Color Correcting the Dragon Box - 3 Part Spectacular

[Lorium_O]

My god that looks great, can you show me one from episode 139?

Sure, I'll include some before/after this time. Note that these aren't the EXACT same frames, I'm just pulling from the same shots in the episode.

Spoiler:

Blacks and whites are huge improvements. Skies look blue again, skin looks more natural. Greens and purples are on point.

My god this is so good, if it happens to fit in my hard drive I will totally download and help with sharing it. (once it comes out of course, then again I don't wanna promote anything illegal here)

[vanner64]

My god this is so good, if it happens to fit in my hard drive I will totally download and help with sharing it. (once it comes out of course, then again I don't wanna promote anything illegal here)

Thanks, it's nice to see what was once a tiny Seed Of an idea has grown into the Mighty accomplishment of the first series.
If you do some searching and find the comparable version of the first series (with DBOX colors), that will give you an idea of how much space this will take up.

[Lorium_O]

Thanks, it's nice to see what was once a tiny Seed Of an idea has grown into the Mighty accomplishment of the first series.

ayyy. good one

If you do some searching and find the comparable version of the first series (with DBOX colors), that will give you an idea of how much space this will take up.

then I assume it must be 200 - 300 GB considering how big the actual dragon ball dboxes are. If so, I can still seed a small part that I can fit onto my (D:) hard-drive.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

New color corrections!

Spoiler:

The first one uses a really dark brightness due to the high contrast and gamma from the dragon box image, therefore the dark areas are...well...darker. Thankfully it still works good and looks fine in my view.

R2J:




CC:

Spoiler:

The dragon box screenshot in this one is different, the colors aren't that bright, and are dark enough to look good. However, as we all know, the tint that we all hate gets in the way. So this time, I went for something similar to FemboyFilms' 4K dragon ball scans... except darker

R2J:




CC:

Of course, these are but some basic color corrections, and I hope to learn more as I color-correct more of dragon ball and dragon ball z.

[Trachta10]

Thanks, it's nice to see what was once a tiny Seed Of an idea has grown into the Mighty accomplishment of the first series.

ayyy. good one

If you do some searching and find the comparable version of the first series (with DBOX colors), that will give you an idea of how much space this will take up.

then I assume it must be 200 - 300 GB considering how big the actual dragon ball dboxes are. If so, I can still seed a small part that I can fit onto my (D:) hard-drive.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

New color corrections!

Spoiler:

The first one uses a really dark brightness due to the high contrast and gamma from the dragon box image, therefore the dark areas are...well...darker. Thankfully it still works good and looks fine in my view.

R2J:




CC:

Spoiler:

The dragon box screenshot in this one is different, the colors aren't that bright, and are dark enough to look good. However, as we all know, the tint that we all hate gets in the way. So this time, I went for something similar to FemboyFilms' 4K dragon ball scans... except darker

R2J:




CC:

Of course, these are but some basic color corrections, and I hope to learn more as I color-correct more of dragon ball and dragon ball z.

Man, no offense , but you are destroying the white balance

[Trachta10]

Hey all, I have some great news regarding the white balance / color correction of Dragon Ball. Over the past 6 months, I've been with a crew that has now white balanced all of Dragon Ball, DBZ, and DBGT. This white balancing is done shot by shot. We've been able to use these white balanced images and began general color correction (often called "hue shifting"). Instead of trying to color correct one image at a time, we were able to apply this data episode by episode. We now have a rough draft of the entirety of classic Dragon Ball. Not some scenes, not just some episodes, the entire 153 episode series (plus the two safety specials!). Here are some examples from across the series:







If anyone would like, I can search for other examples if you give me the episode and/or scene. I won't be able to respond instantly but have over 17GBs of corrected PNGs from the series.

We just need to do a little bit more quality control and curve correction for some episodes, but expect to see the finished series this summer on your typical website.

One question, why the aspect ratio is not 4:3?

[vanner64]

One question, why the aspect ratio is not 4:3?

