Bester said:
Why? There are plenty of 720p MKV BD rips available of the SW movies that are well below 4gb.
There probably wont be if the PIPA bill passes, and we might as well kiss Empire: Revisited and original trilogy.com goodbye if it does get passed.
It also seems as if some edge enhancement was used in a number of shots in the OT blu-rays also, which doesn't surprise me since these BD's are essentially the dvd masters.
Removing boba from jedi would not be a good move IMO. He has been part of Jedi since 83, And for the little time we saw him in jedi ( for better or for worse ), it would be a shame to take him out completely.
Ady could always change the events that caused boba's death. Anybody with an accurate constume and a HD camera can film some new footage for ady to insert in his edit.
Tobar said:
AuggieBenDoggie said:
Ady, what was it about old background design in that shot you didn't like? Now I'm not talking about the quality of it, I'm talking about the design.
EDIT: And because of the change, are you going to apply the new design to all the other shots?
Adywan said on Facebook:
The painted background is completely different from the on-set background we see in all the other shots, so it needed to be changed. Plus you can see hairs in the original painting and brush strokes. The new matte was created as a flat 2d image (bloody huge one too) with the details matching closer to the on-set background, then a 3d tunnel was created matching the camera to the angle of the gantry. There are so many inconsistencies between the set backgrounds and the matte paintings, which also seem inconsistent with each other, a new matte had to be created
Thanks for the info Tobar. I usually forget to visit Ady's facebook page.
Ady, what was it about old background design in that shot you didn't like? Now I'm not talking about the quality of it, I'm talking about the design.
EDIT: And because of the change, are you going to apply the new design to all the other shots?
Thats sucks that Rapidshare, facebook, and youtube will not let Adywan upload his clips. He could; however, hide his clip in a jpeg using winRar. He could use anything he wanted for the jpeg. A pic of a Dog, cat, car, anything. He could probably then upload the pic to rapidshare and they would never know there was a video clip hidden within. All you would have to do is extract the file from the jpeg and play the clip.
Woah there, take it easy man. No one here is trying to start any sort of fight with you, and no one is slinging mud at you. Take it easy man jeeze....
I think you have a really great project going on here Harmy. Watched the clips some time ago and thought they were very well done.
Heilieman said:
Please stop.
Your taking this way too seriously. Calm down please.
WgatsMyName said:
Read the Forum Rules please....
What was said is still within the guidelines of the forum. It may be a bit borderline, but still within the guidelines.
Darth Editous said:
They mean exactly what I meant them to mean - that on some frames there is a big (and on every frame, moderate) quality difference between HDTV and Blu-ray, so there is every justification for using the Blu-ray rip as the source of an edit, your impatience not withstanding.
You're mistaken on several other points, but we've gone too far off-target already, so you can have the last word if you want it (frame-based is the correct term, 756 pixels is based on the perceived resolution (70%) of full-frame field-based interlaced against progressive material, progressive wrapped in interlaced is fine, digital either works or doesn't, I was being facetious about Monster cables, all HD TVs must decode 720p, "720p is the preferred format for the broadcast...")
I'm only going as far as saying we don't see eye to eye on those points. This is as far as it goes.
we've gone too far off-target already,
Agreed.
Johnny Ringo said:
act like a dick?
I guess you have personal issues also. Or are you 2 both of the same mind?
dark_jedi said:
AH, sorry but you are mistaken, I have ripped plenty of BD50's to my hard drive and it takes about 30-40 minutes, if it takes longer than that, then you have a shitty PC and an even worse Blu-ray drive\Burner, or you have no idea what you are doing.
I'm running a Quad core AMD with 8 gigs of ram on a 64 bit operating system. I takes longer than 40 min to rip a BD on my system. It could be the BD drive thats causing the problem, but I'm not going to replace it. And besides all that, I really don't do it all that much.
Darth Editous said:
They have not been modified at all - cherry-picked to prove a point, perhaps. I chose a reasonable amount of compression for the jpeg and they are an accurate depiction of those two sections of an HDTV frame and a BD frame.
Those Jpgs really don't mean much, and you know better than to do that, I want you to show a 720p video example, rip vs retail, side by side.
Darth Editous said:
"In the United States, 720p is the preferred format for the broadcast and cable networks of Fox/FX/Fox Sports Net, ABC/Disney Channel/ESPN, A&E Television Networks, Ion Television, MLB Network, and DirecTV's Audience Network."
Thats true, but however, not all TV sets do 720p. Those networks still broadcast in 1080i. 720p may be the preferred format of those networks but they still have to accommodate the viewers that can only decode ( or to stupid to know otherwise ) 1080i, because there are still a few existing HD sets that only decode 1080i. So what I said was still true, just a little bit one sided.
Darth Editous said:
That's a massive generalisation, and not relevant to already frame-based material.
Actually film-based material would be a better term, and yes a progressive scanned frame will look better than an interlaced frame. You loosed picture quality ( color and detail ) with through the use of interlaced decoding because the frame is split into 2 fields that alternate. Not so with progressive decoding, everything is scanned at once.[/QUOTE]
Darth Editous said:
This is only relevant if the HDTV rips were made from an analogue cable broadcast, which seems extremely unlikely. If you're on digital cable and you can see a difference in picture quality with or without a line conditioner... well, I'll stop there, because you just can't, but I have some Monster cables you can buy off me.(edited to add: actually this is probably not quite right. Line hum can cause waves and other distortions to get through to the TV via earth, but if you're capturing digitally, it won't make any difference)
Get rid of your monster cables and go with something that has better quality terminators. Ones and zeros are one thing, most any cable will get you all of that. The problem is how the cables are manufactured. If they're cheap, then they are made cheap, and they will have cheap connectors, and cheap connector does make a difference. Monster cable isn't really all that bad, but I have seen alot better. The better ones will have more silver in the connectors. Audioquest has a great high performance line, that beats monster hands down. Tributaries make a great high performance cable also, as well as Kimber cable.
