WHOA!  It`s a humdinger of a `humdinger`!  Sorry this is going to tie up your processor for another week...we gotta have a whip-round and pitch in to buy you a render-machine, Harmy.

Harmy said:

 

I'm not happy :-/

That sucks, but reminds me of this:

http://www.engadget.com/2012/08/10/pbs-off-book-art-of-glitch-web-documentary/

Kind of cheesy, but interesting.

Keep at it and thanks for all your hard work!

Harmy said:

 

delusions_of_grandeur said:

 

Not to come across as a complete ass-hat, but Harmy if the stakes were a date with 22 year old Carrie Fisher, when would you bet we'll see a seeded release?  Thanks again!

 

I'd love to be able to say that as soon as I get h_h's audio but here's the reason I'll be re-encoding the whole thing from scratch.

I'm not happy :-/

It's not in my lossless source files, so it must have happened during the encoding.

 

Oh and I guess I actually will put all the soundtrack in the MKV, if I can put them all together before the release.

Is this one of those Magic Eye pictures? If you hold it really close to your face, and back away slowly while looking cross eyed, you will eventually see GL giving the finger!

That's an odd-looking error to be sure, but I suppose it's just as well, since I had to go out of town for a bit.  Tomorrow I'll be back at it.

To tell the truth, it may be better to use Belbucus' analogue capture of the stereo track.  Sure, the quality of the digital version is a bit better, but it also has many of the source flaws that Belbucus fixed for his version, including noticeable audio dropouts and pitch-shifting.  In addition, it is also much too loud compared to the 1993 mix (and by consequence the 5.1), while the analogue capture has already been level-matched quite precisely.  When I spliced in part of the digital stereo track for one of my edits, it had to be lowered considerably just to have the dialogue come out at the same level.  When switching between multiple audio tracks, this is going to produce a jarring mismatch.

Of course, the mono mix is also much too loud compared to the 1993 version, and would have to be similarly lowered.  Dialogue Normalization can be used for this purpose with AC3, but for PCM this has to be done manually.

Once I'm done with my stuff, I'll consult on what to do about all the audio tracks, if that would be helpful.  I'm not sure how many people really care about this kind of thing, but differences in playback level are a huge source of confusion regarding how powerful or dynamic different mixes sound in relationship to each other, and a lot of erroneous ideas have been formed as a result.

<blockquote>
<p><strong>hairy_hen</strong> said:</p>
<p>That's an odd-looking error to be sure, but I suppose it's just as well, since I had to go out of town for a bit. &nbsp;Tomorrow I'll be back at it.</p>
<p>To tell the truth, it may be better to use Belbucus' analogue capture of the stereo track. &nbsp;Sure, the quality of the digital version is a bit better, but it also has many of the source flaws that Belbucus fixed for his version, including noticeable audio dropouts and pitch-shifting. &nbsp;In addition, it is also much too loud compared to the 1993 mix (and by consequence the 5.1), while the analogue capture has already been level-matched quite precisely. &nbsp;When I spliced in part of the digital stereo track for one of my edits, it had to be lowered considerably just to have the dialogue come out at the same level. &nbsp;When switching between multiple audio tracks, this is going to produce a jarring mismatch.</p>
<p>Of course, the mono mix is also much too loud compared to the 1993 version, and would have to be similarly lowered. &nbsp;Dialogue Normalization can be used for this purpose with AC3, but for PCM this has to be done manually.</p>
<p>Once I'm done with my stuff, I'll consult on what to do about all the audio tracks, if that would be helpful. &nbsp;I'm not sure how many people really care about this kind of thing, but differences in playback level are a huge source of confusion regarding how powerful or dynamic different mixes sound in relationship to each other, and a lot of erroneous ideas have been formed as a result.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I think most of us care quite a bit.</p>

^ http://originaltrilogy.com/FORUM/topic.cfm/Star-Wars-1997-DTS-CD-ROMs/topic/14241/

ray_afraid said:

Any chance you'll be fixing the green-to-red shirt color change that was just found? [...] I know it's a small change, but it is a change, it did look better green and it'll stick me in the eye every time now.

Something you'd never have noticed otherwise is now going to really bother you now unless changed. I know how that is.

No criticism intended, but this is exactly why Harmy begged upthread for people to post complaints, details or ongoing flaws in private PMs only.

In general, the chances of getting something changed at this point are much slighter than the chances of just hurting everyone's enjoyment--much as the shirt knowledge has done for you...

Apologies if I'm overstepping my newbie bounds; again no criticism intended, I know firsthand how details can nag at one. 

Let's not make "perfect" the enemy of "amazingly good."

Harmy, I'm really glad you were able to more fully de-specialize those lightsabers.  They look much closer to the original shape than v.1. (If I remember right v.1 sabres were color corrected by Adywan, but they still looked like CGI.)  I hope they look good in motion! :)

Are those fixes you made Harmy?

Looks perfect.

How do you work so fast?

flynn2000 said:

Looks perfect.

How do you work so fast?

(Just a guess :D)

The lightsabers look fantastic. That was the main thing version 1.0 lacked, so I'm glad to see some last-minute improvements. 

And that red/green shirt guy is great too.