STAR WARS: EP IV 2004 REVISITED ADYWAN *1080p HD VERSION NOW IN PRODUCTION — Page 324

There's also the single layer Purist edition out there, but only in NTSC, not PAL.

han-do said:

i´m currently (last 35 years) in germany. soooo pal i guess?? and thats important because of the tvs right?

does anyone have a clue to what this version might be:

C:\Users\Han-Solo\Downloads\Star.Wars.Episodes.Complete.1080p.HDTV.x264-hV

?

is a pain in the ass because im already loading for 6 weeks and am at 14 %

and what is the purist edition?

 

That's just the standard SE version that was broadcast on German HDTV, not Revisited.

Purist Edition is Revisited with some changes undone - no Prequel music and a few editing changes that make it closer to the theatrical version.

Hi there,

I already thanked Ady once, but here I go again :)

I've only watched SW:R once (good things are not to be abused), but each time I remember Star Wars, it is this spectacular show I remember...

Then once again, thank you !

(Sorry if this has been asked, but the thread is crazy long now).

I have the Revisited DVD9 NTSC edition, and decided to recode and burn a DVD5 to preview before burning a final DVD9.

Using DVD Rebuilder I made a disc.  The movie stutters and skips.  It first occurs quite badly at the beginning with C3PO and R2 walking down the corridor around 'There'll be no escape this time."

I made a new encoding, I burned to a different DVDrw, nothing fixes this.  (Tried 2 different DVD players).

Both the original DVD9 and my recoded DVD5 play just fine on my PC.

I've never seen DVD rebuilder cause this and I'm afraid to burn a DVD9 in case there is a problem inherent in the disc.

Suggestions? Ideas?

DVDShrink, perhaps? An oldie but I always used it to good effect.

Download the DVD-5 version?  You'll lose some bonus features but the film is the same.

Hi everyone - it's been a while since I posted, but i've been following the Adywan threads.

I'm about to make the leap into the Hi-Def world (TV, Blu-Ray, etc.)  - late I know.

I do have the DVD9 version of revisited - is that the highest rez out there or should I look for yet another version? And if so where (I am not a torrent guy)  

Thanks in advance!

Sorceror said:

OBtwosy said:

I do have the DVD9 version of revisited - is that the highest rez out there or should I look for yet another version? And if so where (I am not a torrent guy)  

Thanks in advance!

The DVD version (whether you have DVD5 or DVD9; DVD9 version just has more special features) is the highest quality version available.

Blu-Ray is a waste of money. Even if you notice a difference when you're right up next to the screen counting the pixels, you won't notice a difference when you're at a comfortable distance from your TV. Now, if you had a film projector and a screen the size of IMAX ..........

Heh heh, I love that...

There is a BIG difference between DVD and Blu-ray (450i/p compared to 720p/1080p).  Granted, it helps that you have a 50 to 65 inch HDTV (or bigger), as Sorcerer is kinda correct at least when it comes to smaller screen sizes (30" and smaller).  If you are going to go Blu, make sure you have a big screen TV to go with it.

PAL has better resolution than NTSC, so if you can find a DVD/Blu-ray player that can play PAL, that would be the best version to get. 

BTW, here is a link to a blu-ray player that will play everything:



Here is a review of the player.

thanks for the suggestions guys - I'm looking at either a 40" or 42" HDTV.

And thanks for the link to that Blu-Ray player - I will definitely check it out.

My dad has a 65" LCD and Blu-Ray is noticeably different than standard DVD.  Not sure if it will make a ton of difference in the size we're looking to get.

Darth Editous said:

 

PAL has better resolution than NTSC

That's only true for DVD, not blu-ray.

DE

 

Of course!  It's all in the lines of resolution:

Horizontal rez lines:
a) interlaced - every other rez line is copied or filtered from/with the previous line of rez.  Barely noticeable accept during movement, where it might become noticeable.

b) progressive - every line of rez is independent of the next, providing their own unique line of resolution (so 720p is a full 720 lines of horizontal resolution lines).

(height of image)
NTSC: 480
PAL: 576
HD: 720p to 1080i/p

Also keep in mind that you can have a 1080p transfer of a crappy print (ie: the ONG BAK blu-ray) - a HD video is only going to look as good as the source and the recording process (too much D[igital] N[oise] R[eduction] or overpass of cleaning programs to remove dirt, hairs, etc on film or not enough or not at all, like the US 1954 GODZILLA blu-ray release... blegh!)

Click on the pic for more on the dif between PAL and NTSC:



and here is an example of 1080i (interlaced video):

@Monroville - This thread does not need to become an PAL vs NTSC vs HD argument.

Your arguments are mostly valid, but the PAL v NTSC article fails to take into account the horrible things PAL does to audio to reach 25 fps, that NTSC on a true interlaced NTSC TV is almost impossible to see combing on, and that it isn't uncommon for PAL DVDs to just be upscaled from NTSC masters or interlace or blend fields, etc.

BUT all things being equal, more lines of resolution is always better, and only a one-eyed idiot (with the good eye swelled shut) can't tell that HD looks better than SD no matter what size the screen.

And of course there is the 'comfortable distance' qualifier.  HD was first used in Japan because the rooms tend to be small and sitting that close you can see the scanlines on standard definition.

From Cnet:

Oh for the love of...

His point was that the PAL version of ANH:R has better resolution. Obviously it doesn't apply to HD, because in HD PAL and NTSC don't exist, and there isn't a HD version of ANH:R anyway.

RoccondilRinon said:

Oh for the love of...

His point was that the PAL version of ANH:R has better resolution. Obviously it doesn't apply to HD, because in HD PAL and NTSC don't exist, and there isn't a HD version of ANH:R anyway.

xD  But if it WAS available in HD, there's some people on this thread who just aren't interested.

This discussion is all very interesting - but has nothing to do with the topic of this thread. I don't want to have to start deleting posts.