I wonder if it can get any more nebulous than "unforeseen consequences" leading to a "screw up".
Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Consider supporting us by disable your adblocker or try DVDFab and copy, convert or make Blu-rays and DVDs! :)
+ Reply to Thread
Results 61 to 90 of 250
1. Turns off ALL automatic upgrades;I totally and completely agree with Lordsmurf's "computers should be lean" sentiment.
2. Never installs anything I don't absolutely need;
3. Has less than 10 GB total on my C: drive (Windows + Program);
4. Has never used an anti-virus program because of the performance issues;
5. Regularly deletes all sorts of flotsam that builds up in the Windows folder (e.g., the $NtUninstallKB* files
From its inception, Windows has relied on DLLs and libraries, and .NET is just another one of those. I too am horrified at its bloat, but it is nothing compared to some of the ridiculous stuff Adobe has created over the years (I don't think they have produced anything that consumes less than 250 MB on your hard drive since the early 1990s).
.NET provides some functions that are pretty much essential, not just for one or two backwater programs, but for many important programs that, for my work, are essential. It would be cutting off my nose to spite my face to not install it.
Sometimes you just have to hold your nose, install the software, and get on with the job, rather than trying to be totally pure about your convictions related to bloat. Speaking only for myself, I don't make those exception very often, but .NET is most definitely one where I do get out the nose clip, install the software, and then get on with it. I have not detected any problems whatsoever with any aspect of either my XP or Windows 7 (I have dual boot) setup, both of which are totally oriented towards video work.
After moving to a safe system, I tried this. It's mostly useless, as far as I can see. I ran into foreign-language error messages, and the whole "you must setup capture first" was really stupid. It's a halfass attempt to be all-in-one software, rather than the "film restoration" tool that it claims to be.
I do not think that to ask for three clicks to a user to define his clip is stupid.
When your surprise to find a message in a foreign language ... it happens all the time on this forum for me!
I think everything can be said, but with respect and objectivity in the work of others will be better.
any updates on this project? anyone using it?
edit: interesting. i had difficulties downloaded the file on 2 different PCs. then i looked closer and the downloads were blocked due to virus(es) in the file.
Last edited by friendly_jacek; 10th Aug 2015 at 19:58.
The current version already allows you to do good restoration.
Of course we are still working on a new version, but it's a huge task that will still take us several months.
The file does not contain viruses, it is surely a false alarm from your anti-virus. This file contains Avisynth DLL that can be confused with viruses.
avisynth? if 46! different AV software products reports it is as a virus, that makes me a bit concerned: https://www.herdprotect.com/avisynth.dll-0483966eb4a61e39a12890daa1a26e93e8e177d5.aspx
This application does not have a virus!
After you make what you want with it.
Gelinox, thanks for sharing the software and i'll try it on my VHS captures.
Edit: i installed it (it took a while as i needed dot.net v4 with all it's security updates and avisynth) and did a trial run on a short captured footage from PAL VHS that i use to test things.
good news: easy to use and navigate (basic french helps even in the english version), very powerful software with many settings and immediate frame preview, very good automatic antishake (i think better than the VD deshake plugin), and saves results in better compression that the huffyuv i used before.
bad news: it changes colors from very natural to a bit unpleasant. i could not defeat it despite tweaking with the contrast/saturation/gamma settings. the noise filter removes some details and makes unnatural flat appearance of human face. slow, much slower than the neat video VD filter, that was the slowest thing i used before.
based on this i can't use it on my VHS capture project. i'm sure it's a great tool for older photographic media.
Last edited by friendly_jacek; 12th Aug 2015 at 23:31.
Thank you for your opinion.
If you unchecked "AutoWhite" (color adjustment is possible) and "Gain" (the saturation control, contrast is possible), the colors of your film will not be changed. No changes will be made to the hue of the film.
For speed of the script, with a normal computer (I7) and checked all the options, on a video in 720x576, the speed is at least of 20f/s
Here is a new version of our software.
Have been changed:
- New DLL Avisynth MT
- DLL Update for other filters
- New installation procedure for Avisynth
- Adaptation computer with more than 8 CPU
With the effect of increasing the speed of treatment !!
Gilles and Roland
French forum : LeTransfert
All this project is is a half-baked attempt to add a custom GUI in front of VirtualDub and Avisynth. But it's worse that VirtualDub and AvsPmod.
It's not really "software" at all.
