logo Sign In

Team Negative1 - Return of the Jedi 1983 - 35mm Theatrical Version (unfinished project) — Page 8

Author
Time
 (Edited)

anathema said

he was certain that the subtitles for the scene between Jabba and Boushh had been altered at some point

In a nutshell, he recalls one of the subtitles containing a four-letter word.

 The conversation with Boushh wasn't subtitled. 3PO was translating.

If you're referring to the conversation with Han just after he thawed, then no, it always said "Bantha fodder" in the subtitles.  EDIT: Scratch that. Yes, there were subtitles. I'm an idiot. :/ But I don't know what else would have been substituted from Jabba's dialogue.

TV’s Frink said:

chyron just put a big Ric pic in your sig and be done with it.

Author
Time

Red2chatter said:

I really can't wait for this! Is there a picture of your scanning rig?

 Already asked that, was told not to expect one.

Author
Time

This is all too awesome. Very excited to see Shaw's eyebrows restored as was intended.

Author
Time

We hope to preview the second print of Jedi shortly. We will post reviews and comparisons once we get them. Then we will collaborate with Harmy.

Team Negative1

Author
Time

There is actually a third print coming along that we should be getting. At this point its mostly the heads and tails that have the damaged portions. This print may have better versions, we will see.

Team Negative1

Author
Time

She should really put something on.  Can't believe they forgot clothes AGAIN when they redid this scene in '97...

Author
Time

I can't wait for the Harmy collaboration; I never thought I'd live to see Max Rebo band in HD

Author
Time

team_negative1 said:

One last, and mostly final thought about the BD-50 issues. How many people can actually burn dual layer BD, and get blanks for them at a reasonable price. Very few.

Yes, opting for a digital download option might be possible, but then the issue about limiting it to 50 Gig comes up. You have to draw the line in the sand somewhere and ours is the bluray/mkv digital 25 Gig format. 

A vast majority of people have access to bluray burners and blanks, and although more have DVD drives and burners, those people won't be left out either, as we will have the vast majority of formats, and types of media covered. One less will not make a huge impact on our plans.

Team Negative1

 What about those people who would prefer to encode that file to their own format (example mp4) for streaming through a appletv or Roku. I would think they would like the best version possible to use before they alter it.

Just food for thought.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Yes, because using 50 GB of HDD space for a single film among the many one has in one's library is totally normal and not at all a waste of space for most people. Not to mention the amount of local bandwidth it would use to stream such a film between an AppleTV and iTunes.

TV’s Frink said:

chyron just put a big Ric pic in your sig and be done with it.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

I have a cabinet full of 50GB films. And that is I believe totally normal. What I don't find normal is people settling for shitty video quality, like what iTunes offers - I just saw Black Angel in full iTunes 1080p quality and I must say that if Star Wars OOT was only released murdered by compression like that, I'd rather watch the GOUT.

Author
Time

Why not release both a BD50 and a BD25 version and let people choose which to download? Or has that idea already been vetoed?

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Erik Pancakes said:

Why not release both a BD50 and a BD25 version and let people choose which to download?

I concur.

 

Author
Time

I thought this site is pro-quality

Author
Time

Yeah, I don't mind burning a 50GB disc in special circumstances.  Star Wars would certainly fall under that.  So, I'd be up for the option, if there'd be any perceptible difference in quality.

Author
Time

pittrek said:

I thought this site is pro-quality

No, it's really kindof a mess of old ColdFusion code. That was clearer back when search was available, such as it was.

Project Threepio (Star Wars OOT subtitles)

Author
Time

For the high quality file, encode to 10 bit 4:2:2 HD for video, and 16bit/48Khz FLAC (shaped dither) for the audio tracks. That level of quality would be professional level/optimal for future fan edits, show-able on large screens, and would make a 50GB MKV justifiable.

Please do not waste time and data encoding the audio to DTSMA as it's efficiency is somewhat below FLAC, or rendering to anything higher than 16bit/48Khz as that'd be sheer waste.

Author
Time

I assume the 50GB would be for a Blu-Ray disc, unless they just release the BR version as a full image file.

Author
Time

I don't understand the desire for a blu-ray level 50gb file; you most likely won't be able to notice the difference! Most films on a BD50 only take up 25 to 35 GB on the disc after special features and aux audio tracks...

If you're going to spend the time and resources to create that big of a file, why not make actual use of the extra space and create something that exceeds blu-ray (circa 2008)? Hell, create a 264 encode with 2K resolution that uses P3 color space @ 4:2:2, 10 bit, and you have a file that'd be worth downloading due to it looking better than any Blu-Ray. 

Author
Time

IMHO, a DCP is worthwhile in its own right for internal purposes, but when it comes to distributing to the public you could get the size down to 50GB and retain the expanded colorspace, subsampling, & bit-depth of a DCP if you used x264. 

Author
Time

I'm not saying the file needs to be 50GB, or even terribly close to that. Make it as big as it needs to be in order to preserve the best possible quality. If that means making a 30GB file that has to be burned on a BD50, I'd rather have that than lose quality by compressing it further to fit on a BD25.

Author
Time

Unless it's exactly 42.74 GB, I'm not interested.

Author
Time

Synnöve said:

I don't understand the desire for a blu-ray level 50gb file; you most likely won't be able to notice the difference! Most films on a BD50 only take up 25 to 35 GB on the disc after special features and aux audio tracks...

If you're going to spend the time and resources to create that big of a file, why not make actual use of the extra space and create something that exceeds blu-ray (circa 2008)? Hell, create a 264 encode with 2K resolution that uses P3 color space @ 4:2:2, 10 bit, and you have a file that'd be worth downloading due to it looking better than any Blu-Ray. 

 Depends a lot on the grain and weave.

A grainy and weavey film doesn't compress very well at all with even the most modern codecs,  so even with a 50GB file you can struggle sometimes.

If you are happy to stabilise the film and reduce the grain significantly, then it compresses better and a BD25 can look pretty close to the stabilised, reduced grain source.

It all depends on the source material and how close you want to stick to it.

Donations welcome: paypal.me/poit
bitcoin:13QDjXjt7w7BFiQc4Q7wpRGPtYKYchnm8x
Help get The Original Trilogy preserved!