Sign In

Harmy's STAR WARS Despecialized Edition HD - V2.7 - MKV (Released) — Page 266

Author
Time

The gallery really shows how much work and dedication you put into this project Harmy and of course how amazing the result is :-)

 

Author
Time

Harmy, these comparisons are awesome!  Not sure if this has been pointed out yet, but I'm wondering if you accidentally swapped v1.0 and v2.1 images in one of the snapshots.

In 13.25.36, I'm able to read "YAVIN" much more clearly in the v1.0 shot than in the v2.1 shot.  I'm assuming this should be the other way around?

(What's really cool about this is that I never even knew it said "YAVIN" in the first place!)

Thanks for all you do, Harmy.

Anyone remember different camera angles from ROTJ?

Author
Time

SilverWook said:

This post in particular caught my eye.

http://forum.dvdtalk.com/11368548-post37.html

"I can tell you this, the University of North Carolina School of the Arts has an unfaded Technicolor-process print of Star Wars, and good condition 70mm prints of Empire and Jedi. And that place is full of film students who all undoubtedly loathe what Lucas has done to the films. Get those prints to this mysterious scanner and we'd have HD editions of the original cuts of all three films by the end of the year."

I find this hard to believe, but someone should probably follow up on this before George does...

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Adium said:

SilverWook said:

This post in particular caught my eye.

http://forum.dvdtalk.com/11368548-post37.html

"I can tell you this, the University of North Carolina School of the Arts has an unfaded Technicolor-process print of Star Wars, and good condition 70mm prints of Empire and Jedi. And that place is full of film students who all undoubtedly loathe what Lucas has done to the films. Get those prints to this mysterious scanner and we'd have HD editions of the original cuts of all three films by the end of the year."

I find this hard to believe, but someone should probably follow up on this before George does...

done, done, and done... more out of curiousity

and knowledge than expectations of anything more.

 

however, its totally unlikely that anything will come out of it,

due to the restrictive nature of these archives.

 

if you think about it, wouldn't someone would have already

approached them a long time ago?

 

and don't forget they would be risking their academic careers,

 

not worth it.... just for some movies?

 

later

-1

[no GOUT in CED?-> GOUT CED]

Author
Time

SpilkaBilka said:

Harmy, these comparisons are awesome!  Not sure if this has been pointed out yet, but I'm wondering if you accidentally swapped v1.0 and v2.1 images in one of the snapshots.

In 13.25.36, I'm able to read "YAVIN" much more clearly in the v1.0 shot than in the v2.1 shot.  I'm assuming this should be the other way around?

(What's really cool about this is that I never even knew it said "YAVIN" in the first place!)

Thanks for all you do, Harmy.

i believe it's labeled correctly. the 2.1 shot matches the scene in the 2.0 mkv. if i were to make a guess, i'd say harmy created the YAVIN sign for 1.0 and has now used the film still for authenticity.

Author
Time

Harmy, thanks so much for all the time and effort you've put into this. It looks fantastic!

Author
Time

Kudos on the comparison pics, Harmy!  It was a fantastic look!  I'd like to add it once it's corrected to the share folder when the BD is released!

It’s really sad when the “creative minds” behind something we hold dear are also guilty of its destruction.

Author
Time

The comparison shots were incredible...and I haven't even finished them! Can't wait to see it in action as a BD extra (if indeed that was the plan; not too clear on that)

“I find your lack of faith disturbing.”

Author
Time

I'd be willing to put the comparison up on my private webspace for people who are annoyed with uloz, with harmy's permission. i dunno how fast it is though and it would of course be for a limited time only

“I find your lack of faith disturbing.”

Author
Time

Sure, go ahead. And yes, the video version will be a BD extra. It's over 20 minutes long though, so I'm not sure about the compression that will be necessary, since I still haven't got a clue how big the lossless audio files will be.

Author
Time

Awesome comparisons, Harmy. There were some new fixes I wasn't aware of!

I had a few comments, in addition to Stinky-Dinkins' awesome review:

20.51.41, 20.51.54 (LFL logo and ALTA) - Descriptions do not match slides.

