Harmy said:

V2.1 sounds good. And the fixes will only be done to the BD. No AVCHD v2.1.

Sounds like a plan.  I will definitely delete the MKV once I have the BD.  Since it's a large file, I'll do what I can to share and help seed it.

Oh, yeah, there will definitely not be another MKV. Now that I think about it, I'd consider doing the v2.1 AVCHD if there's demand (it only took like 10 hours to render and an hour to upload, so it would be no biggie).

FWIW, here's how I see the releases in different formats:

BD: everything and the kitchen sink, hell yeah!

DVD5 downscale: still a must-have for visiting relatives and friends, lots of people still can't do HD.  I'm hoping your 2.1 release gets the DVD5 treatment too.

AVCHD: Neither here nor there.  Not as pretty or feature-rich as a BD and not as compatible as the DVD5.  I don't see much point now that it's not the top video-quality tier for the DeEd anymore.

MKV: I actually still like this as a way to get the best-quality video without all the extra bulk from lossless soundtracks and (yes, I admit it) subtitles cluttering up the thing.  Then again, I'd actually like a .264 download which would work just as well and would be even more bare-bones ;)

EDIT: Oh yeah, forgot.  The point of AVCHD is people without BD-burners.  I think this is a shrinking market, the media and burners have both been down to reasonable prices for a long time.

Harmy said:

Oh, yeah, there will definitely not be another MKV. Now that I think about it, I'd consider doing the v2.1 AVCHD if there's demand (it only took like 10 hours to render and an hour to upload, so it would be no biggie).

DO you know what went wrong with your render for the AVCHD the first time?

I'd go for a 2.1 AVCHD.  I don't have a BD burner, but I do have a player.  This is my format of choice, but I'm waiting for the final product :)

CatBus said:

FWIW, here's how I see the releases in different formats:

 

AVCHD: I don't see much point now that it's not the top video-quality tier for the DeEd anymore.

Ummm...  You do realize that a lot of people don't have BD burners, right?

Oh, and I definitely would like a V2.1 of the AVCHD, Harmy.

Edit:  Ok, I saw your edit but still I think there's enough demand around here for an AVCHD.

Most people still don't have BD burners (got beaten to it), so the AVCHD may be their only way to watch this in HD on their BD players na the encode quality is still very very high. And I think that if there's another SD DVD, it will be a DVD9, because this is very grainy and that doesn't agree well with mpeg2 compression.

SpilkaBilka said:

CatBus,

Interesting.  Those are good points, but I actually see the AVCHD as possibly being the MOST important release.  I'm looking at this from a "spread HD restored SW to your less tech-savvy friends" perspective.

While it won't look as good as the BD or MKV, it'll still look pretty amazing.  And I know plenty of people who have BD players, but I literally know no one (save some people on internet forums) who has a BD burner (I don't have one either).  I think for most of us trying to spread the gospel of an HD, restored SW, being able to get near-BD quality with only a DVD burner is essential.

The MKV is great and all, but to me is the least convenient, and probably not very useful to our less tech-savvy friends.

Just my opinion.

edit: whoops, everyone answered this much more quickly and succinctly than I did :)

This ^

Harmy said:

Most people still don't have BD burners (got beaten to it), so the AVCHD may be their only way to watch this in HD on their BD players na the encode quality is still very very high. And I think that if there's another SD DVD, it will be a DVD9, because this is very grainy and that doesn't agree well with mpeg2 compression.

Did I read that you were considering adjusting the gamma on that one scene for this AVCHD?

Mavimao said:

They seem pretty clean on my mac, so I am guessing it is indeed the player...

Hmm, yeah, I guess it must just be the setup on that computer.

It's weird though, most of the other scenes don't look that bad...

Harmy said:

Most people still don't have BD burners (got beaten to it), so the AVCHD may be their only way to watch this in HD on their BD players na the encode quality is still very very high. And I think that if there's another SD DVD, it will be a DVD9, because this is very grainy and that doesn't agree well with mpeg2 compression.