Excellent question. I'm going to share a quote by someone who is knows much more about that kind of thing than I do.
The TL;DR is that the ratio I'm sharing the images in is the true correct ratio, determined by math and geometry.

Both R1 and R2J are 720 x 480 resolution, which you might think looks horizontally stretched, but they come with a flag that instructs the intended display to resize it to how it should actually look. This flag is something called a pixel aspect ratio, or PAR. It can be confusing to wrap your head around, but the basic idea is that it tells the display that each pixel in the 720 x 480 resolution should be taller than it is wide by a set amount. This will accurately resize the image and make it look as it should. This PAR transformation plus overscan from a CRT television (the intended display) yields a 4:3 picture (the display aspect ratio, or “DAR”). Today though, we don’t use CRTs and so some decisions have to be made about how to resize accurately. One thing is clear: it is not possible to have a 4:3 DAR and the correct PAR without cropping. So we are left with 3 options.
1. Prioritize a 4:3 DAR at all costs without cropping. This leads to an incorrect PAR and so the image will look vertically stretched compared to what is intended.
2. Prioritize the correct PAR without cropping. This leads to a picture that looks correct but is wider than 4:3 and will sometimes show part of the image that is not meant to be shown (e.g. inconsistent and blurred black bars), since DVD authoring always predicts overscan by the old CRTs.
3. Prioritize the correct PAR and a 4:3 DAR, which is achieved by cropping away the overscanned part. This results in resolutions such as 708 x 480 (which is resized to 708 x 531 on most players after the PAR transformation).
This project uses the third option.

Non-square pixels were supposedly a smart choice at the time. The standard was analog display that could pack more information horizontally than vertically given any square sample of it. The industry had to optimize the data on DVDs for the consumer end, so this mathematical pixel concept that can only be approximated by modern players made sense in the past. If you search right now for PAR correction on DVD footage, you will probably get to the ratio 10:11, both on simple and very detailed explanations on CRT analog-to-digital, signal-to-pixel conversions. But this is not the ratio we are using (160:177). Another wrong PAR is 8:9, which comes from the resolution standard first set to DVDs fitted on a 4:3 DAR, which has nothing to do with how CRTs were using the converted signal to display a 4:3 footage. A couple of standards were written to fix the squeezed DVD footage. These standards were digital standards, to match the digital display of the video to what a well-calibrated CRT already would correctly display. Thus it is a conversion standard. From 8:9 to whatever gives the correct image. It is a complicated matter and the numbers get pretty ugly. Even the nice recommended 10:11 ratio is actually an approximation to 42651:38800. The 160:177 PAR standard comes from SMPTE RP 187-1995 and supposedly solved the rectangle pixel issue for good. The industry ignores it nonetheless, because the numbers they came up with were awfully obnoxious and even the scaling process would be more hardware-expensive. This explains why this standard is not as well-known as the 10:11 one. But here in 2021, scaling video is not a problem, and your player will scale the footage like it is nothing. We have tested it, and 160:177 looks best overall on Dragon Box. Meticulous comparisons using circle objects in the video (like the dragon ball at the very beginning of each episode) didn’t give a huge edge to 160:177 over 10:11 because the film itself always has some form of warping. However, it is also better to be safe than sorry. Having a 4:3, 160:177 PAR footage leaves it with 4 extra pixel columns compared to a 4:3 with 10:11 PAR. You can still crop them away and set the PAR to 10:11 if you want, which is not possible to do the other way around.

[Lorium_O]

Man, no offense , but you are destroying the white balance

Thanks, I made some updated versions with a better white balancing:







I'm still not very happy with tien's cc, but I think the second one has undergone some great improvement.

[Trachta10]

One question, why the aspect ratio is not 4:3?

Excellent question. I'm going to share a quote by someone who is knows much more about that kind of thing than I do.
The TL;DR is that the ratio I'm sharing the images in is the true correct ratio, determined by math and geometry.

