
- Time
- Post link
lol at the turn this thread has taken.
vbangle said:
Stinky-Dinkins said:
He lost his cum sock in the forest again and he's starting to panic.
What's a cum sock?
Read about onanism. That is, if you've got some time on your hands...
Leonardo said:
vbangle said:
Stinky-Dinkins said:
He lost his cum sock in the forest again and he's starting to panic.
What's a cum sock?
Read about onanism. That is, if you've got some time on your hands...
I have no spare time, you do it for me.
I love everybody. Lets all smoke some reefer and chill. Hug and kisses for everybody.
Harmy regardless of when and how you share 2.1 thank you for sharing.
I love everybody. Lets all smoke some reefer and chill. Hug and kisses for everybody.
vbangle said:
Leonardo said:
vbangle said:
Stinky-Dinkins said:
He lost his cum sock in the forest again and he's starting to panic.
What's a cum sock?
Read about onanism. That is, if you've got some time on your hands...
I have no spare time, you do it for me.
Sorry, got my hands full already.
lol at the turn this thread has taken.
Man you guys are weird lol, is before Christmas still an option Harmy?
Yeah, at least for the AVCHD but hopefully for the BD as well.
Harmy said:
Yeah, at least for the AVCHD but hopefully for the BD as well.
Awesome! How's it going? Which reel are you currently working on?
A picture is worth a thousand words. Post 102 is worth more.
I’m late to the party, but I think this is the best song. Enjoy!
—Teams Jetrell Fo 1, Jetrell Fo 2, and Jetrell Fo 3
Though it looks like it's already been hashed out, I'm all for releasing the AVCHD sooner. Thanks Harmy! :)
pittrek said:
Don't be afraid, I'm shutting up too :-) But thanks, I didn't know that somebody really invented a format called "ass" :-)
In uncompressed wav form, the six channels of the 5.1 mix are a total of about 3.9 gigabytes in size. Depending on the format and settings, lossless compression can probably reduce this to somewhere around 2 to 2.5 gb.
As with other lossless codecs, DTS-HD MA uses a variable bitrate, so louder parts of the track will take up more bandwidth than quieter sections. The LFE channel is mostly silence, so it compresses more easily than the rest. The inclusion of a 1509 kbps core track may reduce the efficiency somewhat, resulting in a slightly larger file size. It's difficult to say for sure how it will turn out until it is actually encoded, but at any rate it will definitely be rather smaller in size than the uncompressed source files, which are in 16-bit, 48 khz resolution. 16-bit seems to compress a lot better than 24, from what I've seen.
Good to know, so that means I'm looking at around 2GB for the 5.1 lossless track, give or take 500MB, right?
Now lets talk other mixes in lossless, would there even be a point to something like that, since they don't come from lossless sources?
Harmy said:
Now lets talk other mixes in lossless, would there even be a point to something like that, since they don't come from lossless sources?
Did you just diss on Laserdisc? I'm standing back...
I'd say all mixes are potential candidates for lossless encoding. Certainly we already have Belbucus' mono mix in lossless format around here somewhere...
Yeah, sure, you can get the mono mix in lossless, but is there any point to it? I mean, I can give a bad mp3 a lossless encode but it's not gonna sound any better. I'm not saying there isn't a point to it though, just asking your opinions.
Oh, and I decided to adjust the Ben scene after all. But like I said, it is only a tiny adjustment:
http://uloz.to/xTFGJkv/ben-new-mp4
I know this way it looks like there's nearly no difference at all but check this picture comparison out - the difference is best seen when switching between the pictures:
http://uloz.to/xkirujA/ben-compar-rar
Looks great, Harmy. You can definitely see the difference switching between pictures in your second link. I think the darkened image is more pleasing to the eye.
One other thing I noticed is that the cropping differs a bit in the shot with Ben, Luke, and R2 (42549 and 42550). Not a big deal at all, just curious as to the reason for the change.
Keep up the great work!
There was apparently some warping in the print they scanned for the 2004 SE and there's this little frame jump, so in order to stabilize it, I had to crop it a little more.
It's interesting too, since there's a color shift as well in that same spot. And the color shift is there in GOUT and 97SE as well, but not the frame jump.
