logo Sign In

ApolloOne

User Group
Members
Join date
30-Jan-2005
Last activity
9-Mar-2007
Posts
39

Post History

Post
#96553
Topic
Info & Offer Of Help: Audio Assist
Time
Originally posted by: Belbucus
I think the best plan at this stage is to acquire as many source versions of the mono track as are available, lay them up side by side and attempt to create a composite using the best elements of each.

Currently, I am in possession of one source - from a DVD boot, quite well crafted, with video sourced from the Definitive or "Faces" version and 3 soundtrack options: the 6-track fold down that accompanied the video source, Dolby Stereo matrixed version, and original mono.

Can anybody identify this DVD version for me and pin down which source the mono tracks were culled from?

Thanks

Sounds like the original EditDroid ANH disc from a few years ago. Some ways to tell are: Pre-ANH crawl, front cover says "The Original Edition" at the top, and back cover has a UPC code (sort of an Easter Egg, I'm told). As for the mono source, IIRC it's from the Pre-ANH mono VHS that most around here seem to know about, although it sounds like it's been cleaned up some.
Post
#95914
Topic
Letterboxed Widescreen vs. Anamorphic Widescreen Discussion
Time
Context has nothing to do with it. Whether through poor word choice, or whatever, what you said was factually inaccurate, period. Look, I'm not trying to jump on you here, I just thought the people who are reading this thread and, unlike you, don't know much about DVD, could benefit from some clarity. Anamorphic does have more vertical resolution, but it is not added information. It's the result of squeezing a wide image into 720x480 pixels.
Post
#95907
Topic
.: The Zion DVD Project :. (Released)
Time
If you want to do all subpicture subtitles, you can set Greedo's subtitles to "Forced Start" so that they'll always be on, even if you have turned all other subtitles off.

This way, you dont have to burn them in and lose control over placement and readability when considering 4:3 and 16:9 monitors, because you can make separate subpicture tracks for each aspect ratio.
Post
#95885
Topic
Letterboxed Widescreen vs. Anamorphic Widescreen Discussion
Time
Since this thread originated as an attempt to present fact and dispel myth about the anamorphic process, I would like to help clear some misconceptions that have been presented here as fact.

nothing is squeezed into a frame in a DVD transfer. It's quite the opposite, since more vertical lines of visual information are added


This is utterly false. At no point in the entire DVD production process is any resolution added. This statement also includes the tape mastering process, where the master tapes (D5 and DigiBeta quite often, not quite as much D1 as there used to be) are telecine'd from film or downconverted from HD masters. Some, but not all, possible workflows for making an anamorphic master for the final MPEG-2 encoding:

Film --> Anamorphic SD Master
Film --> HD Master (may or may not be anamorphic; depends on OAR) --> Anamorphic SD master
Film --> High-res digital files --> SD tape master or SD files

There are myriad other variations, but the work pipeline is the same in that it is an ever-reducing process, and each arrow above represents a reduction in horizontal and/or vertical resolution. The bottom line is that nothing is ever added. When squeezing film down to 720 x 480, stuff is always subtracted.

Just wanted to help clarify a bit.

Post
#95771
Topic
Letterboxed Widescreen vs. Anamorphic Widescreen Discussion
Time
Originally posted by: Metallaxis
I assume you are aware that when we are speaking in terms of optical resolution beeing printed on film (even with film of small format, used in everyday cameras), we are talking about "Gigapixels" of resolution. So it makes no sense at all to mention the information lost during optical anamorphic transfer, since a resolution of 720x480 = 0,35Megapixels is concidered enough for the DVD format.
That would be the reason I wouldn't put the arguement, and I suppose you have a similar reason

Sorry...I probably should've put a in my post to indicate the silliness of it. Plus, I wasn't talking about DVD at all, but rather shooting on film.
Post
#95770
Topic
<strong>The &quot;EditDroid&quot; Trilogy DVD Info and Feedback Thread</strong> (Released)
Time
If you want to extract a particular angle, get a hold of a copy of SmartRipper. With the DVD in the drive, run the program and when it's finished loading, it should show the movie's program chain expanded to show all the angles. Select the angle you want to work with, and in the adjacent pane, select the chapter or chapters you want to extract. Click on stream processing and select which streams you want extracted. Also there, you can choose whether to copy the streams to a new VOB, or extract them to the mpeg and ac3 files.
Post
#95752
Topic
Letterboxed Widescreen vs. Anamorphic Widescreen Discussion
Time
Originally posted by: DVD-BOY
So the image is squashed horizontally using a special lense to go from widescreen to regular. When projected it is then unsquashed using another special lense from regular back out to wide. Am I correct in thinking because this is done optically, information is not lost??

