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

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.

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

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

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

team_negative1 said:

 incredible...

A lovely pic!

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

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

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.

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

Erik Pancakes said:

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

I concur.

I thought this site is pro-quality

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.

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.

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

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. 

Agreed, 25G is arbitrary, but it is a more common standard.

The next level up would be a private 2k DCP that we make for our own internal use. Which is a few hundred Gigs, and on Hard Drives only.

-------

Refer to :  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Cinema_Package

Team Negative1

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. 

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.

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