Sign In

Harmy's STAR WARS Despecialized Edition HD - V2.7 - MKV (Released) — Page 371

Author
Time

Haha I didn't mean to be disrespectful. At all. As I was saying, more than money you deserve recognition. The problem is if Disney/Lucasfilm ever find out about this thread they'll either shut the forum down (more probable) or hire you (less likely but well deserved). Sorry if I annoyed you (I tend to get way too excited about stuff I love like SW, Back To The Future, etc. You probably guessed that by reading my previous posts) but your smiley seems to say I didn't. :)

"Let's face it, the Ewoks sucked, dude" -Hurley, Lost 5x13-Some like it Hoth.

Please bear with me if I tend to get too excited about anything or say too much, I have issues.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Quick question for whoever's planning to do the official DVD downscales of these (Harmy or Chewtobacca): Previous DVD downscales included nominal analog blanking, which I'm assuming is the Right Thing To Do[TM] for some arcane technical reason I don't quite understand.

Is the plan to keep including nominal analog blanking?  I don't care one way or the other, I just want to know.  Changing this moves the top and bottom edges of the movie frame in or out about 4 pixels, which has a potential impact on subtitle placement.

So actually I do have an opinion--not changing this is less work for me, which I'm always in favor of.

Project Threepio (Star Wars OOT subtitles)

Author
Time
 (Edited)

@johnlocke: Wasn't the jestful tone of my post obvious from the use of the phrase "blood money" and the sticking-its-tongue-out smiley? If not, I'm sorry and I want to assure you that you didn't annoy me in the slightest :-)

@CatBus: Even if I do the actual encoding of the DVD, I'd still be using Chewtobacca's script, so I don't really decide this but I think it's safe to say that pretty much the same settings will be used on the resizing.

Author
Time

johnlocke2342 said:

The problem is if Disney/Lucasfilm ever find out about this thread they'll either shut the forum down (more probable) or hire you (less likely but well deserved).

I wouldn't worry about either. (sorry, Harmy, I honestly don't think you'll be hired by them, at least not in the time it takes for me to write this sentence... Heh heh.) There have been very few fanedits shut down overall. Even high profile ones have been allowed, like everything Harmy has already done, Adywan's stuff, Jamie Benning's stuff, etc...

Other than a few Facebook fan pages being shut down of late (which seems to be nothing more than a knee-jerk reaction to some troll spamming/reporting), everything is proceeding as I have foreseen. ;)

My crazy vinyl LP blog

My dumberer blog

My Retro blog

Author
Time

It's not paranoia if you are being followed... :)

Author
Time

"Call me paranoid, but I'm convinced someone has been calling my house and hanging up before it rings..." - Sean Keane

'I was walking by a construction site and the guys hammering on the roof were calling me a paranoid little weirdo...in morse code.' - Emo Philips

My crazy vinyl LP blog

My dumberer blog

My Retro blog

Author
Time

hey Harmy, I read an article a few years ago about ultra high definition, which is set to replace HD in a few years time. This being the case, i was wondering if you would be willing to go back to the editing room and work on a UHD version of the despecialized editions (versions 3.0, I guess). This would obviously render the GOUT obsolete, as the resolution of those is well below UHD, and the lost footage will have to use the 35mm film prints exclusively as source, and teamnegative1 would have to use 8K scanners. I hope those are affordable by then. I'm not demanding anything, just thinking you should plan ahead and hopefully be ready if the time comes, you can do it.

Author
Time

fmalover said:

hey Harmy, I read an article a few years ago about ultra high definition, which is set to replace HD in a few years time. This being the case, i was wondering if you would be willing to go back to the editing room and work on a UHD version of the despecialized editions (versions 3.0, I guess). This would obviously render the GOUT obsolete, as the resolution of those is well below UHD, and the lost footage will have to use the 35mm film prints exclusively as source, and teamnegative1 would have to use 8K scanners. I hope those are affordable by then. I'm not demanding anything, just thinking you should plan ahead and hopefully be ready if the time comes, you can do it.

There's no point since the official blu-ray release (Harmy's primary source), despite being released at 1080p, has been demonstrated to resolve no better than 720p.

That is, when the official blu-ray is downscaled to 720p and then upscaled back to 1080p, very little detail is lost.

Harmy's test is shown here (scroll down a bit): http://swrevisited.wordpress.com/2012/11/20/why-720p-for-revisited-is-enough/

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

Author
Time

Yeah, that, plus I'm convinced that 8K (or even 4K) content for home viewing is just marketing hokum.

Author
Time

Harmy said:

I don't want your blood money! :-P

Correct, but he will take your blood. Mwahahaha. :P

Author
Time

Aaaah! I didn't get it because I read it wrong lol (it was late here when I read that). But I got the smiley. :)

But thinking again, I already paid in a way by contributing with the featurette's French subtitles and extracting the French track from the GOUT. ;)

Let's forget what I said.

"Let's face it, the Ewoks sucked, dude" -Hurley, Lost 5x13-Some like it Hoth.

