|
Post by simonashby on Jun 9, 2023 23:53:15 GMT
With 6 missing episodes recovered from Philip Morris and 2 more from Paul Vanezis, the # of missing episodes will decrease to 91. We know that Philip Morris and Paul Vanezis are admins here and are monitoring the posts, but can't reveal any details about the episodes cause of NDA's, plus we really don't want a repeat of the omnirummor and WoF ep.3 being stolen. As long as we remain calm and respectful and refrain from leaking details, we should be fine. No, stop repeating rumour as fact and we'll all be fine.
|
|
|
Post by simonashby on Apr 26, 2023 17:53:46 GMT
Friends, So what's this about? Are we living in times where Dr.Who can now be colourised without any colour information, or is this process the guy's used incredibly time consuming? Not sure what you mean? Colourisation without colour information has been possible for quite some time AND (not or)* it is incredibly time consuming.. It's just a matter of time and money - has been for the last 3+ decades. *however automation has become quicker and more reliable and will only continue to improve. Paul V has stated on here that the recent Hancock's used the same basic process as the Mind of Evil 1, but required much less input due to improved automation. I can't comment on the specific process used here, however.
|
|
|
Post by simonashby on Apr 24, 2023 22:55:03 GMT
Any updates on this? I fear we'll only get thise episodes back when they die, and that could be YEARS away, ullnless we convince them to teturn them. The fact that nothing has been posted here for over 2 years tells you what you need to know. I know you're enthusiastic, but you don't need to keep digging up old threads.
|
|
|
Post by simonashby on Apr 23, 2023 22:55:49 GMT
As we know WoF3 is with a collector and they are most likely a big fan who knows how to get around and has good contacts. Unless you're privy to information not in the public domain, we don't actually know that.
|
|
|
Post by simonashby on Apr 13, 2023 22:58:10 GMT
Simple answer - yes. Technology will get to a point where film inserts will be enhanced to look like original negatives and out of phase inserts will be able to be 'unpicked' etc. etc. They'll never be the 'originals', but we'll be able to produce something that could look like they were the originals. But it will take time, a lot of 'learning' and will require manual input at various levels. But it'll become economical to do, no doubt. There are now two threads on similar subjects and some interesting information being shared 👍 Whether someone will be able to press a button and out will pop Marco Polo is…..However, as I’ve pointed out elsewhere we’ve had things to help “recover” DW that few could have predicted so never say never. I’d like to encourage those interested/knowledgeable to get together, try things out and see what transpires. As I've just stated in the other thread (just acknowledging that I am repeating myself!)- the technology used so far to restore Doctor Who such as Colour Recovery is generating relatively simple information that is being recovered from a real source and reference point. Same with RSC and all of the others. And even then it still requires a lot of manual input to bring it up to scratch. There's a gulf between that what is being discussed in this thread. Then a further gulf between this and the other thread about generating realistic recons. But there'll come a point where it'll become economical to do both well aided by AI, not solely generated by.
|
|
|
Post by simonashby on Apr 13, 2023 22:49:00 GMT
The trouble with making comparisons with the technology used so far to restore Doctor Who such as Colour Recovery, is that it's relatively simple information that is being recovered from a real source and reference point. Same with RSC and all of the others. And even then it still requires a lot of manual input to bring it up to scratch. There's a massive underestimation about the amount of information required to generate realistic recons. I'm not trying to be a downer, because we will get there, but not necessarily in the way that some here may think. I would imagine we'll be seeing multiple AI generated recons made by fans of the show long before any official BBC release... And like a lot of the upscales, colourisations, and others already found on YouTube, aren't all that good on a technical level.
|
|
|
Post by simonashby on Apr 10, 2023 11:57:33 GMT
So it does "think" but... My perspective is that of a software engineer, who has many friends, colleagues and contacts in the field. I am being open minded, but also realistic. It's more than just playing with it and thinking 'oh wow'. That's a perfectly legitimate response, but when you really drill down in to it it still will require a lot of input (however that is defined) in order to produce a high quality result that the BBC would find acceptable as an official release.