Time passes .... and the opinions are very varied !!! That's the rule.
Fortunately, many FILM9 users who are satisfied and show their encouragement (various forums, private messages).
FILM9 is not the competitor for another program or to serve the professional world of restoration specialists.
It just allows free use Avisynth and VirtualDub performances.
NO NEED TO LEARN TO USE SCRIPTS AVISYNTH. This is the main objective.
Is it abnormal ? Is it despicable ?
And how should call a IT development : "software" or not ?
But perhaps it is a toy !!!!
i have to disagree with lordsmurf, I have compared the results of Film9 with the John Meyer Avisynth script (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=1595606#post1595606) that I normally use for my cine restorations and have found the results very similar. OK, Film9 needs two passes and some of the pop-ups messages are in French, but despite that, I am still impressed that everything can be switched on or off or adjusted with sliders. Yes, I know you can use sliders with AVSPmod, but I think for those who don't understand the intricacies of Avisynth, Film9 is a good effort.
Thanks Gilles for the new version, Its much appreciated.
Its wrong to compare Vreveal with Film9 as vreveal cannot repair dirt/scratches period.
I find Film9 very useful and like any automated spot/dirt remover you have to be careful and watch out it doesn`t inflict damage on images in motion.
I tend to split video in 2 minute sections and assemble in a NLE after checking the spot remover hasn`t muffed any area`s, I can then replace the damaged section with a seqment of the original, I got this great idea from John Meyer.
Incidently there`s a intriguing new film dirt remover from infognition
I`m about to give it a whirl.
The Video Enhancer site is loaded with BS, and several of their guides are awful. So I'm not expecting much. But it'd be nice to be surprised. This looks like an "easy button" type filter, instead of the complex monster that must be scripted in Avisynth.
Here`s my results from the new film Dirt cleaner
The Splitscreen result with default settings in virtualdub.
I think its not bad, Obviously the image is softer- but The same applies for most other plugin scratch cleaners.
I haven`t done any sharpening or grain removal to the splitscreen video.
I notice there`s a brightness difference on the processed video and i suspect that happened somehow in the flaky Pinnacle studio when i made the splitscreen, The difference wasn`t there from the virtualdub export.
heres are the original and splitscreen result video
Last edited by restore-chappy; 9th Nov 2015 at 19:04. Reason: additional thoughts
Same frame, restored using RemoveDirtMC inside of my variation of VideoFred's script.
I corrected the levels somewhat before feeding it into the script, and I did a little sharpening and noise reduction in the script as well. However, the main point here is the dirt removal, and on that score I'd say that, in this one frame, there isn't much difference. What will be really interesting is to see, on a much better sample, whether this new dirt removal has the same problems with false positives (like flying birds disappearing).
Last edited by restore-chappy; 9th Nov 2015 at 20:24. Reason: Made post neater
No need to try it: I'm sure it will make them disappear entirely!
I usually do two separate passes: one with no dirt removal at all, and another with dirt removal. I line them up in my NLE, and when I see a problem, I simply switch to the other version. Hardly optimal, but that's how I've been dealing with it.
Here's some 16mm film from 1956 of the Chicago skyline. I transferred and restored it for an old friend, and did a lot of restoration to make it enjoyable to watch. It was part of an enormously big project (thousands of feet of film), so I didn't do my switching trick, and therefore things do disappear. As you will see from this clip, which I've queued to start playing at the problem area, the poor birds keep popping in and out of the sky:
1956 Chicago River Boat Ride
As already indicated, Film9 uses some studies Fred and John.
Thanks again to our teachers ...
The excellent RemoveDirtMC is present with different possibilities.
And, perhaps, one day, we will have a filter that gives wings to the bird ......
AVISynth "Despot" DLL does have these, but unfortunately the underlying code isn't any good.
The size of spot is obvious: if the object is larger than a certain size, don't remove it.
The luma value would let you only remove white spots (like video speckles, or dirt spots from a negative) or dark spots, and would also let you ignore objects with more than "X%" of pixels above or below a given luma value. The ball that disappears in flight is usually not purely black or white, and with the proper setting of this parameter could be ignored. This would also stop another problem, the temporary amputation of arms and legs when people are walking or running at distance that is more than a few meters from the camera. Their arms and legs become very small objects, and the object tracking in RemoveDirt doesn't properly follow the movement. It therefore sees the fastest moving part of the arm or leg as something that wasn't in either adjacent frame and therefore removes it. This problem becomes worse at the low frame rates used in amateur film because there is so much spatial displacement from one frame to the next when people or things are moving rapidly through the scene. When you get to 60 fps, many of these problems disappear (no pun intended).