Both R1 and R2J are 720 x 480 resolution, which you might think looks horizontally stretched, but they come with a flag that instructs the intended display to resize it to how it should actually look. This flag is something called a pixel aspect ratio, or PAR. It can be confusing to wrap your head around, but the basic idea is that it tells the display that each pixel in the 720 x 480 resolution should be taller than it is wide by a set amount. This will accurately resize the image and make it look as it should. This PAR transformation plus overscan from a CRT television (the intended display) yields a 4:3 picture (the display aspect ratio, or “DAR”). Today though, we don’t use CRTs and so some decisions have to be made about how to resize accurately. One thing is clear: it is not possible to have a 4:3 DAR and the correct PAR without cropping. So we are left with 3 options.
1. Prioritize a 4:3 DAR at all costs without cropping. This leads to an incorrect PAR and so the image will look vertically stretched compared to what is intended.
2. Prioritize the correct PAR without cropping. This leads to a picture that looks correct but is wider than 4:3 and will sometimes show part of the image that is not meant to be shown (e.g. inconsistent and blurred black bars), since DVD authoring always predicts overscan by the old CRTs.
3. Prioritize the correct PAR and a 4:3 DAR, which is achieved by cropping away the overscanned part. This results in resolutions such as 708 x 480 (which is resized to 708 x 531 on most players after the PAR transformation).
This project uses the third option.

Non-square pixels were supposedly a smart choice at the time. The standard was analog display that could pack more information horizontally than vertically given any square sample of it. The industry had to optimize the data on DVDs for the consumer end, so this mathematical pixel concept that can only be approximated by modern players made sense in the past. If you search right now for PAR correction on DVD footage, you will probably get to the ratio 10:11, both on simple and very detailed explanations on CRT analog-to-digital, signal-to-pixel conversions. But this is not the ratio we are using (160:177). Another wrong PAR is 8:9, which comes from the resolution standard first set to DVDs fitted on a 4:3 DAR, which has nothing to do with how CRTs were using the converted signal to display a 4:3 footage. A couple of standards were written to fix the squeezed DVD footage. These standards were digital standards, to match the digital display of the video to what a well-calibrated CRT already would correctly display. Thus it is a conversion standard. From 8:9 to whatever gives the correct image. It is a complicated matter and the numbers get pretty ugly. Even the nice recommended 10:11 ratio is actually an approximation to 42651:38800. The 160:177 PAR standard comes from SMPTE RP 187-1995 and supposedly solved the rectangle pixel issue for good. The industry ignores it nonetheless, because the numbers they came up with were awfully obnoxious and even the scaling process would be more hardware-expensive. This explains why this standard is not as well-known as the 10:11 one. But here in 2021, scaling video is not a problem, and your player will scale the footage like it is nothing. We have tested it, and 160:177 looks best overall on Dragon Box. Meticulous comparisons using circle objects in the video (like the dragon ball at the very beginning of each episode) didn’t give a huge edge to 160:177 over 10:11 because the film itself always has some form of warping. However, it is also better to be safe than sorry. Having a 4:3, 160:177 PAR footage leaves it with 4 extra pixel columns compared to a 4:3 with 10:11 PAR. You can still crop them away and set the PAR to 10:11 if you want, which is not possible to do the other way around.

I'm really surprised that they decided to do that,
I think the image is too stretched

[ikaos]

I'm really surprised that they decided to do that,
I think the image is too stretched

>an actual long description as to why 160:177 is the correct PAR for DB material, using evidence

"nah I don't like it"

No wonder this thread goes on forever. Vanner your group's cc is amazing, keep up the good fight.

[vanner64]

I'm really surprised that they decided to do that,
I think the image is too stretched

It's a bit strange to read that and then dismiss it, but I do get how someone who is used to looking at something, even if it's not necessarily correct, will find a different version "wrong" because it goes against what they remember.

Let's try an example.
This is from the corrected 160:177 aspect ratio, but before color correction applied.

Now I ask you: "What is the shape of a Dragon Ball?". If you said "sphere", alright you got me there, but what is the shape as a drawing on an animated show? It is clearly supposed to be a circle. I don't think anyone would say a Dragon Ball should be oblong or egg-shaped.

