***The "Darth Editous" Episode IV DVD Info and Feedback Thread*** - a partially "de-specialed" DVD — Page 41

It would be interesting to get the measurements but to be honest I don't think it explains the degree of squash in those shots as currently presented (DE's reworking seems to have a beneficial effect on the Star Destroyer too).

Darth Editous said:

Okay, can someone who's into schematics and stuff tell me, is the Death Star supposed to be a sphere, or an ovoid? In every shot it's about 10% off being a circle.

Does the Death Star spin?  Spinning spheres exhibit oblation (bulging in the middle), but I doubt it would cause a 10% difference.  I think it is only a small effect. 

Moth3r said:

Strictly speaking, a PAL 16:9 image from DVD at 720 x 576 should be stretched to 1050 x 576 for the correct AR, not 1024 x 576 as you might expect.

I have never heard this before.  Would you mind explaining it Moth3r?  I have always used 1024x576. 

Is it to do with overscan?

While I can see by the numbers that it would make the squish worse, I don't understand the 1050 part.  Does this mean I have made mistakes when I have downsized HDTV broadcasts to PAL? 

It's down to nominal analogue blanking.

The 8 pixels at either edge (strictly, PAL borders are 9 pixels but 8 is sometimes an easier number to work with) are to be treated as "garbage", and not included in any size/aspect ratio calculations.

HD doesn't have NAB, so an HD picture should be scaled down to 704x576 and padded (although 704x576 is also valid for DVD video, so you could skip padding it to 720).

Likewise, to display 720x576 anamorphic video on a square-pixel display, it should be cropped to 702 and scaled up to 1024x576 (a 16:9 frame). Almost equivalently, you can skip the cropping and scale to ~1050x576.

DE

Thanks for your explanation, DE.  I'm still a little in the dark though. :-)  (Sorry to talk about this in your thread.) 

HD doesn't have NAB, so an HD picture should be scaled down to 704x576 and padded (although 704x576 is also valid for DVD video, so you could skip padding it to 720).

This starts to explain certain pecularities with DVD transfers.  They often have a black area at one side or both sides when ripped, though some of them don't nowadays. 

These black bars are designed for old non-HDTVs that overscan, are they?  If you view many DVDs on your widescreen television on exact scan (or just scan, whatever the manufacturer calls 1:1) you can see the black bars.  Would your TV be functioning as a square pixel display in this case, or is it just monitors?  because I don't see why one would need to crop a transfer to suit a monitor.

I recently worked with a PAL anamorphic widescreen DVD transfer that did *not* have those black pixels at either side when ripped.  I added in some HDTV footage to match it.  To do so, I had to crop 7 pixels from either side of the HDTV footage and resize to 720x576.  I didn't know about any of this at the time.  I was just taking snapshots of my sources into photoshop, measuring the pixels of visible image, calculating the aspect ratio accordingly and resizing.  I take it I did right? I would hate to have to re-do my work.  Both DVD and HDTV were 1024x440 with borders cropped at the end, or about 2.32:1, and visually they fitted perfectly.

I am sorry to be a massive pain in the neck, but this is a new thing to me.  Can you explain exactly what you did with the Death Star footage?  (MOth3r, I'll move this to PM, if it's annoying.) 

Chewtobacca said:

Thanks for your explanation, DE.  I'm still a little in the dark though. :-)  (Sorry to talk about this in your thread.)

These black bars are designed for old non-HDTVs that overscan, are they?

If you view many DVDs on your widescreen television on exact scan (or just scan, whatever the manufacturer calls 1:1) you can see the black bars.  Would your TV be functioning as a square pixel display in this case, or is it just monitors?

I was just taking snapshots of my sources into photoshop, measuring the pixels of visible image, calculating the aspect ratio accordingly and resizing.  I take it I did right?

I am sorry to be a massive pain in the neck, but this is a new thing to me.  Can you explain exactly what you did with the Death Star footage?

