logo Sign In

AntcuFaalb

User Group
Members
Join date
8-Jun-2012
Last activity
9-Feb-2025
Posts
4,267
Web Site
https://ssl.reddit.com/r/AMPSdeux

Post History

Post
#669459
Topic
Making of Return of the Jedi (the book) Thread
Time

digitalfreaknyc said:

 

AntcuFaalb said:



digitalfreaknyc said:

 


AntcuFaalb said:

I'd roll my iPad back to 5.1.1 if it were a sure-thing, but I'm not 100% positive it'll work. I've too much to lose.

Does anyone have an old iDevice to contribute to the cause?



It's not just that it's DRM protected. I'd be happy just to get a higher quality. What's the point of having a higher quality screen if they compress the video/pq even more.

 


Well, the iPad version is 720p. The media files themselves are ~250MiB in total, IIRC.

I don't remember the bitrates offhand, however.


I'm aware of that. That's the whole point. However, the Kindle has a higher screen resolution (and that's what I have). No reason to have the lowest quality on the highest resolution screen.

 

Ah, I see what you're saying now. I agree.

Post
#669456
Topic
Making of Return of the Jedi (the book) Thread
Time

digitalfreaknyc said:

 

AntcuFaalb said:


I'd roll my iPad back to 5.1.1 if it were a sure-thing, but I'm not 100% positive it'll work. I've too much to lose.

Does anyone have an old iDevice to contribute to the cause?


It's not just that it's DRM protected. I'd be happy just to get a higher quality. What's the point of having a higher quality screen if they compress the video/pq even more.

 

Well, the iPad version is 720p. The media files themselves are ~250MiB in total, IIRC.

I don't remember the bitrates offhand, however.

Post
#669447
Topic
Info: Something that might interest folks here..."ROTJ" Editdroid Laserdisc Footage
Time

adywan said:

FFS. We make a quick dirty capture just so we could get this footage out there as soon as possible so that it could reach a wide audience before we spend more time and money to capture this thing in the highest quality to share,  and now we get accused of glory hunting?

I didn't know that "[spending] more time and money to capture this thing in the highest quality to share" was ever on the table.

Furthermore, I didn't know that you were still involved. I was directing that comment specifically at the person posting the clips on Facebook.

Some of the replies from the owner of that Facebook account seemed to indicate that a "high quality" capture is not in-the-works. I don't have access to Facebook at the moment, but I remember one justifying the logo with words like "we don't want our hard work to be used by someone else".

So... forgive me for flippantly making that remark. I never intended to accuse you of "glory hunting". I got the wrong impression from the Facebook page and I'm sorry.

I've also slashed-out my original comment.

Post
#669432
Topic
Info: Something that might interest folks here..."ROTJ" Editdroid Laserdisc Footage
Time

Joel said:

Ah, yes, good point.

I suppose I meant - will someone be sharing a complete capture of this on a popular torrent site that we sometimes use to share stuff that we own the rights to?

I doubt it. The owner of the LD seems to be more concerned with the "glory" of it than anything else.

My apologies to adywan, et al.

Post
#669366
Topic
PS78: Pre-ANH Star Wars Bootleg VHS from 1978 ***"RAW" DVD RELEASED***
Time

pittrek said:

Well, 240p is one of the reasons why I hate youtube. Just sayin' :-(

I'll post some comparison images later, possibly this evening.

The truth is that, when resized back to 704x480, the 352x240 image looks better than the original in a side-by-side comparison.

The resolution simply isn't there and the noise is the original is painful to look at.

Post
#669355
Topic
PS78: Pre-ANH Star Wars Bootleg VHS from 1978 ***"RAW" DVD RELEASED***
Time

PS78 is technically widescreen since it was transferred from an anamorphic print without using an anamorphic lens. Due to cropping, it's not 2.35:1, but closer to 2.75:1.

I intend on releasing it in its "original" form, however. Ya'll can try to stretch it out if you'd like, but the fisheye (or barrel?) distortion makes attempts at registering it to a reference very difficult.

The release resolution will be 352x240. This is DVD-compliant (the actual resolution when considering the PAR will be 320x240). My tests have demonstrated that this will help to cut down on the noise considerably.

The original capture resolution is 704x480 at a 10:11 PAR. I intend on using a gamma-aware resizer (ResampleHQ) to bring it down to 352x240 without compromising the accuracy of its color-timing.