I think it’s a product of the modern color grade, a lot of people like to pump their images full of teal, particularly in the shadows. Even I do it to a certain extent.
Interior/ band rehearsal filming Peter Jackson’s version I’m not to bothered with( biscuit scene a must.. no doubt edited out), as long as he doesn’t f-up the rooftop performance.
So I threw some Neat Video on a shot from the Get Back video on the 1 Blu-ray and then ran it through Topaz. It's not the same wide shot from the trailer but I thought the results were interesting.
Topaz and neat video are ok, but avisynth is better Restoring "Let it be" music video here is a little thread on restoring Let it Be
I prefer the results I can get out of Neat Video and Topaz, besides I'm a Mac-using artist, not a coder, AVIsynth is trash as far as I'm concerned.
This is it in motion though I decided to crop it to 16:9 to be more like the Get Back movie and I did a bit of a color grade. No Topaz in this, I'm too cheap to pay for it.
If you think that paid software is better than free, open source, software, then you are very wrong. Avisynth and newer vapoursynth can do everything that topaz and neat video do already, plus some more things like removing film dust and scratches automatically, deinterlace... Vapoursynth VSGAN works the same way topaz does, except you can change Ai processing models, and even train your own. Good luck upscaling anime or other stuff that wasn't pre-trained by Topaz company..
Maybe you didn't get me, I can actually use Topaz Not only does it actually run on my Mac, but it also has an easily understandable interface. When Avisynth comes in a nice Mac OS package I'll consider it but until then it's trash. Neat Video BTW is specialized software for noise reduction that runs inside Final Cut Pro, where I use it and can use it, and why I bought it. This may come as a shock to you but "free" isn't everything.
Not sure what you are looking at. Look at the coat he is carrying. Top one is a blurry mess, bottom one you can clearly see the folds. There is much more detail
What was "filmed" throughout January 1969 was supposed to A). be roughly 15-20 minutes of TOTAL screen-time and B). was meant to be shown on television. What was "planned" was an hour-long television program whereby The Beatles would be seen writing, rehearsing and ultimately performing their "new phase" album. The remaining 40-45 minutes would be very likely a professionally lit and filmed (35 mm) presentation of the album in a "live" concert setting (cough-cough). I don't know if the last 45 minutes would have truly been "live" or if it would have been filmed at an earlier date, but that was the plan. The constant rehearsal/multiple takes of songs were so they had them down pat, so they could play them error-free "live". There NEVER was a plan for a "Let It Be" film that we eventually got. The lads realized they owed one more theatrical release film on their contract, so this hodge-podge of 80 minutes was placed like a flaming paper-bag on the door-step of United Artists. Also, 16 mm looks just fine on your average U.K. 24-inch television set in 1969, especially for the part of the television special that was supposed to be documentary-like. If EVERYTHING went according to plan, the U.S. would have gotten a delayed showing of the special on television and United Artists would have eventually gotten a 2 hour version of "Anthology" likely within a year or two of The Beatles officially breaking up. Neil Aspinall was already assembling/reviewing footage for such a film throughout 1971, to be called "The Long And Winding Road".
It's a fly on the wall documentary, even now it's a fly on the wall documentary the live concert didn't work out so the television special didn't work out so that's what it was. They had already done 2 polished movies with A Hard Days Night and Help!, The Beatles were more interested in experimental stuff at the time didn't you see Magical Mystery Tour? Well, I have a 43-inch television and it's on my desk, even when I do sit back I can still see the artifacts.
I understand you don't like coding but calling it tr With that overdone DNR it looks just like P. Jackson version. Tho i believe Peters original source was from super 16mm
Correct. Supposed to be about 6 hours long, IIRC, so too long for theaters, even if Disney wanted it shown there!
I don't get PJ's desire to make old footage look like it was shot today. I mean, I get the theory: 'kids won't watch something that looks old!" But PJ went too far with "They Shall Not Grow Old" and made a project that was distracting due to its feeble attempts to "seem new". As I've said, I'll wait and see with "Get Back", but I have a creeping suspicious he's doing the same with it. In the "behind the scenes" featurette for "Old", we see the results of the clean-up done for the original B&W photography, and it looks great. It still looks like film and it doesn't pretend to be "new". No gimmicks or trickery. That's what I would've liked to have seen with "Old", and that's what I'd like with "Get Back": restore the film to make it look as good as it could have looked in 1969 without radical denoising, color changes, etc. I don't give 2 craps if "kids these days" want it to be orange/teal and free from a hint of grain. (Not convincing there's a youth audience for "Old" or "Get Back" anyway. It all feels like an excuse for PJ to play with cinematic toys and pretend he's an awesome dude when it comes to "film restoration".)
I think then you'll be disappointed with the film, just from looking at the preview. Same motives behind the album remix, bring it up to modern standards---not for purists. It would be nice to have both---the original film true to 1970, not sure if that's in the works. I'll be interested to see footage of George walking out, their reactions after being on the roof (not to mention the whole rooftop performance----which I thought i was getting on the Laserdisc of the Anthology)--to see just how much was captured. I think from a narrative standpoint we're in good hands with PJ.
Here's a quote from an article in this week's The New Yorker magazine: The party shifted into a new phase. A platform had been laid over the swimming pool, and rows of folding chairs were set up in front of a large screen. McCartney took his seat in the makeshift theatre flanked by his daughters Stella, who is fifty years old and a fashion designer, and Mary, who is fifty-two, a photographer, and the host of a vegetarian cooking show. It was time to screen a special hundred-minute version of “The Beatles: Get Back,” a three-part documentary series more than six hours in length made by the director Peter Jackson, and scheduled to stream on Disney+ during the Thanksgiving weekend. So...a 100 minute version exists. Paul McCartney Doesn’t Really Want to Stop the Show
Actually, we have a lot of adjustments and "hooks" available in Neat Video that you can't adjust in Topaz. As I said previously, we can apply NR only to highlights, or only to dark areas, or only to certain colors, or only to luminance or only to chroma, and we can even do all of these at very different levels. And there are some (including Warner MPI) who take the Neat Video NR version and blend it with the original film scan, so you're kind of getting a shot-by-shot combination of both. To me, dust and scratches have to be done manually, and a fast MTI DRS Nova operator can do 10-15 minutes of film a day, which is fairly affordable. When they do it manually, they can specifically choose where and how to eliminate dirt and minimize any artifacts. Upscaling is a different problem, and sharpening is another problem, too. All these are very tricky processes that require testing and a lot of careful thought. It's not a "push-the-button-and-go" thing. I'm suspicious of neural network processes that claim to just automatically do it all. I'd always rather have a skilled artist go in and make the right decisions, shot by shot and scene by scene.
I kinda disagree on that one. Stereo stg pepper master was painful. The only remix I don't get is 2019 Abbey road rework. Album was good from the beginning! They could've done revolver or rubber soul instead