Yes; the Death Star looks really good.  The improvement in the Star Destroyer is even more marked, in my opinion.  I am really excited about the new version of your edit.  The color correction pictures look amazing.

I don't know why TVs offer "exact scan", because overscan (unrelated to NAB) dictates that around 5% of the picture around the edges should be considered "unsafe", and professional TV is produced with this in mind (including HD).

I thought this was for blu-ray.  I have always been told that unless I am viewing a blu-ray on exact scan I am not getting the full picture quality. This is what I set my TV to every time I watch blu-ray.

Why is ovescan unrelated to NAB?  When I looked at NAB in that wikipedia article it seemed to relate it to overscan. No doubt I've misunderstood again.  :-)

From what I read it seems that this 1050 instead of 1024 business is just because if you resize exactly to 1024 people with old sets lose part of the picture, as it then seems "lifted" slightly on their screens when it overscans.  I don't think this affects the AR itself though.  Isn't it more the scope of the film?

I think the 7 pixels not 8 might have been due to the fact that the HDTV was 720p not 1080, and the fact that the DVD had no black bits at the side. 

Chewtobacca said:

Yes; the Death Star looks really good.  The improvement in the Star Destroyer is even more marked, in my opinion.  I am really excited about the new version of your edit.  The color correction pictures look amazing.

I thought this was for blu-ray.  I have always been told that unless I am viewing a blu-ray on exact scan I am not getting the full picture quality. This is what I set my TV to every time I watch blu-ray.

Why is ovescan unrelated to NAB?  When I looked at NAB in that wikipedia article it seemed to relate it to overscan. No doubt I've misunderstood again.  :-)

From what I read it seems that this 1050 instead of 1024 business is just because if you resize exactly to 1024 people with old sets lose part of the picture, as it then seems "lifted" slightly on their screens when it overscans.  I don't think this affects the AR itself though.  Isn't it more the scope of the film?

I understand better now.  Thanks!  :-) 

I love the prospect of an HD edition of your work, but will believe in these blu-rays when they finally appear!  Nonetheless, I can see why you wouldn't relish the prospect of redoing all your work -- again! I'll just have to be patient... :)

I figured you may as well see a higher resolution version of the 3D matte shot, since nothing else will be happening for a (h)while.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_srQf_HpB0 (don't forget to change res to 480)

I didn't get as far as putting in the hovering bird or the smoke from the chimney.

DE

adywan said:

It won't let me view it DE. It says the video is private

^Ditto. And why "since nothing else will be happening for a (h)while"? :(

Darth Editous said:

 

 I've decided I may as well wait for the inevitable Blu-Ray cash-in, sorry, release. Who knows, it may even be coloured better.

 

Now, that's optimism!  :-D  On the hand, it might have DNR and EE all over it like the LOTR blu-rays. 

I'm sad we won't see a new DVD of this, but I understand your reasons.

Chewtobacca said:

Now, that's optimism!  :-D  On the hand, it might have DNR and EE all over it like the LOTR blu-rays. 

I'm sad we won't see a new DVD of this, but I understand your reasons.

can anyone make me a copy of this on dvd ill pay for shipping and the disc if you can pm me

Does version 3 of this edit have your 3d Mattes? Or are you still working on a V. 4?

mrbenja0618 said:

Does version 3 of this edit have your 3d Mattes? Or are you still working on a V. 4?

Would anyone be willing to supply me with a copy of this DVD? Or a link to a decent torrent (ie it's being seeded)?

(I tried to get it from fanedits.info but that jDownloader is the worst piece of shit thing I've seen in a long time. It doesn't even have my router - which I bought at frigging BEST BUY - on its router list.)

Thanks.

Cantina Scene said:

(I tried to get it from fanedits.info but that jDownloader is the worst piece of shit thing I've seen in a long time. It doesn't even have my router - which I bought at frigging BEST BUY - on its router list.)

jdownloader has a router list?  What does that mean?

You might try signing up over there and asking for help with jdownloader.  I've never heard of this problem before.  You might also check the jdownloader forums.