|
|
|
Post by simonashby on Apr 9, 2023 20:32:21 GMT
And I did say it would sometimes need human intervention I.e. entire scenes and settings missed by the tellesnaps. But if the machine could do most of the other bits that wouldn't be such a huge task to recreate afterwards. AI requires a huge amount of human input at all levels for truly high-quality results. No doubt things will get better, however as the fidelity and 'realism' of footage generation develops, even more input will be required to get things right. AI does not 'think' - it merely regurgitates the info fed into it - with confidence - even if it makes glaring errors or runs into legal territory with copyright law. Chat GPT is a case in point. The media is getting a little carried away with ChatGPT. No doubt it's a massive step, but it's still full of holes and pitfalls, with many questions of 'where now?' - practically, legally, and ethically. No doubt the power of AI will enable the generation of more realistic animations that can mimic real footage - the closest we can get to finding missing episodes. However it's not a magic bullet. It will be one of a number of very powerful and cost-effective tools in the arsenal of a team of people who will still have a lot of hands-on input to get it right. So all in, I think it'll be great for MEs, but it's not that straightforward.
|
|
|
Post by simonashby on Sept 21, 2022 17:51:26 GMT
I recall hearing that the person in question didn't like Doctor Who and was purposely being vindictive.
I don't necessarily believe that, mind.
|
|
|
Post by simonashby on Sept 18, 2022 18:50:34 GMT
You'd think there'd be a special appointee i/c of declining offers to return missing heritage. Quite an oversight. Directing an enquiry of this nature to the archive would be an obvious answer.
|
|
|
Post by simonashby on Aug 20, 2022 22:38:48 GMT
It's just sheer fandom hysteria Well, yeah...
|
|
|
Post by simonashby on Dec 26, 2021 21:09:36 GMT
What an utterly bizarre response.
Back on topic: just watched it through and it's superb restoration as per usual.
I assume Eric had been given a copy because it was their first programme on BBC1?
|
|
|
Post by simonashby on Dec 26, 2021 13:16:19 GMT
The PC BBC would not not show a sketch like that these days. Ahem... They literally did last night... and you saw them do it!
|
|
|
Post by simonashby on Feb 20, 2021 18:25:49 GMT
If you find the original videotape then that alone would be the definitive version. You misunderstand. Some of the Pertwee colourizations were possible because they found domestic videotape recorded from a broadcast in America. They took the colour signal from the tape, and combined it with the high quality monochrome version that existed, to produce a high quality colour version.
So, some episodes have had colour restored by chroma dots. If they found a domestic video recording of any of these episodes, could they make a better colour version?
Oh I see, you're not talking about broadcast tapes. But you did ask about it being versus a manually colourised episode (which would infer colourising frame by frame like Mind of Evil 1). Well, ultimately it would depend on the quality of the tape and the quality of the chroma dots on the episode in question. A lot of the Ambassadors of Death off-air tape is unusable due to interference, for example. Ultimately it's possible - having two sources is most likely to be better than one, if even in part - quite a few colourisations are a patchwork of different sources and techniques. The answer will always be a 'maybe'.
|
|
|
Post by simonashby on Feb 19, 2021 20:12:32 GMT
Here's a question I've wondered about. Is there any noticeable difference in quality between Chroma dot, manual colourization, and taking the colour signal from a videotape? If we were to find a videotape of a manual colourized episode, could we make a better version? Yes, all vary by some margin. The quality of chroma dots on film prints will vary from print to print - some great and full of colour, others really quite weak and patchy. NTSC conversions will on the whole be the most stable colour source. Both are generally accurate but in their variable nature may throw out inaccuracies to varying degrees. Manual colourisation - well, it depends on who does it! In short, the answer is very much yes. If you find the original videotape then that alone would be the definitive version. The colourised version becomes nothing more but a curiosity. The first and last are guaranteed to be accurate. Well that's not quite true though? Depends on what you mean by 'accurate'. Both sources can vary by some margin. The NTSC tapes tend to have a bit of a yellow hue to them compared to PAL equivalents. Chromadots are only a representation of the original colour. Certainly, you'll likely have a 99% accurate colour source when it comes to something being the correct general colour - i.e. a blue object being blue (unless the print is a poor source such as IOD Episode 1!). The exact hue in the restored master might still be noticeably different if compared to the original.
|
|