CatBus

PM sent.

captainplanet said:

I would love a link for the sup files. Thank you so much for your amazing work!

You’re welcome! PM sent.

michaelsft said:

CatBus said:
I use tsMuxerGUI to make the folder structure, and ImgBurn to make the ISO. Using that, I can get the video and one lossless 5.1 track at 43.4GB. Add three more 384K stereo/192K mono lossy tracks and you’re at 44.5GB. You can fit a few more 192K stereo/96K mono lossy tracks and subtitles after that and get in under the wire, just barely.

Thanks very much for your reply! I just tried your method with only 1 ac3 audio track (190mb) and I still get a BDMV folder at 44.54GB - I wonder if it’s because I’m on a mac?

Hard to say. There could be tsMuxerGUI version differences (I’m running a dev version because of some issues with the latest release), and I do want to specify that I create the ISO via ImgBurn instead of letting tsMuxerGUI do it. But regardless, it is a pretty tight fit.

michaelsft said:

CatBus said:

Verified, I burned this to a BD-50 and played it back in a hardware player. It’s glorious.

Also, burning discs beyond BD-50 capacity is probably asking for trouble. Stick to BD-50 and avoid worries.

Hi CatBus, quick question, how did you manage to burn this without re-encoding it? Did you just use small audio files and avoid the DTS tracks? 46.57GB is (as far as I can tell) the limit for burning an iso and I can get a bunch of files that under this limit but when I use tsmuxer or any other authoring software to create an iso it adds like 3GB extra onto the file size. What authoring software do you use?

I use tsMuxerGUI to make the folder structure, and ImgBurn to make the ISO. Using that, I can get the video and one lossless 5.1 track at 43.4GB. Add three more 384K stereo/192K mono lossy tracks and you’re at 44.5GB. You can fit a few more 192K stereo/96K mono lossy tracks and subtitles after that and get in under the wire, just barely.

One caveat is that I’ve been doing this a long time, so I pretty much never use the audio that comes with any preservation. I already have my own preferred audio tracks, and really just use the demuxed video from any new release with them. So if, for example, the lossless audio in the release is 24-bit or has an unusually large lossy core, you might have trouble fitting it – mine’s 16-bit DTS-MA with a 1536K (default) core. Similarly, my Dolby Digital files are 384K for English, and 192K for dubs (stereo; half of that for mono). If the audio tracks are maxing out bitrates, you may have trouble matching what I see.

Keep in mind I’m also experimenting with menus, and just forget that nonsense. With menus, you can’t even get a single lossless track in, even with very conservative authoring options. So if you want a disc with menus, you’re going to need to use the 1080p encode (should be OK), or re-encode the 2160p encode (may also be OK, but makes me sad), or go with probably a single lossy track (I couldn’t live with this).

IMO everything would be a lot easier all-around if the 2160p encode was something more like 35GB, but the goal of the release was to sacrifice as little quality as possible, while still allowing barebones BD compatibility. It does that.

alpuche70 said:

Can I get a link please?

I only have .srt subtitles but I want the .sup files or PGS

Thanks in advance!

PM sent.

Iske said:

Can I get a link too? Thanks!

PM sent.

PM sent.

PM sent.

PM sent.

Mac-Bain said:

SnooPac said:

I think the initial confusion is that you mean rotj 2.5* (not 2.7) is still listed.

And I think that’s a valid question (which might have a good answer/justification):
Why is rotj 2.5 still listed when rotj 3.1 is released (and presumably supercedes it)?

Exactly my point. I wonder if it’s because ROTJ 2.5 is made like all the others DEED (by adding different sources together), whereas 3.0 and 3.1 are from a 1983 source, and demand a different set of skills.

No, ROTJ 2.5 also used 1983 film scans mixed with the Blu-rays. 3.x uses 1983 films scans mixed with the UHDs. It’s the same general process, just with better-quality sources in 4K. I suspect 2.5 wasn’t removed when 3.0 came out because 3.0 had a major error, and 2.5 was the fallback. Then by the time 3.1 came out, failing to remove it was an oversight.

In anticipation of the official ROTJ DeEd 3.1 4K release, I created some UHD artwork.

UHD (4K) Blu-ray: https://drive.google.com/file/d/130M9JMoRdT6oYjM3Dvm22sNgpkifrJuK/view?usp=drive_link
HD (1080p) Blu-ray: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1glb8XnVxqJstm_FOE11EsGmeCgS6HBQ4/view?usp=sharing
DVD: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rcddg4WCtAqhiOhyaLPqw_1UCww4d050/view?usp=sharing

The only difference between 4K and 1080p cover art is the logos (Blu-ray vs Ultra HD Blu-ray)

They’re designed to be in the style of the 1990 VHS releases (Star Wars, Empire, and Jedi), but there are a few places where I modernized things a bit. These owe a lot to the work of ChainsawAsh and EyeShotFirst. There’s nothing preservation-specific about these covers, so they’d work just as well for Despecialized, 4Kxx, D+xx, or anything else you like.

Disc art is also included, in a matching style (including distinct designs for the 1981 version of Star Wars and the 70mm version of Empire).

CHEWBAKAspelledwrong said:

For my curiosity, are you guys burning 4K-UHD spec onto a BD-50, or are these data discs?

Just a BD-50. Bigger than that I hear is trouble, so I’ve never tried.

PSimpso said:

50GB BD-R will work, but you’ll probably want to scale back the audio tracks, or you’ll risk going over the total bitrate limit for 4K Blu-ray players. I did just one lossless track and several lossy, and that was fine. You could probably be less conservative.

I assumed that only the active audio track contributed to the total bitrate limit. Am I wrong about that?