John, thank you for these clarifications.
Please, an advise :
What is the impact of RemoveDirt on Interframe and vice versa.
So, mainly, about the fast movements and thus artifacts.
Should RemoveDirt place after Interframe for better efficiency ?
But then, the calculation time will multiply .....
Thank you for the advice and sorry for the translation google.
then the answer should be obvious: RemoveDirt should ALWAYS be done first because once you synthesize additional frames, the dirt removal will no longer work. In answer to your second question, there should be no impact at all between the two.
Since these answers should be obvious to someone like you who has developed this film restoration tool, perhaps I did not understand your question.
AviSynth, having this program can be very helpful, I think. It saves people the frustration of tracking down needed functions and just trying to get these filters working.
On another note, with the right kind of source the clean-up RemoveDirtMC can do sometimes borders on the miraculous. Although other filters were used in addition, it was mostly set-and-forget RemoveDirtMC (for the parts that needed it) that did the job:
Hello, Lordsmurf, thank you for your discoveries.
The whole world will be pleased to know that you're hyper-providing.
Thank you for letting me open my eyes.
I did not think that helping others (Avisynth newbies) was an offense.
I will play with my "SoftToy", but maybe others will want to play too.
It'damage to discourage them.....
But if you insist, perhaps, we will be, too discouraged to offer our ideas on this forum.
John, you have mentioned that RemoveDirtMC could bring artifacts on fast-moving scenes.
Interframe (SVP Project), which is also an excellent tool, but also introduces artifacts on the same type of scenes.
I just asked myself the question of the combination of these two plugins on scenes at risk.
But, in fact, you have already answered : two separate passes (with or without RemoveDirtMC) !!!!
Nothing is ever obvious, even if I play every day, with a SoftToy.
My specialty, among others : ask questions (with my bad engligh langage) and expect answers sympathetic.
Manono, thank you very much for all inclusive .....
I do restoration of Polavision film, Polaroid's instant movie film technology that lasted about two years in the late 1970s (it was killed by video cameras). The film was shot, then developed, and finally played back from the same cassette. By the time I receive the film, it has been sitting for forty years in the residual chemicals from the development process, resulting in massive chemical stains and mold that cannot be removed with film cleaner. Any attempt to use ultrasonic immediately removes all the emulsion from this strange film.
So, the only alternative is digital restoration. I significantly changed the RemoveDirtMC script and then turned up the settings to about 8x their normal values. The results aren't even close to the near-perfection exhibited by manono's example, but in their own way they are pretty miraculous. However, you have to look at the "before" to appreciate the "after" because the end result still isn't that great (Polavision, like Polaroid's better-known instant still film, was no match for "real" film). Here's a short example, with the "before" next to the "after," just like manono's clip:
Polavision RemoveDirtMC Before/After
One of the biggest problems is that the dirt isn't pure black or white, and also the dirt spots are so numerous it is hard to find clean areas in the adjacent frames to help fill in the dirt spot. It was quite a chore to achieve this dirt reduction. What is amazing about RemoveDirtMC is how it is able to leave intact structures like the bars on the bird cage, or the chain link fence behind the children. (And, the other functions in my version of VideoFred's script are still able to bring out the detail in the chain link fence, despite all the dirt!)
Last edited by johnmeyer; 12th Nov 2015 at 11:32. Reason: Added last paragraph
Pretty impressive, all right. And about halfway through it gets pretty darned good and the better viewing experience more than makes up for the slight loss of detail. Thanks.
I have a 8mm-to-VHS with damage not too dissimilar from this. Worse yet, the film had tape artifacts, which I removed nicely. Add in Mercalli on some sections, and it's pretty nice now. But I'm always looking for better scripts to add to my library.
John, did you stop there? Because more passes may be able to fix some of the errors I'm still seeing. I don't think anything I do ever uses just 1 script, but instead 2-3 scripts in separate passes. I'm also thinking that your after has some damage incurred from processing, and RemoveDirt could have been scaled back some (and another filter used to attack the post-RemoveDirt residual.)
Like everybody else, I have a love/hate relationship with RemoveDirt.