20.52.30 - aliazing -> aliasing

21.11.31 - Right image for non-BD shots? They're transparent instead of the regular blank starfields.

No mention of removed Jabba.

12.55.53 -  uisng -> using

12.57.56, 12.58.15, 13.00.04, 13.00.27, 13.03.18, 13.03.29  - DeEd 1.0 shots seem out of sync with the other 3 sources.

13.11.24 - Shouldn't the shots from GOUT and DeEd 1.0 be there?

13.15.16 - DeEd 1.0 frame seems out of sync

13.26.47 - Stinky-Dinkins offered a good rewrite of the sentence, but you could probably get away with just adding a comma after "Falcon".

And also...

Harmy said:

And yes, the video version will be a BD extra. It's over 20 minutes long though...

"Video version"? Will this be a gallery of moving clips, or just stills that automatically refresh?

 

 

You know of the rebellion against the Empire?

Author
Time

Erikstormtrooper said:

Harmy said:

And yes, the video version will be a BD extra. It's over 20 minutes long though...

"Video version"? Will this be a gallery of moving clips, or just stills that automatically refresh?

I have to say, moving clips would be awesome, if possible. That would be really, really cool to see all of the stuff in motion.

Author
Time

Moving clips. But not a gallery per se, just a video with the clips following one after another. I'll see about maybe adding chapters so that each change is one chapter though.

Author
Time

That's awesome, Harmy. That will be the coolest way of showing how much work went into this project. :)

Author
Time

That's awesome! Any idea when v 2.1 will be ready?

Author
Time

Would there be any way to put the slideshow to a soundtrack (that wouldn't skip even if you pressed the chapter forward button)? That would be kinda cool.

Harrison Ford Has Pretty Much Given Up on His Son. Here's Why

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Memories...
Like the corners of my miiind
Misty water-colored memorieees
Of the waaay we werrre!

Er, you probably were thinking a different kind of soundtrack...

Project Threepio (Star Wars OOT subtitles)

Author
Time
 (Edited)

@Videoguy7: Well, I just started my postgraduate course and it will take up a lot of my time, plus I also started doing amateur theater, so I'm reluctant to promise anything.

@Stinky: I have no idea.

Author
Time

Harmy said:

 plus I also started doing amateur theater

an actor too? truly, a man of many talents ;)

“I find your lack of faith disturbing.”

Author
Time

bilditup1 said:

There's been a minute but detectable uptick in interest even at the spleen since Simon Pegg's tweet

And I'm also seeing an uptick in subtitle requests, all strangely specifying that they want them for Empire and Jedi, as if they already have them for Star Wars...

So I think it's safe to say that whatever surge in interest we're seeing is global, and that people are following up watching Star Wars DeEd 2.0 with watching Empire and Jedi 1.0.

Project Threepio (Star Wars OOT subtitles)

Author
Time

CatBus said:

bilditup1 said:

There's been a minute but detectable uptick in interest even at the spleen since Simon Pegg's tweet

And I'm also seeing an uptick in subtitle requests, all strangely specifying that they want them for Empire and Jedi, as if they already have them for Star Wars...

So I think it's safe to say that whatever surge in interest we're seeing is global, and that people are following up watching Star Wars DeEd 2.0 with watching Empire and Jedi 1.0.

Most definitely - there's been an uptick at spleen for Empire and Jedi, and I'm also seeding an mkv torrent of the 1.0s elsewhere which has picked up a whole lot over the last week. I posted in the thread over there that this is NOT what Simon Pegg was talking about and that the 2.0 blows the 1.0 out of the water but I'm not sure I got through to them, heh

“I find your lack of faith disturbing.”

Author
Time

If not for PSB I'd prolly be watching Harmy's 1.0 or Ady's '1997' version

“I find your lack of faith disturbing.”

Author
Time
 (Edited)

I have been following this amazing thread for a while, but not having grown up watching Star Wars a million times, I haven't had anything to contribute until now.  But as a recovering grammar nazi, I have some comments on the comparison gallery that might be helpful, in addition to what has already been noted.  Pardon my pickiness.

