52 PM

It looks like a comparison of SD and HD.

rdgrimes · 04-24-08, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cyrano

It looks like a comparison of SD and HD.

More like VHS vs DVD. But it's not like they could do any harm.

Based on these caps and my observations so far, they used combinations of crop, zoom and pan. Different combinations of these in each scene to maintain the composition and intent. Very painstaking work, and well done. Combined with the extra image that was apparently available, there's really nothing lost that's noticeable. In some scenes, they've added as much image as they took away, if not more. Definitely NOT a hack job. I'm enjoying the series all over again, and I've seen it many times over the years.

Cyrano · 04-24-08, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rdgrimes

More like VHS vs DVD. But it's not like they could do any harm.

You're right. I did have the word "almost" in my first post but I took it out. I hate equivocating.

Quote:

Based on these caps and my observations so far, they used combinations of crop, zoom and pan. Different combinations of these in each scene to maintain the composition and intent. Very painstaking work, and well done. Combined with the extra image that was apparently available, there's really nothing lost that's noticeable. In some scenes, they've added as much image as they took away, if not more. Definitely NOT a hack job. I'm enjoying the series all over again, and I've seen it many times over the years.

Glad to hear this. Thanks again for taking all the time and trouble to let us know. Your screen caps look like they're frame for frame. Nice.

Laserfan · 04-24-08, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rdgrimes

Based on these caps and my observations so far, they used combinations of crop, zoom and pan. Different combinations of these in each scene to maintain the composition and intent. Very painstaking work, and well done. Combined with the extra image that was apparently available, there's really nothing lost that's noticeable. In some scenes, they've added as much image as they took away, if not more. Definitely NOT a hack job. I'm enjoying the series all over again, and I've seen it many times over the years.

And actually I have NOT; I recall seeing the original series on TV, and only a couple years ago acquired the DVD set after reading the book(s).

One just has to think this remaster is going to make it to the US market somehow!? In the meantime I look forward to the PAL discs with great anticipation (they've said May for delivery).

Good job rd w/the caps.

gwsat · 04-25-08, 07:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rdgrimes

More like VHS vs DVD. But it's not like they could do any harm.

Based on these caps and my observations so far, they used combinations of crop, zoom and pan. Different combinations of these in each scene to maintain the composition and intent. Very painstaking work, and well done. Combined with the extra image that was apparently available, there's really nothing lost that's noticeable. In some scenes, they've added as much image as they took away, if not more. Definitely NOT a hack job. I'm enjoying the series all over again, and I've seen it many times over the years.

Yes, the painstaking, one might say, "loving," effort that went into the restoration is evident. It was time well spent. After all, how many miniseries, or movies for that matter, are there that feature four Oscar winners and are powerful adaptations of award winning novels?

rdgrimes · 04-25-08, 10:09 AM

I finished watching the whole series. Over-all, I'd rate the PQ as "average" in comparison to the typical movie DVD. But the improvement from the original DVD is immeasurable. This series was shot with a lot of unusual focus tricks, creating some soft or blurred image, has it's fair share of grain, etc. So there's no razor sharp images. There are some scenes where the the improved quality slaps you in the face, and others where it doesn't. Mind you, I'm watching it re-encoded to NTSC, which no doubt has cost some PQ.

04-21-08, 02:07 AM	#34 \| Link
Gary McCoy AVS Special Member Join Date: Jul 1999 Location: San Jose, California, USA Posts: 5,151	I agree. It doesn't really matter if you chop the top/bottom of a 4:3 image or the sides of a 2.35:1 movie, in each case 25% of the original image is lost to fit a 16:9 screen. OAR is OAR. The three commonest AR's for video and film are 4:3, 16:9 (or 1.85:1 which is real close), and 2.35:1. You need a plan to display all of these in OAR. __________________ Gary McCoy The United States Constitution (c) 1791. All Rights Reserved.

04-23-08, 06:12 PM	#35 \| Link	<a href='http://rev.avsforum.com/phpAdsNew/adclick.php?n=a591f81a' target='_blank'><img src='http://rev.avsforum.com/phpAdsNew/adview.php?what=zone:36&n=a591f81a' border='0' alt=''></a>
rdgrimes AVS Special Member AVS CLUB MEMBER Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Nuevo Mexico Posts: 7,067	It's here! Very nice! Haven't watched it yet on the big screen, but on the PC it looks great. Much better AQ too. So far, most scenes have quite a bit of image added to the sides in comparison to the original, with some cropped from the bottom. I'm not an expert on taking or posting screen caps. These are jpgs that I took as frame caps on PowerDVD. They are resampled and re-resed to true 16:9 and 4:3 due to the aspect ratio being off on the caps. I left the horizontal res the same in each example, so there shouldn't be any difference due to PAL vs NTSC. Anyway, my own ineptitude notwithstanding, I think most anyone can see the differences.

04-23-08, 08:58 PM	#42 \| Link
Cyrano Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Western Washington Posts: 4,967	WOW - Looks really good. I'm ordering one. It looks like it is improved in all ways possible. And it does look like the intent was a theatrical release in framing. And you say the AQ is better. I'm looking to see where I can get it. Thanks for letting us know how good it is. EDIT: Just ordered it (2008 remastered edition) for 13.28 GBP delivered (6 - 10 days.), via http://www.amazon.co.uk EDIT: This is a region 2 Disc. (Just in case someone reading this doesn't realize that.) __________________ -Mike http://www.youtube.com/user/IMCyrano Last edited by Cyrano; 04-24-08 at 02:57 AM..