So is it a circle in the image? You might think so, but I'll go the extra mile and prove it. By using Photoshop, we can create a circle with the ellipse tool. By holding Shift, the ellipse stays in a circle shape. When we line up this circle with the Dragon Ball, we see...

A perfect match! A 242 by 242 pixel circle in this example.

[Trachta10]

I'm really surprised that they decided to do that,
I think the image is too stretched

It's a bit strange to read that and then dismiss it, but I do get how someone who is used to looking at something, even if it's not necessarily correct, will find a different version "wrong" because it goes against what they remember.

Let's try an example.
This is from the corrected 160:177 aspect ratio, but before color correction applied.

Now I ask you: "What is the shape of a Dragon Ball?". If you said "sphere", alright you got me there, but what is the shape as a drawing on an animated show? It is clearly supposed to be a circle. I don't think anyone would say a Dragon Ball should be oblong or egg-shaped.

So is it a circle in the image? You might think so, but I'll go the extra mile and prove it. By using Photoshop, we can create a circle with the ellipse tool. By holding Shift, the ellipse stays in a circle shape. When we line up this circle with the Dragon Ball, we see...

A perfect match! A 242 by 242 pixel circle in this example.

Can you show me this same screenshot before and after the change in the ratio?
Did they only use the dragon balls in the opening as reference or also other objects inside the show?

[dragonmagico]

Thanks, it's nice to see what was once a tiny Seed Of an idea has grown into the Mighty accomplishment of the first series.

ayyy. good one

If you do some searching and find the comparable version of the first series (with DBOX colors), that will give you an idea of how much space this will take up.

then I assume it must be 200 - 300 GB considering how big the actual dragon ball dboxes are. If so, I can still seed a small part that I can fit onto my (D:) hard-drive.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

New color corrections!

Spoiler:

The first one uses a really dark brightness due to the high contrast and gamma from the dragon box image, therefore the dark areas are...well...darker. Thankfully it still works good and looks fine in my view.

R2J:




CC:

Spoiler:

The dragon box screenshot in this one is different, the colors aren't that bright, and are dark enough to look good. However, as we all know, the tint that we all hate gets in the way. So this time, I went for something similar to FemboyFilms' 4K dragon ball scans... except darker

R2J:




CC:

Of course, these are but some basic color corrections, and I hope to learn more as I color-correct more of dragon ball and dragon ball z.

The original was just under 1TB. This one likely will be too. Which is good gotta keep all the quality you can.

[vanner64]

Can you show me this same screenshot before and after the change in the ratio?
Did they only use the dragon balls in the opening as reference or also other objects inside the show?

Sure. This is the 4:3 (640x480) version you would find on the DVDs.


Let's use the circle method to determine how correct it is...

As you can see, the circle is not as aligned. The image needs to be just a tiny bit wider to be correct.

I was not involved with the process that initially determined the correct aspect ratio, but I comprehend and understand the methodology. I know more references were used, but the Dragon Ball in the opening was the most obvious to me as an easy-to-find objective source. Any talk of "Well, this feels too wide" or "This feels too narrow" without some kind of solid reference should be discarded, since that kind of thinking would come from personal memory of what someone is "used to".

[supersaiyamangod]

Man, no offense , but you are destroying the white balance

Thanks, I made some updated versions with a better white balancing:







I'm still not very happy with tien's cc, but I think the second one has undergone some great improvement.

Why do some of the human characters still look bubble gum pinkish?

[Trachta10]

Can you show me this same screenshot before and after the change in the ratio?
Did they only use the dragon balls in the opening as reference or also other objects inside the show?

Sure. This is the 4:3 (640x480) version you would find on the DVDs.


Let's use the circle method to determine how correct it is...

As you can see, the circle is not as aligned. The image needs to be just a tiny bit wider to be correct.