I suppose I could put forth a really anal argument that since, in the anamorphic process, a lot more image is being squeezed onto the same number of silver halide crystals than would a 1:33 image, some light information is lost.

But I won't.

Post
#95649
Topic
Letterboxed Widescreen vs. Anamorphic Widescreen Discussion
Time
Originally posted by: Metallaxis
So I think that there is no point in trying to persuade people to work on a project that would suit us. After all, there are others that might prefer it in a way that we don't.

I agree 110%. Perhaps when discussing projects we're working on, we should put disclaimers at the beginning saying "This project is being made the way I want it, and to hell with what the rest of you think."
I kinda like the projects that just appear out of the ether, finished, with no solicitation of opinions during the creative process. Somehow, they're more pure that way.

Post
#95629
Topic
Letterboxed Widescreen vs. Anamorphic Widescreen Discussion
Time
Originally posted by: Moth3r
Originally posted by: ApolloOne
And what about the vast majority of viewers, the folks who have 4:3 televisions?
The first question should have been what about the vast majority of viewers who have NTSC TVs, they won't be able to watch my DVD at all! My answer would be: ask Cowclops, MeBeJedi, Zion et al. But to address the point about 4:3 televisions, most people here who have DVD players also have 16:9 sets.

There seems to be more hindering our communication than just a common language. When I posted the above statement, I did not know you were in the UK. Maybe you just assumed I knew you were coming from a UK PAL perspective, just as I assumed you knew I was coming from an US NTSC perspective. The only time you mentioned PAL was in referring the source laserdiscs, but such a source is not mutually exclusive with the creation of an NTSC DVD. Yes, of course a large percentage of viewers over there have 16x9 sets. I've freelanced over here with some UK TV folks and we've had many discussions about our respective home theatre standards.
Post
#95400
Topic
Letterboxed Widescreen vs. Anamorphic Widescreen Discussion
Time
Originally posted by: Karyudo
There you go: two almost-useless sentences, completely opposite, with equal amounts of proof (i.e. none) to support them. I really, REALLY, get tired of people espousing some dogma or another without any sort of proof or analysis on their part. Moth3r provides tons of good information, backed up with references (of a kind) and personal experience, and still someone posts a one-liner something like "changing ld ripped video to anamorphic will degrade picture detail and sharpness".

See what I mean?
Post
#95353
Topic
<strong>The &quot;EditDroid&quot; Trilogy DVD Info and Feedback Thread</strong> (Released)
Time
Originally posted by: eros
seeing as we are talking fiddling here, what is the best way to move the subs into the frame as per the original theatrical versions? I have vobedit and ifoedit can it be done with these?
Subpictures are an encoded stream. The only way to move them up is the rip and reauthor, during which you would open the subpics in photoshop and move the text to where you want (or some similar process). Kind of a pain.

Originally posted by: Metallaxis
Why would someone who made a disc only for himself, as the creator of this set claims he did, put an easter egg like this in his creation?

I don't think the creator of the set ever said he made them for himself. As I recall, they were made for a handful of friends and associates.
Post
#95307
Topic
Letterboxed Widescreen vs. Anamorphic Widescreen Discussion
Time
And what about the vast majority of viewers, the folks who have 4:3 televisions? If they watch a fake anamorphic DVD, they're going to get a softer image that won't look as good as if it were encoded as letterboxed. As a DVD creator, an inviolable rule I have to obey is "bother the fewest." And it's always easiest to do that when you start out with the best quality encode, and that means not stretching the image and telling the encoder, "here, chew on this!" It's kind of like people who encode mono audio as 2.0. It's a waste of ever-precious bits.

Having said that, if you want to make a DVD that works best for your situation, Moth3r, then I don't think anyone would begrudge you that. Each person must make his or her own decision. But what works for you won't work for everybody else. Unless you make anamorphic and letterboxed versions for people to choose from, in which case you'll be king of the world.

This thread is going to frustrate those who are trying to learn more about this topic. Because you've got some who say "anamorphic looks better on 16:9 TVs than letterboxed," and some who say "no, letterboxed looks better." And they're both correct, because there are so many widescreen TVs out there, and they're all different, just like people's tastes are all different.

Again, the hard decision is not "should I do anamorphic?" The hard decision is "whom do I wish to please more?"
Post
#95253
Topic
<strong>The &quot;EditDroid&quot; Trilogy DVD Info and Feedback Thread</strong> (Released)
Time
Originally posted by: ChainsawAsh
How do I do this exactly? I have IFOEdit, but no experience with it at all...