04-23-08, 11:38 PM	#45 \| Link	<a href='http://rev.avsforum.com/phpAdsNew/adclick.php?n=a591f81a' target='_blank'><img src='http://rev.avsforum.com/phpAdsNew/adview.php?what=zone:36&n=a591f81a' border='0' alt=''></a>
rdgrimes AVS Special Member AVS CLUB MEMBER Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Nuevo Mexico Posts: 7,067

04-23-08, 11:39 PM	#46 \| Link
Cyrano Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Western Washington Posts: 4,967	Nice captures. __________________ -Mike http://www.youtube.com/user/IMCyrano

04-20-08, 09:20 PM	#33 \| Link
Geremia P. Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Denver Posts: 178	If you reformat Lonesome Dove to 16:9 you are losing 25% of the picture. Cutting off the tops and bottoms off an old TV program is no different than cutting the sides off a movie. All the same issues apply.

04-23-08, 06:14 PM	#36 \| Link
rdgrimes AVS Special Member AVS CLUB MEMBER Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Nuevo Mexico Posts: 7,067

04-23-08, 06:15 PM	#37 \| Link
rdgrimes AVS Special Member AVS CLUB MEMBER Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Nuevo Mexico Posts: 7,067

04-23-08, 06:37 PM	#38 \| Link
rdgrimes AVS Special Member AVS CLUB MEMBER Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Nuevo Mexico Posts: 7,067	The other good news is that these discs are not CSS encrypted, so if you have a good upscaling region 2 player, they won't be locked at SD and will upscale VERY nicely.

04-23-08, 08:33 PM	#41 \| Link
Roger Lococco Advanced Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Jamaica,Queens Posts: 755	looks much better than I thought it would, hopefully there will be a region 1 release.

04-23-08, 10:20 PM	#43 \| Link
gwsat AVS Special Member AVS CLUB MEMBER Join Date: May 2004 Location: Oklahoma City Posts: 7,317	It does, indeed, look wonderful, better than I had dared hope.

04-23-08, 11:37 PM	#44 \| Link
rdgrimes AVS Special Member AVS CLUB MEMBER Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Nuevo Mexico Posts: 7,067

04-23-08, 11:40 PM	#47 \| Link
Gary McCoy AVS Special Member Join Date: Jul 1999 Location: San Jose, California, USA Posts: 5,151	That shows every sign of being a pan & scan job. The video camera pans to keep all the active objects in frame. It's not OAR and the image is being cropped in every frame. The transfer is better, but the original Cinematography has been violated. Only Douglas Milsome (the original Cinematographer) has any right to modify the work. If he did the DVD, I'd buy it. __________________ Gary McCoy The United States Constitution (c) 1791. All Rights Reserved.

04-23-08, 11:46 PM	#48 \| Link
rdgrimes AVS Special Member AVS CLUB MEMBER Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Nuevo Mexico Posts: 7,067

04-23-08, 11:53 PM	#49 \| Link
rdgrimes AVS Special Member AVS CLUB MEMBER Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Nuevo Mexico Posts: 7,067	Looks wonderful on the big screen, even after re-encoding to NTSC. I really don't give a rodent's hind end who did it.

04-24-08, 08:30 AM	#50 \| Link
Laserfan AVS Special Member Join Date: Apr 2000 Posts: 2,722	Fabulous. Wildly better. More cinematic. Let the whiners and crybabies watch their old, muddly 4:3s. Thanks for posting rdgrimes. I'd already placed my order last week (my US ID worked w/amazon.uk!?) so now have something to look forward to!

04-24-08, 09:12 AM	#53 \| Link
rdgrimes AVS Special Member AVS CLUB MEMBER Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Nuevo Mexico Posts: 7,067	There are no credits of any kind for the restoration. Acorn certainly does not appear to have the resources for this sort of thing, so I presume that we may well see this released in other regions as well, but I can't find any indication that it will be anytime soon. Halmark Home Entertainment still owns the rights according to the packaging.

04-24-08, 02:45 PM	#54 \| Link
rdgrimes AVS Special Member AVS CLUB MEMBER Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Nuevo Mexico Posts: 7,067

04-24-08, 03:52 PM	#55 \| Link
Cyrano Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Western Washington Posts: 4,967	It looks like a comparison of SD and HD. __________________ -Mike http://www.youtube.com/user/IMCyrano

04-25-08, 10:09 AM	#60 \| Link	<a href='http://rev.avsforum.com/phpAdsNew/adclick.php?n=a591f81a' target='_blank'><img src='http://rev.avsforum.com/phpAdsNew/adview.php?what=zone:36&n=a591f81a' border='0' alt=''></a>
rdgrimes AVS Special Member AVS CLUB MEMBER Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Nuevo Mexico Posts: 7,067	I finished watching the whole series. Over-all, I'd rate the PQ as "average" in comparison to the typical movie DVD. But the improvement from the original DVD is immeasurable. This series was shot with a lot of unusual focus tricks, creating some soft or blurred image, has it's fair share of grain, etc. So there's no razor sharp images. There are some scenes where the the improved quality slaps you in the face, and others where it doesn't. Mind you, I'm watching it re-encoded to NTSC, which no doubt has cost some PQ.