I was not involved with the process that initially determined the correct aspect ratio, but I comprehend and understand the methodology. I know more references were used, but the Dragon Ball in the opening was the most obvious to me as an easy-to-find objective source. Any talk of "Well, this feels too wide" or "This feels too narrow" without some kind of solid reference should be discarded, since that kind of thinking would come from personal memory of what someone is "used to".

I'm really surprised that they decided to do that,
I think the image is too stretched

>an actual long description as to why 160:177 is the correct PAR for DB material, using evidence

"nah I don't like it"

No wonder this thread goes on forever. Vanner your group's cc is amazing, keep up the good fight.

Maybe I don't like it because is cleary wrong?
How come nobody used a ​​cel as reference?




https://imgsli.com/MTA1OTI3


look at the clouds



https://imgsli.com/MTA1OTI4

You can't tell me a scan of a cel has a wrong aspect ratio

But I'm still open mind on it, maybe the opening has a different aspect ratio compared to the episode?

[Lorium_O]

Why do some of the human characters still look bubble gum pinkish?

I tried to fix that, but the solution I used to fix it, I would go to a screenshot containing piccolo and color correct it using the same solution. It would get me inaccurate colors for that damn namekian's skin. Nothing I can do about it.

[Lorium_O]

Maybe I don't like it because is cleary wrong?
How come nobody used a ​​cel as reference?
But I'm still open mind on it, maybe the opening has a different aspect ratio compared to the episode?

Using the cels as a reference is like saying a demo version of a game is the actual final product. Animation Cels are meant to be scanned with different colors and aspect ratios to begin with, which is why you see these bright, bleached skin colors for Goku in the cels. They're not the final product. The original broadcast video is.

[vanner64]

But I'm still open mind on it, maybe the opening has a different aspect ratio compared to the episode?

Ahh, I see the problem now, it was an earlier mistake and I'm glad you caught me on that. The first pictures I posted (Goku in front of home, Pilaf, Goku and Jackie-Chun, General Blue, Goku and Tien, Goku and Chi-Chi) did not have the PAR transformation applied. That is why you think they look too wide (because those specific ones are!) I was just sharing to show off the colors and hadn't noticed since the aspect ratio was not the focus of my post. The first and last pictures from this original post are what you used to compare with the cels, and that is why they look "off".

The later before/after comparison posts, and the one with the ball in the opening, have the correct PAR transformation applied. Good eye! I did find you cel comparison interesting, but I would caution against using different frames. I found the exact frame on the 4:3 DVD and made my own comparison, centering both images on Goku's mouth and nose.
https://imgsli.com/MTA1OTQ1
And look at that! The 4:3 image had to be enlarged to match up with his nose and mouth. That 4:3 is a bit too tall vertically and should be stretched horizontally, just like the ball example earlier. Thanks for pushing me to try and find another example of why our updated 177:160 aspect ratio is correct, I'll be saving this image I made for sure!

You can read more about the industry standard here if you'd like https://lurkertech.com/lg/video-systems/#sq_rp187

Anyway, I think this detour has gone on long enough. I hope everyone learned something. We now return to our regularly scheduled color corrections.

[supersaiyamangod]

Why do some of the human characters still look bubble gum pinkish?

I tried to fix that, but the solution I used to fix it, I would go to a screenshot containing piccolo and color correct it using the same solution. It would get me inaccurate colors for that damn namekian's skin. Nothing I can do about it.

So no way to isolate the human characters shots to color correction the skin tones? What about maybe recolor piccolo’s color with a color editor while fixing the skin tones?

[Lorium_O]

Why do some of the human characters still look bubble gum pinkish?

I tried to fix that, but the solution I used to fix it, I would go to a screenshot containing piccolo and color correct it using the same solution. It would get me inaccurate colors for that damn namekian's skin. Nothing I can do about it.

So no way to isolate the human characters shots to color correction the skin tones? What about maybe recolor piccolo’s color with a color editor while fixing the skin tones?

Nope. One of the main reasons characters on my cc have pinkish colors are because it's just like that on the cels. Unless your fine with a more blue than green piccolo you can't go any further.