Darth Editous said:
No, it gives you a perceived resolution of about 1920x756, if you're talking about truly interlaced material. For progressive material you get a perceived and actual resolution of 1920x1080 (barring some minor differences in how colour is processed).
Well if your talking actual pixels on the screen then your 1920x 756 is wrong. Should be 1920 x 754 for 1,446,680 - 2.35
I don't think it's ever going to happen. I think his ex-wife has alot to do with it, but I'm probably wrong. What Ady is doing is great. It's funny about the Starwars BD, people are shelling out mega bucks for, just because it's starwars, knowing it still has alot of problems. Then complain about all the stuff it doesn't have including the alterations. I just had some words with a dude over in the general discussion thread over the complains regarding the BD problems. Man, all I basically sad was enjoy what he had, or take it back, then all the sudden he got all offensive towards me. Man, I have seen some fanatics in my time but that dude took the cake.
Anyway, lucas really only cares about the general starwars fan now days, and the BD's show it.
How do you respond to somebody who shells out 80$ for a video relese, knowing full well it has many problems, then takes offense to the first person who says,enjoy what you have and stop complaining.
Sorry, but you have some personal issues....
Heilemann said:
That's a simplistic argument to say the least. There are plenty of things in the box-set that is of great interest to OT die hards, such as the deleted scenes, better quality docus than we've previously had access to, commentaries and interviews a plenty, including a bunch of new concept art I hadn't seen before. It all happens to have been presented in a pretty lackluster way, and the set as a whole is oddly missing some of the best pieces out there, such as Empire of Dreams and From Star Wars to Jedi, just to mention two of the most obvious ones.
That the films have been scarred, yet again, is a separate matter, but even if I flinch every time a change rolls across my screen, which I do, whether you like me complaining about it or not, these are still the best copies of the films available, and as such they still have value as just that. Reference.
Perhaps it's time you quit your paradoxical complaining about our complaining?
LOL, you take the blue pill then pal.
I think some of you people need to quit complaining about your starwars BD. You knew going into the store what you where getting. You accepted it and bought them. What your getting is as good as it's going to get. If you don't like them take them back. Why keep them and complain, that just makes no sense. Embrace what you have for better and for worse, you willingly paid for it.
Well said!
Mr Ghostface said:
A capture is not 1080p or any other broadcast resolution and although I know what you meant, a capture at a high resolution does not contain more information/detail than its source.
Oh yes it can. You can get a HD capture card for your PC and hook your HD line up to your PC and you can capture a 1080i broadcast at 1080p. I know of a HD capture card that captures at (1080i50, 1080i59.94, 1080i60,1080p23.98, 1080p24, 1080p25, 1080p29.97, 1080p30, 720p50, 720p59.94, 720p60)
Darth Editus said:
Look closer:
Thats not a vary fair approach to prove your point. Your using 1080p jpg's that have been modified to actually show the difference. How about a side by side video comparison in 720p. The resolution that the edit will be in.
Mr Ghostface said:
Well obviously Ady has decided the blu-rays are the best source for his HD edit, so there's not much point having an ongoing debate about it. For one, the original HDTV broadcasts were NOT 1080p, they were 1080i, and although some people will argue that, I work for the broadcaster that showed them, and there are NO 1080p broadcasts. Either way the blu-rays are very good, clean transfers for the most part and I think Ady is doing the right thing.You're right, I was just clarifying as people seem to believe the broadcasts were 1080p, which isn't the case. No biggie
All media is interlaced on TV, the cable or dish boxes can either do progressive or interlaced scanning. Progressing scanning will give you a better picture. The problem with cable broadcasts is the inherent ground noise within the signal due to how the signal is transferred. You need a line conditioner to minimize it. I have a line conditioner hooked up to my cable box, and the picture looks fantastic, very clean looking compared to how it looks without one.
Most people don't know this but the 1080i signal is actually a 1920x540 resolution signal where every other frame (actually called a field) is interlaced with the frame after it, giving you a perceived total resolution of 1920x1080.
George C. Scott watches starwars on blu-ray....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0To4m1pgcU&feature=player_embedded
I know what the rules say, thats why I will eventually get them, when this edit is done, but in reference to Ady, he could have always had both the retail and rips, and use the rips for the edit to save time, just my opinion though. Ady can do what ever he wants.
dark-jedi said:
Let the retail Disc rip over night? it surely does not take that long to rip a BD LOL, 30-40 minutes tops.
It takes longer than that.
TV's Frink said:
Why do you care so much?
Why? Read between the lines ;)
doubleofive said:
Why risk compression artifacts from internet sources when he probably just let the retail disc rip overnight? Besides, since we go by the spirit of the law around here, leaked copies are illegal, retail copies are questionable.
Never notice any compression artifacts on the MKV samples from the rips that I have already seen. And ripped copes ( as well as fan edits ) are just as illegal, it's just that lucas (to our advantage ) doesn't really pursue it for starwars.