I noticed inconsistencies in the spelling of "Blu-ray."  Note the hyphen and the uncapitalized "R."

Another thing I noticed throughout is sometimes you refer to GOUT as "the GOUT."  I don't think this is good, because you wouldn't say "the George's Original Unaltered Trilogy," unless maybe you're saying something like "the GOUT upscale," but even then it might be ok either way.

2012.09.23_20.52.30: Change this to something like "The original 1977 crawl was recreated using the original elements.  Each separate line was taken as it first appears in Dark_Jedi's 720p upscale of the 2006 DVD crawl and luma-keyed out from the background.  The remaining stars were hand erased.  Each line was straightened in Photoshop, and the entire original crawl text was recreated in 2D.  The 2D crawl was then used as a 3D layer in AE, the movement of the original logo and crawl copied and superimposed over the HD starfield.  For v2.0, this whole process was done at 4K, and then each frame was scaled down in Photoshop in three steps (4K to 3K to 2K to 720p), in order to avoid aliasing.

2012.09.23_20.56.24: Needs a space in "mattepainting"

Stinky-Dinkins said:

_02.38_[2012.09.23_20.59.42 need space between “the” and “2004”.

Also, some commas: "In the 2004 SE, not only the sky, but also the sand were digitally altered"

_02.57_[2012.09.23_21.00.22 (and the following three pictures)  “Effectively” is misspelled.

Also, "minimizing" is misspelled, and "crushed-blacks" should be hyphenated, since it's used as a compound adjective.

2012.09.23_21.01.39 I would change the phrasing of “All the new footage featuring now seriously dated CGI, which was added in 1997 has been removed” to “All of the new footage featuring severely dated CGI, which was added in 1997, has been removed.” “Now seriously dated CGI” sounds awkward. 

I would go a step further and say that pointing out the dated CGI is a bit awkward and unnecessary.  I'd say leave the judgement of the CGI's quality to the audience.

_03.38_[2012.09.23_21.02.06 I would change the phrasing of “For DeEd-R, this shot was reconstructed using a custom matte of the stormtrooper sitting on the Dewback made from a 35mm scan and SE background and the slight movement of the pole the trooper is holding was restored. The camera motion had to be tracked” to “For DeEd-R this shot was reconstructed using a custom matte of the stormtrooper sitting on the Dewback made from a 35mm scan and the SE background. The slight movement of the pole the trooper is holding was restored and the camera motion had to be tracked.”

The last sentence in Stinky-Dinkin's suggestion should have a comma, since it is two independent clauses.

2012.09.23_21.06.30: Commas before and after "which somehow appeared in the SE version of this shot" would help this sentence

05.39_[2012.09.23_21.07.05 (and following 9 pictures) Comma following “For the Blu-Ray release” shouldn’t be there.

_06.04_[2012.09.23_21.08.58 Comma following “In this shot” shouldn’t be there

I think Harmy was right about the comma on these; commas are used to separate introductory elements.  There were also some other sentences in other frames where the comma is missing after the introductory elements (e.g. sentences starting with "In DeEd-R" or something similar), but I won't list all those.

2012.09.23_21.08.17: Add a comma after "cleaned up"

2012.09.23_21.12.52: Add commas around "which is colored to orange in the SE"

2012.09.23_21.13.11: Add commas before "and the man" and before "and some elements."  Also, hyphenate "blown-out," since it's used as a compound adjective.

 

_08.09_[2012.09.25_12.18.19 Don’t need comma after  ”shot” in the 3rd sentence and over-all should be overall. “However” is used as an aside in the same sentence so it needs a comma before and after itself (i.e., “, however, “). Frame by frame should be frame-by-frame. An “a” needs to be added after “In the end” in the last sentence and no comma is needed before “because”.

I disagree on both commas that are suggested to be removed here.  The first comma is an introductory element (even though it's mid-sentence).  That last comma is separating two independent clauses.  Also, "clean-up" should be "cleanup," and a comma should be added after "In the end."

