Harmy's RETURN OF THE JEDI Despecialized Edition HD - V3.1 — Page 119

That might be kinda neat.

Harmy said:

Wow, that looks godawful even for 4GB! I’ve seen 4GB 720p rips that looked pretty decent - judging by the screenshot, this is not one of them.

I don’t know, I never thought it looked bad.

Comparison with:
TESB - shocking 800 MB
ROTJ 1.0 - 4GB
TPM Theatrical - 1 GB 150 MB

None of those look bad at all to me… I mean unless you have superhuman eyesight or are zooming way in or have a gigantic screen I don’t see the problem.

Of course, I’m not exactly a videophile and I grew up on VHS tapes and analog CRT TV. So really I’m not too picky.

Harmy said:

Well, they don’t look that bad on their own - they just look waaaay worse than a decent bitrate file or even just a well-encoded low bitrate file - here’s a comparison of the 4GB version posted above with a well-encoded 5GB version someone (I forget who) made and posted on torrents with my blessing:

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/169716

and here it is compared to my 7GB AVCHD version:

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/169717

and here’s the 5GB vs 7GB (here, the difference is much smaller, of course, but the grain structure and fine detail is still better preserved in the 8GB version):

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/169718

Meh, not that big of a difference.

Lol. Well, there is a certain level of happiness in not being annoyed by low quality video I suppose. :-p

Once you start noticing issues it’s hard to stop. But if I had worked as hard as Harmy on creating a high quality release, I would be bugged seeing such low quality encodes associated with me.

Edit: cellphone typos.

Everyone has different standards for video quality. There are plenty of people who are happy to watch youtube videos that are strongly cropped, flipped, played at the wrong speed, and watermarked. There are people who won’t download anything larger than 700mb for a 1080p 2.5hour movie, and then they’ll rate the video quality a 10 out of 10. We have higher standards here, which makes sense. It’s where these things originate from. If someone wants to make any lower quality version, they can, and they don’t need to do it from the original files, because it’s not going to make a difference when you drop the settings to such low levels.

But if you can’t see an enormous difference in those screenshot comparisons, that’s rather interesting. I can see how you might not care how they look. And that’s fine. That’s just stating that there’s almost no point where video quality becomes poor enough that you won’t watch (which, again, is fine). I think the only thing those compressed shots have going for them is the fact that you can still see what’s happening on the screen and you can see that it’s a frame of the same thing. For some people, that’s really all that matters.

But for the newcomers who don’t understand why anyone would download a large file, keep in mind that the people around here are interested in versions that will replace the original blu-rays that they own. Not in copies that are simply the smallest in which you can still see what’s happening on the screen, or getting the entire trilogy to fit on your phone’s internal memory or your dropbox account or a CD-R or whatever. For the rest of us, it’s 2016 and large files aren’t a big deal. But I understand that circumstances vary.

Yes, contrary to popular belief, size does matter.

Molly said:

…and some people here prolly think I encode too small. XD

I just think you shouldn’t use “prolly.”

Yes, it’s ‘prollerby’ or nothing.

Hey guys

I’ve managed to download ROTJ v2.5 MKV but have yet to find the AVCHD, any good leads apart from mySpleen?

Mitch said:

Harmy is in the news, lol
http://www.wsj.com/articles/star-wars-fans-feel-the-force-calling-them-back-to-original-cuts-1461012670

“Oh. Here’s something that everyone else reported about several months ago. Better have a super late go at it as well?”