I dunno, my opinion is that the whole point of a DVD downscale is to cover the lowest common denominator, and a DVD5 does that better than a DVD9 (media, layer-change issues, tech-savviness, etc).  Also I actually think Chewtobacca's DVD5 downscale looked fine for SD (weird software playback glitches notwithstanding).  I'm not really sure throwing more bits at MPEG-2 SD content would improve matters that much.  I guess it's a bit early to argue that one though.

Harmy has said he'll be fixing some issues in the BD that were not fixed in the MKV, but aside from the fixes the overall image quality will be equivalent.

Harmy said:

Most people still don't have BD burners (got beaten to it), so the AVCHD may be their only way to watch this in HD on their BD players na the encode quality is still very very high. And I think that if there's another SD DVD, it will be a DVD9, because this is very grainy and that doesn't agree well with mpeg2 compression.

I very much hope you will decide to do a 2.1 AVCHD. I believe that will definitely help many like me who do not have a blu-ray burner, but want to watch it in HD. I am likely to download the blu-ray also, since my media player connected to my tv will play back ISO and blu-ray folders, but I think AVCHD is important for many people.

CatBus said:

FWIW, here's how I see the releases in different formats:

BD: everything and the kitchen sink, hell yeah!

DVD5 downscale: still a must-have for visiting relatives and friends, lots of people still can't do HD.  I'm hoping your 2.1 release gets the DVD5 treatment too.

AVCHD: Neither here nor there.  Not as pretty or feature-rich as a BD and not as compatible as the DVD5.  I don't see much point now that it's not the top video-quality tier for the DeEd anymore.

MKV: I actually still like this as a way to get the best-quality video without all the extra bulk from lossless soundtracks and (yes, I admit it) subtitles cluttering up the thing.  Then again, I'd actually like a .264 download which would work just as well and would be even more bare-bones ;)

EDIT: Oh yeah, forgot.  The point of AVCHD is people without BD-burners.  I think this is a shrinking market, the media and burners have both been down to reasonable prices for a long time.

I do not own a blu-ray burner, nor is one on my list any time soon. Eventually I will have one, but money is extremely tight for me. The availability and affordability doesn't mean that everybody owns one now.

I do agree that the mkv is a great trade-off. I personally like the MKV, but I know somebody I would like to give a copy to, and for him it would need to be the AVCHD since I cannot burn a blu-ray and he doesn't have a media player for his tv for mkv playback. I think all of these formats are ideal, for different people.

CatBus said:

Harmy said:

Most people still don't have BD burners (got beaten to it), so the AVCHD may be their only way to watch this in HD on their BD players na the encode quality is still very very high. And I think that if there's another SD DVD, it will be a DVD9, because this is very grainy and that doesn't agree well with mpeg2 compression.

I dunno, my opinion is that the whole point of a DVD downscale is to cover the lowest common denominator, and a DVD5 does that better than a DVD9 (media, layer-change issues, tech-savviness, etc).  Also I actually think Chewtobacca's DVD5 downscale looked fine for SD (weird software playback glitches notwithstanding).  I'm not really sure throwing more bits at MPEG-2 SD content would improve matters that much.  I guess it's a bit early to argue that one though.

I think a DVD-9 would make a huge difference over a DVD-5, especially if multiple soundtracks will be included. It could definitely use the higher bitrate, and a DVD-9 is just as easy to burn as a DVD-5 (though I admit the media can be more finicky). I use Verbatim DVD-9 with my lite-on drive and they always burn beautifully (for DL that is). I do think a DVD-5 has less playback issues.

More finicky, not to mention more expensive. That said I would still prefer there be an official DVD9 version, too.

Oldfan said:

I think a DVD-9 would make a huge difference over a DVD-5, especially if multiple soundtracks will be included.

Oh sure, with multiple soundtracks the DVD-9 makes a lot more sense.  DJ's V3 was a DVD9 where the video itself was only 5.5GB and the rest was all soundtracks.  That would be a good use of the DVD9 capacity--but I'm just not convinced a 7.5GB video with one soundtrack would be that much better than a 5.5GB video with one soundtrack, since they're both constrained by other more significant factors (SD, MPEG-2, DVD maximum bitrate).