I do love the Despecializations, but one moment always really jumps out at me:
We get the "You don't need to see his identification scene in HD" --
But then we get this extremely grainy, low-res shot:
I know that no HD version of this shot exists and it's been altered so much in the Special Edition with new elements in the foreground that it's impossible to simply replace the background. But does anyone have any ideas for what could possibly be done to make this one shot fit in better? Noise reduction? A new matte background that's been rebuilt to resemble the original but in higher resolution? A new 3D model built to resemble the speeder and its occupants?
Just curious. The restoration/despecialization process is fascinating.
To be honest, -1's project will probably replace this shot as a HD source, but that's a ways off yet...
The shot never looked great, even in 77. It is what it is. Harmy's version is miles ahead of the GOUT version. That scene is actually one of my favorites in Harmy's version because of how nice it looks compared to the GOUT.
Are you kidding? The speeder "pass-by" shot looks incredible! Very close to the original theatrical print. Since this shot always looked terrible in the OT.
Also that shot was always very grainy. Last thing I would want is noise reduction. I love film grain.
djchaseb said:
Also that shot was always very grainy. Last thing I would want is noise reduction. I love film grain.
Agreed. Grain adds a character that you just don't get with modern digital cameras, and it also looks nice when projected. Noise reduction would scrub away yet more detail along with the grain; the latest Predator Blu-Ray is a good example of this as all fine detail is gone!
I actually added a lot of grain to that shot to make it more authentic and also for the SD parts to blend better - make no mistake that shot is still at least 70% HD in the DeEd v2.0.
Hi All,
Say, recently I was giving Harmy's Despecialized Version 2.0 another look, and I saw something that just didn't sit right with me. While looking at the scene where Luke first handles his Fathers light saber, the glow seemed... too bright, for lack of a better word. It just seemed to have too much white glow?, and outside that, the blue coloring seemed to radiate too far outside of the white as well.
Also, during the saber scene/dual between Vader and Ben, Ben's saber also seemed to have the same overly white glow/brightness. So unless my memory is terribly off from what I saw in the theaters in '77, these light sabers seem to be off from what they should look like...with all do respect to Harmy.
Now I know previously that Harmy wanted these type of "problems/errors" or whatever you want to call them, be reported to him in a PM, which I did, and he gave me his permission to post this to the the forum. I'd like to know what you other forum members think. Am I "all wrong" in this? Or what is your opinions?
I am attaching numerous captures here, with proper headings, to describe what I am talking about.
I know the quality of all the pictures aren't the best, and that's because of my, somewhat poor editing, but trust me, what you are seeing in the pictures (minus the graininess and so forth) is there.
Vader's light saber has the proper glow, according to what I saw, and remember from 1977, that's depicting in Harmy's Despecialized captures, but both Luke and Ben's light sabers seem to be quite a bit off in the Despecialized pictures. But the Blu ray pictures have too much, and too wide of a color-glow on both Ben's and Vader's light sabers that isn't correct either.
So, what can Harmy do with these? Is it too late to do anything? Do you folks agree or disagree with me? What are other peoples opinions on this?
Nearly all of the rest of this project that Harmy has worked so hard on is great!...better than proffessionals, being paid big bucks, but I feel that the light sabers are a VERY important part of this story, and that they should look as good as they did in the theaters in 1977!
Captures of:
Harmy's Despecialized Capture #1...Luke's saber looks too bright here.
Theatrical Capture...Luke's saber looks like how I remember it, from the theater I saw it, in 1977.
Despecialized Capture #2...Vader's saber looks proper, to my memory, but Ben's is too bright here.
Blu ray Capture #1...neither saber looks proper here.
Despecialized Capture #3...Again, Vader's saber is correct, but Ben's is too bright.
Blu ray Capture #2...neither saber looks correct her.
So what do you'all think? I know I'm getting a bit old now a days, but maybe, just maybe...well, let's hear what you'all have to say!
And may all of you have a Happy Thanksgiving!
Best to you and yours!
dlvh
I don't have a print of the OT with me at the moment, but keep in mind that the lightsaber effects done in 77 were somewhat different compared to the ones seen in Empire and Jedi.
I feel like in the first film they were seen as pulsating beams of energy and not a long laser glo stick as we see in later films.
Plus, Harmy used the GOUT to fill in the saber effects. I think that's pretty authentic.
What’s the internal temperature of a TaunTaun? Luke warm.