Please bear with me if I tend to get too excited about anything or say too much, I have issues.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

There wouldn't be an UHD release of Star Wars unless there were a new remaster done, and that would be a whole new ball game.  Either new color problems, more "nnnnnnNNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOoooooooooo"s, (who knows what else), or even an original version release, since they'd have to go back to the source elements to make the UHD remaster in the first place and George has given up control (how much influence he still has over the property is what remains to be seen).

Granted, Disney hasn't been great about putting out faithful original versions of things (Lion King, etc.), but a lot of their changes are to mask questionable content, so who knows how they'd handle the situation Star Wars is in (and Fox still has rights to Episode 4, which is another matter).

Oh, one question I have, if Lucas only had a 1080p master done, to which he made all his changes, what was he planning to use for the 3D theatrical release?  While I think the project has mostly been scrapped in favor of focusing on producing new movies, it still begs the question of whether he honestly intended to put out 1080p sourced footage to theaters...  Wouldn't that look awful?  And on that note, what kind of source did he use for the '97 theatrical release?  Since it was before the remaster, did he just slap some CGI on top of old film prints, I don't even know how that would all work at the time...  Did they scan it digitally at some resolution and add everything, then put it back on film at a quality worth projecting..... that was all done around '96, for reference Windows 95 had only recently come out... where did the CGI even come from?  Heck, how does Jurassic Park even exist, that was what, made in '92 released in '93?  Plotted on an Amiga Toaster and rendered on SGI Indigo running some form of Unix you say?...  then Toy Story came out in '95 using a Linux render farm, and Linux had only started just 4 years before that release, which is amazing feat of development...  *my brain is starting to hurt*   And even further more, Attack of the Clones was the first SW to be filmed all digitally, so I wonder exactly what resolution he filmed that at (it is not like he had RED cameras available to him), therefore limiting its maximum potential quality as the TV producers get more and more ultra fantastically high definitionally gimmicky....  Wait, where was I going with this?

Author
Time

1080p is only slightly less than 2K (1080p is 1920x1080 and 2K is 2048x1080) and even now a vast majority of DIs (digital inter-positive) are done at 2K, so the movies are usually shot/scanned at 4K or more now, but all the post processing is still being done at 2K - even for films such as The Hobbit, which was shot 5K but the finished film simply doesn't exist at a resolution higher than 2K, because a vast majority of digital projectors in cinemas all over the world are 2K or less anyway. So in theory, 1080p is perfectly fine for cinemas. The 2004 master having a lot of other faults is another story of course.

Author
Time

For some reason I'd expected theaters would be getting much higher resolution content than what is available to us in a home video format...  Learn something every day.  But they're definitely using better projectors than I have, that much is certain, haha.

Interesting bit of relevant info I stumbled across:  "For Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith the more advanced Sony HDC-F950 was used, with higher resolution and better color reproduction than its predecessor. The film was cropped to a 2.35:1 aspect ratio from its native 16:9 frame. As a result only 817 of the 1080 vertical pixels were actually used."

So, they weren't even working with a full 1080 vertical lines on either digital prequel...  If anything, the Star Wars Saga being released on 4K isn't likely to be much of a concern for us.

Author
Time

4K is a marketing pipe dream that will never take off.

Having the OOT in 1080p is a huge win for us, let's not even bother focusing on 4K

Author
Time

Well, I'm all for a higher resolution display standard.  1080p is pretty weak if you want to use it as a monitor, for instance, and my 1080p projector has some fairly visible pixels if you get too close.  But 4K content definitely shouldn't be pushed as a standard, at least not any time soon, the storage or bandwidth problems that'd present are too great right now and offer very little benefit to warrant all those issues.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

yoda-sama said:

Granted, Disney hasn't been great about putting out faithful original versions of things (Lion King, etc.), but a lot of their changes are to mask questionable content, so who knows how they'd handle the situation Star Wars is in (and Fox still has rights to Episode 4, which is another matter).

Disney didn't include the Special Edition Version of The Lion King on the 2011 Diamond Edition Blu-Ray. The Director's wanted to feature only the Original Theatrical Version from 1994 but of coarse with minor improvements to some of the animation and minor changes made to the some of the colors. In fact Co-Director Roger Allers said he intended to make some minor color changes. The morning report song was included as a special feature.

Even the 2010 Diamond Edition Blu-Ray of Beauty And The Beast contains all three versions of the film. The only drawback is the Work-In-Progress Version is a picture in picture presentation so if you want to watch it in full Anamorphic Widescreen you'd have to watch the DVD copy.

Disney seems to care about the preservation of classic films including all versions if a film happens to have more than one.

 

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Harmy said:

but all the post processing is still being done at 2K - even for films such as The Hobbit, which was shot 5K but the finished film simply doesn't exist at a resolution higher than 2K, because a vast majority of digital projectors in cinemas all over the world are 2K or less anyway.

It needs to be noted though that the Hobbit WAS planned to be finished at 4K (and it could have been sized down for the needs of digital projection without problems after that), but since 4K requires much longer render times and general fidelity, it was actually time constratins (and probably budget) that forced WETA to finish it at 2K.

Of course, having the movie at 3D and 48fps doesn't really make things any easier projection wise.