Make sure you have IFOedit version 0.95 or later (better command editing interface). Make a backup of the VIDEO_TS.IFO file (in case you mess up), and open the file in IFOedit. You'll see a hierarchical list of information stored in the ifo file. Click on VMGM_MAT and a plus sign will appear next to it. Click the plus to expand and you'll see First Play PGC. Click on it, then scroll down in the bottom window until you see the Pre Command(s). You'll see a command saying "(JumpTT) Jump to Title: 1." Right-click on that command and choose "Edit Command." Change the command to "(JumpSS_VTSM) Jump to Titleset Menu." Set the Title number to 1, Titleset number to 1, and Menu to "Root."

That should do it. Just save the VIDEO_TS.IFO file and try it out.
Post
#95192
Topic
<strong>The &quot;EditDroid&quot; Trilogy DVD Info and Feedback Thread</strong> (Released)
Time
Originally posted by: ChainsawAsh
Is there a way I can mess with the VOB files so the main menu comes up first instead of the movie?

Use IFOedit on the VIDEO_TS.IFO file and change the first play pre-command. I actually find it refreshing not to have to hit a button to watch the movie. When I want extras, I hit menu.
Post
#94982
Topic
<strong>The &quot;EditDroid&quot; Trilogy DVD Info and Feedback Thread</strong> (Released)
Time
Originally posted by: RichKSMy TV (like almost all the TVs here) runs native NTSC when it gets an NTSC signal. They're cheaper to build that way, and I wouldn't buy one that didn't work like that, since 90% of my DVDs and videogames are NTSC native. And the DVD player outputs NTSC as well. PAL DVDs look just as crap as NTSC ones when you zoom in, as do videogames, broadcast etc etc...


Ah, my apologies. I inferred from your original post that the quality was much worse than you actually say it is now, so I was thinking in terms of PAL-60 possibly contributing to the issue. Sounds like you have an ideal setup (I wish our TVs and players were as flexible as ones in the UK). That being said, 16x9 TV zooms I've watched have been excellent, results which seem to differ from those of your experience. As for the reason...who can really say? <shrug>
Post
#94972
Topic
<strong>The &quot;EditDroid&quot; Trilogy DVD Info and Feedback Thread</strong> (Released)
Time
Originally posted by: RichKS
I live in the UK

Gee, that's kind of a vital piece of information you left out of your original post. Duh, of course it won't look that great, playing a letterboxed NTSC disc on a 16x9 PAL monitor in zoom mode. Not only is the video getting scaled up from 480 lines to 576 for admittance into PAL-land, but then getting scaled up again to fill the screen.
Post
#94959
Topic
<strong>The &quot;EditDroid&quot; Trilogy DVD Info and Feedback Thread</strong> (Released)
Time
Originally posted by: RichKS
Although the picture quality of this version is nicer than Dr Gonzo's in a lot of ways, the fact that it's not anamorphic makes it almost useless. The drop in image quality from zooming on my TV renders non-anamorphic DVDs unwatchable for me

I've watched this disc on a friend's widescreen TV and it looks great. Could be the problem is with your TV. Is every non-anamorphic title you watch unacceptable?
The whole "convert letterbox to anamorphic" debate has gone on elsewhere in this forum and on the net. I stand in the "leave it alone" camp. Encoding noisy laserdisc material is hard enough without wasting good bits on the bad pixels you get by expanding the image.
Post
#94958
Topic
Mysterious Mysteries cover?
Time
Originally posted by: R5-D4
what program lets u actually pick where on the page u want to print the image i mean i usually use photoshop and i havent seen this option.

Using "Print with Preview," "u"can arrange where on the page the artwork will be. As for me, I use Illustrator and just place the artwork wherever it needs to go on the artboard.

Post
#94799
Topic
Mysterious Mysteries cover?
Time
Originally posted by: The Dark One
Referring to my last post (as DarthOsor)...I think that the paper weight is 67lb. Hope that helps anyone interested.

D.O.


Here's another option. Epson makes something they call Photo Quality Inkjet Paper. It's relatively inexpensive. It's as thin and managable as regular paper, but one side of it is coated bright white, and looks outstanding. I believe it only comes letter sized, but if you tape about a two-inch strip of paper to the underside, slightly overlapping the bottom edge, you can run it through as legal size and it will print the entire image on the letter sized paper. Naturally, this only applies to cover art for standard thickness, single disc cases.