Post here your Elvis' pictures
Wed Nov 08, 2006 7:00 am
Like the thread says: before and after.
Hope you liked that.
Wed Nov 08, 2006 7:41 am
i FRIGGIN love technology!
Wed Nov 08, 2006 7:42 am
He looks like the Aloha Elvis in the second shot. So I take it the first one is stretched and the second fixed?
Wed Nov 08, 2006 7:53 am
Frigging fantastic!!!! How'd you do this, this is awesome!!!
Wed Nov 08, 2006 6:05 pm
The second photo is much better
Wed Nov 08, 2006 6:13 pm
why are we a chunk missing off the bottom in the 2nd pic ?
If the first has been forced into compression size / ratio wise then we will get loss of resolution which seems to possibly be the case. what was the source Cryo ? VHS vs DVD ?
Wed Nov 08, 2006 6:17 pm
What is it you think is missing?
Looking at the 2 pics, at the bottom of the pic, it cuts across the same point on Elvis' hand that the first pic does.
Thu Nov 09, 2006 12:16 am
The first image was captured directly from the DVD and scaled down to 500 pixels width. That is the original aspect ratio of the picture.
The second image is the product of filtering and rescaling applied to the first.
The techniques are very simple. Because this shot is dominated by soft edges, it was easy to amplify them with a simple "sharpen" filter. Suffice to say, on shots with better-defined edges, applying this same filter can quickly result in an over-sharpening of those edges. The "Trouble" segment really benefits; other parts, not so much. Another problem with the remastering done by EPE for the 2004 DVD release is a strong and quite ridiculous emphasis on red. This is *very* noticeable in the sitdown segments especially. So I also tweaked colour tones and contrast values ever so slightly. Finally, as compared with the known dimensions of Elvis' face, and the original barebones DVD release in 2000, the 2004 version is stretched vertically by approximately 15%. I was actually a little conservative on correcting this and will do better next time. (Note: I only have a Region 2 PAL DVD for reference; this particular issue may not exist on NTSC copies). One possible reason EPE did this was because of the widespread ownership of 16:9 TVs: when dealing with an image that is closer to 4:3, a 16:9 TV will typically "squash" the image vertically/"stretch" the image horizontally, resulting in a fattened appearance. And we all know what EPE thinks about "Fat Elvis"...
More images coming later.
Thu Nov 09, 2006 3:20 am
Darryl, as I look at it I'm sure I see more of the "third finger" than in the other pic, but that might be an illusion or "trick on the eye"
Thanks for the gen Cryo.
Thu Nov 09, 2006 3:59 am
There is nothing missing. But the sharpen filter did exaggerate the scan lines at the bottom. This makes it appear as if a tiny portion of the image is missing. But it's all there. I like that you have a sharp eye, Steve, but in this case, it's a little *too* sharp.
Sun Nov 12, 2006 2:11 am
Very nice. The red was oversaturated originally. It was much worse .
Sun Nov 12, 2006 3:33 am
The second shot looks so more.... well, raw.
Sun Nov 12, 2006 11:24 am
The enhancing barely works for other pictures. At all. I can't stress that enough. The sharpening, which is the main improvement brought to that image, is a total cheat. But there are real issues with the way the Comeback Special was handled. You will see this more clearly when I post fresh pictures. Stay tuned.