avrgejedimaster said:

i want to change the file name of the mkv, but doesnt that affect seeding the torrent? i feel like it would but does anyone know for sure if renaming the mkv will affect seeding the torrent?

I don't know what client you're using, but with uTorrent, you can relocate each file individually, re-check the torrent, and then start uploading again as usual. I would be surprised if such a feature were not commonplace among torrent clients.

avrgejedimaster said:

i want to change the file name of the mkv, but doesnt that affect seeding the torrent? i feel like it would but does anyone know for sure if renaming the mkv will affect seeding the torrent?

I was beat to the reply.  :)

Are images 1_00072.jpg and 1_00073.jpg mislabeled in the Google+ album?

Hey all, it seems like on a close listen, compression artifacts are audible in the isoscore track that has the '93 LD tracked in for silences (but not in the other isoscore track). Anyone else experience this, or am I dreaming? Take it with a grain of salt - I'm really not trying to detract from this release here, and this track was not Harmy's work, and am just curious. It likely won't affect the experience at all for most viewers.

THX11384EB said:

Are images 1_00072.jpg and 1_00073.jpg mislabeled in the Google+ album?

Yeah, it looks like the second one is much darker and less detailed. But I don't think they're mislabeled - the model of the Falcon in the second screenshot is clearly the older one. I guess ya can't account for the way the 2004 edition was colortimed, whatsoever...

Or, ya know, I'm totally wrong :)

Just finished going through the rar file. What a trip. You notice the extra detail when you're watching the film, but I don't think that you fully appreciate it until you go back and look at what the already-tweaked 1.0 was. I did that back when the first 2.0 workprints were being released and was, uh, totally floored by what I saw, but flipping back and forth with the stills really puts the two in sharp relief and smacks you in the face with the facts of how far we've come.

Unbelievable, Harmy!

Tashi Stationary said:

bilditup1 said:

 

EDIT: Actually, it looks like NTFS write support IS in the OSX 10.6, but not 10.5 and below. It's just not enabled by default. See here for instructions:

http://hints.macworld.com/article.php?story=20090913140023382

That Apple didn't enable this feature by default should be a strong hint though, so caveat emptor. The comments aren't too reassuring either. So if your HDD doesn't have anything else on it, it's probably worth risking; otherwise I'd just try to hunt down ntfs-3g, which I've used without issue back in my hackintosh days and still use, currently, on my family's Macs

You could make a shared folder on your mac and then access it over the network on the pc, transferring the file to the external drive (which you'd have connected to your pc).  Depending on your router, it shouldn't take too long.  In the sharing control panel, turn on file sharing, then choose to share via smb so windows can handle it.

Or you could format the external as FAT32 (which is mac friendly), split the big files into smaller (sub-4gb) rar files and copy them to the drive, then connect it to your windows computer, copy the files off, unrar them, reformat the drive as ntfs, then copy them back to the external.  ok, that sounds like a stupid idea.  would work though.

Yeah, making a network share is the least painful option in terms of mucking around with system files, avoiding the whole issue of corruption by not using an HDD &c. Sending a file like this over wifi would take a few hours, and he'd have to learn a bit about CIFS (Samba) networking and how to connect from a Mac in order to do it. Probably worth doing in the long run, but I'm not providing remote tech support for that :)

bilditup1 said:

THX11384EB said:

Are images 1_00072.jpg and 1_00073.jpg mislabeled in the Google+ album?

Yeah, it looks like the second one is much darker and less detailed. But I don't think they're mislabeled - the model of the Falcon in the second screenshot is clearly the older one. I guess ya can't account for the way the 2004 edition was colortimed, whatsoever...

Or, ya know, I'm totally wrong :)

No, that seems like a reasonable answer. It just stood out as I was quickly going through the comparison shots; the remastered looks like a fantastic upgrade throughout.

mario64 said:

First of all thank you Harmy for all your hard work!!!! Secondly, could anyone possibly hit me up with a myspleen invite? I was downloading the TPB torrent until it was discovered to be corrupt. Not sure where to get it now. Thanks in advance :-)

You guys are going to piss a lot of people off if you start asking for myspleen invites again.