_08.43_[2012.09.25_12.19.41 Denoised should be de-noised. “Artefact” (I’m assuming you’re going for UK English here) is misspelled as “arefacts.” Also, the commas after “filter” and “artefacts” shouldn’t be there.

The first comma is ok.

2012.09.25_12.19.46: Add a comma before "and."

2012.09.25_12.21.01: Hyphenate "recently-discovered," since it's used as a compound adjective.  Add commas after "In DeEd-R" and after "separately"

2012.09.25_12.21.23: Add a comma before "and" in the first sentence.

2012.09.25_12.21.31: Add a comma before the second "and" in the second sentence.

2012.09.25_12.23.23: Add commas around "rather than interlacing"

2012.09.25_12.23.41: Add a comma before "and."

2012.09.25_12.24.17: Add a comma after "And of course."

2012.09.25_12.25.42: Add commas around "and it's still not 100% satisfactory."

2012.09.25_12.26.00: This first sentence is a fragment.  In the last sentence, add a comma before "and."

2012.09.25_12.27.56: Add commas around "missing due to the pan."

2012.09.25_12.28.24: "Star destroyers" should be two words

2012.09.25_12.33.09: Commas after "1.0," "used," and "added."

2012.09.25_12.42.57: Add a comma before "and then"

2012.09.25_12.43.30: Add a comma before "and the."

2012.09.25_12.44.33: Add a comma before "and."

2012.09.25_12.45.28: Add a comma before the first "and."

2012.09.25_12.51.49: Add a comma before "and."

2012.09.25_12.55.17: Add a comma before "and."

2012.09.25_12.55.53: Add a comma before "and."

2012.09.25_12.57.40: Add a comma before "and."

2012.09.25_12.57.56: Add a comma before "and."

2012.09.25_13.09.17: Add commas after "SE" and before "but."

_16.45_[2012.09.25_13.09.36 Commas needed so the sentence “In the 2011 Blu-Ray this shot which had bad framing in all previous versions was fixed” becomes “In the 2011 Blu-Ray this shot, which had bad framing in all previous versions, was fixed”

Also, add a comma after "Blu-ray."

2012.09.25_13.10.19: The second sentence sounds awkward to me.  How about this: "Unlike in v1.0, the original starfield, taken from a 35mm frame, was used in DeEd-R."

2012.09.25_13.13.51: Maybe reword this to something like this: "In order to get rid of the flickering stars from GOUT, a custom matte of the original starfield and Death Star, sourced from a 35mm frame scan, was animated to copy the movement of the original stars.

The planet, from GOUT, was layered on top of this matte.  The fighters (from various sources, including DJ and You_Too's latest GOUT upscale, Puggo Grande and 2D cutouts) were rotoscoped onto this recreated background in order to minimize the aliasing on their wings.  Sometimes, a blend of two or more sources was necessary for one fighter."

2012.09.25_13.14.04: Add a comma after "starfield background."

2012.09.25_13.14.11: In the first sentence, commas before both "ands."

2012.09.25_13.20.59: Add commas before "but" and after "once"

2012.09.25_13.21.14: To me, it seems unclear what "the original" is referring to.

2012.09.25_13.23.19: In the first sentence, add a comma before "and."

2012.09.25_13.23.31: Add commas before "but" and "and," and instead of "has originally been," maybe instead say "was originally."

2012.09.25_13.23.51: I have nothing to say about the grammar here.  I just want to express how amazed I am by this attention to detail.  Restoring a stray hair?  Wow.

2012.09.25_13.26.13: "Fighter" is misspelled, and a comma after "shot" would be good.

19.42_[2012.09.25_13.26.47 I find the phrasing confusing in this opening sentence. It says “This shot was reconstructed using the Falcon a single 35mm frame scan and...” but perhaps would be better to say “This shot featuring the Falcon was reconstructed using a single 35mm frame scan and…”

This is an excellent suggestion, but just add a comma before the last "and."

 

Wow, I can't believe how much I typed.  I was even skipping things to try to sound less anal.  Anyways, take these suggestions for what they're worth.  I can't wait to see the finished product.