JUST PM ME AND ASK!!

This release has sparked a childhood memory.  It brought me back to that fateful evening in 1977, where my life was changed forever.  Sure, I was only 5 years old, but I remembered it so vividly while watching this on my HD monitor.  My parents ended up divorcing three years after that, and I remember how intense it was, but this memory hit me like a ton of bricks.  We went as a family to see the film, and of course we were totally blown away, but the memory came as I was watching the part where the Tatooine and Death Star scenes were alternating.  Tatooine was so bright and natural, while the Death Star was cold and artificial.  Even at that age, I was able to respond and recognize the contrasts of the good guys and the bad guys.  The cinematography was just so powerful!

I feel so lucky to have had a new Star Wars memory, and I am still kind of shocked.  I really mean it Harmy, thank you so very much.  After all these years, and so many releases, this is a testament to just how close to the 1977 experience this release is.  I honestly do not remember ANY of the official releases conjuring a memory like I've had tonight.

bilditup1 said:

walkingdork said:

I just made the torrent FREELEECH on MySpleen so you guys don't kill your ratios. ;)

Thanks Harmy!!!

LOL, walkingdork is a nicer admin than I'd be :)

I think this is worth some freeleech, don't you? :D

Heads up for those using SABnzbd to download from Usenet: it has an option, enabled by default, to protect you from wasting bandwidth downloading encrypted (password-protected) RARs.

I found that my download had been paused after the first RAR because it had detected that encryption is present.

In this case however, the password is given in the NFO so it's all good.

OMG I am so sorry I forgot!

Post edited and PM sent.

Harmy said:

IF YOU FIND ANY PROBLEMS OR MISTAKES OR WHATEVER, PLEASE PM THEM TO ME AND DON'T POST ABOUT THEM IN THE THREAD. THE ONLY EFFECT POSTING ABOUT MISTAKES IN THE TREAD CAN HAVE IS YOU RUINING IT FOR SOMEONE ELSE!

Almost halfway through downloading it on myspleen and can't contain my excitement. From the bits and pieces I was able to see from my incomplete tpb download, this looks like what I've been waiting to see ever since the first time I saw the words "A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away...." appear on a television screen.

I can't ever thank you enough for this, Harmy. :)

Harmy said:

... let me repeat:

IF YOU FIND ANY PROBLEMS OR MISTAKES OR WHATEVER, PLEASE PM THEM TO ME AND DON'T POST ABOUT THEM IN THE THREAD. THE ONLY EFFECT POSTING ABOUT MISTAKES IN THE TREAD CAN HAVE IS YOU RUINING IT FOR SOMEONE ELSE!

Rox64 said:

Harmy, I was checking the .rar file of those comparison pics between 1.0 and 2.0 (btw: 2.0 is wonderful). But they do not match correctly; for example, Luke's pic on the assault to the Death Star is zoomed in on 2.0. Another example (but less obvious) is that pic when Luke uses a lightsaber for the first time. Do you know why?

Yes, that's easy, in v1.0 they weren't despecialized at all, whereas in v2.0 they are and because the GOUT elements used were cropped differently, the DeEd shots had to be cropped accordingly.

THX11384EB said:

Are images 1_00072.jpg and 1_00073.jpg mislabeled in the Google+ album?

This is a similar issue. While the v1.0 was despecialized, elements of a different matte painting were used. V2.0 is much more faithful to the original.

pvanb said:

For those without a MySpleen account, it's also on The Pirate Bay (won't post a link, but you can search for it.) Not many seeders though, so you could be waiting a while.

Spleen is up to over 60 seeders and nearly 100 snatches, and down to around 20 leechers, if anyone's interested.