IIRC, the player reads all muxed tracks simultaneously, then decides which ones to play. So you can go over the limit even when the tracks you’re actually using don’t go over that limit.

Stinky-Dinkins said:

Holy shit, it’s been a while since I last checked in this 3.1 UHD version looks amazing. It’ll just burn to a regular 50gb BD-R right, haven’t bothered looking into burning UHD.

50GB BD-R will work, but you’ll probably want to scale back the audio tracks, or you’ll risk going over the total bitrate limit for 4K Blu-ray players. I did just one lossless track and several lossy, and that was fine. You could probably be less conservative.

Also, good to see you again!

Harmy said:

The English tracks are theatrically synced, not sure about all the dubs but for dubs, falling out if sync by one or two frames shouldn’t really matter.

The dubs are also theatrically synced.

Weird. Maybe we discovered some previously unknown variation between the European UHD and the North American one. At this point, Harmy could shed the most light on this. I have no clue.

Could be a crop difference, I suppose. Does the title appear on the same frame?

haru KI do said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHcEb54vkiU

This is a v3.0 video, but it should be the same in v3.1.

Looks like everything lines up except DeEd, by one frame. Can’t blame the UHD source for this either.

digitalfreaknyc said:

CatBus said:

digitalfreaknyc said:

Doctor M said:

CatBus said:

Doctor M said:

Harmy said:

The 1080p version is designed for a BD25, if you keep only the English audio and one or two dubs.

The 2160p version is over 40GB just for the video.

Any recommendations for BD50 blanks?

For this one? Verbatim M-disc. It’s gonna be passed down like a family heirloom.

Until version 3.2. 😃

I copied it to a network HDD dock and took a look at it… and I hate to be the first to complain about this amazing piece of work, but it looks like the grain was scrubbed and then fake grain was added.
Was that the 4k source or am I hallucinating?

Thank you for saving me the trouble of downloading. I’ll stick with D+83.

For those unable to detect the snark, D+83 (OTD83) uses the same sources as Despecialized, with the same issues. If you’re happy with OTD83, you’ll be delighted with Despecialized.

No snark intended. I just don’t feel the need to have fake grain added to the picture. I’ll stick with D+83 unless I see some screencaps that sway me otherwise.

I get it now. Now I know that pre-2020 versions of D+xx actually didn’t have any fake grain added. I laughed because I thought you were talking about a recent version of D+83, which of course has the same fake grain as Despecialized, and so I thought you were being snarky (i.e. I thought you were saying “I don’t want fake grain… so I’m sticking with this other preservation that’s full of fake grain!”).

That guy with no name said:

digitalfreaknyc said:

CatBus said:

digitalfreaknyc said:

Doctor M said:

CatBus said:

Doctor M said:

Harmy said:

The 1080p version is designed for a BD25, if you keep only the English audio and one or two dubs.

The 2160p version is over 40GB just for the video.

Any recommendations for BD50 blanks?

For this one? Verbatim M-disc. It’s gonna be passed down like a family heirloom.

Until version 3.2. 😃

I copied it to a network HDD dock and took a look at it… and I hate to be the first to complain about this amazing piece of work, but it looks like the grain was scrubbed and then fake grain was added.
Was that the 4k source or am I hallucinating?

Thank you for saving me the trouble of downloading. I’ll stick with D+83.

For those unable to detect the snark, D+83 (OTD83) uses the same sources as Despecialized, with the same issues. If you’re happy with OTD83, you’ll be delighted with Despecialized.

No snark intended. I just don’t feel the need to have fake grain added to the picture. I’ll stick with D+83 unless I see some screencaps that sway me otherwise.

Do you think the official releases doesn’t have fake grain? Why is fake grain so sanctimonious?

TIL that some old (pre-2020) versions of the D+ projects actually didn’t have fake grain added, and they just had the grain from the 4Kxx projects suddenly appear and disappear as the sources changed, even sometimes appearing in parts of a shot and not others. Wow. The current versions do a better job of blending source materials, using fake grain, as Despecialized does. I guess some people hate fake grain so much that they won’t even upgrade to a recent version of D+83/OTD83, and they’re okay with the jarring grain transitions of the older versions. That’s a choice.

That guy with no name said:

Doctor M said:

CatBus said:

Doctor M said:

Harmy said:

The 1080p version is designed for a BD25, if you keep only the English audio and one or two dubs.

The 2160p version is over 40GB just for the video.

Any recommendations for BD50 blanks?

For this one? Verbatim M-disc. It’s gonna be passed down like a family heirloom.

Until version 3.2. 😃

I copied it to a network HDD dock and took a look at it… and I hate to be the first to complain about this amazing piece of work, but it looks like the grain was scrubbed and then fake grain was added.
Was that the 4k source or am I hallucinating?

No, that’s just how the 4k Blu-ray looks, It’s scrubbed to smithereens… and has so much static grain. Harmy did the best he could to restore the original look. and I’m pretty sure that the grain he added is authentic 35mm is it not? also, how do you not know that at this point? Bad DNR was one of the 2020 Blu-ray’s first issues discussed here.

Pretty easy to miss it, actually. For a lot of Star Wars fans, they hear “Special Edition” and tune out everything about it. Despecialized or D+xx is probably the first time people like that have encountered the UHDs in any form. And yes, you’re absolutely right, they are very heavily scrubbed, so re-graining them is pretty much the only way to go (unless you want to DNR 4Kxx to match!). Nevertheless, possibly a surprise for people who didn’t know that.

digitalfreaknyc said:

Doctor M said:

CatBus said:

Doctor M said:

Harmy said:

The 1080p version is designed for a BD25, if you keep only the English audio and one or two dubs.

The 2160p version is over 40GB just for the video.

Any recommendations for BD50 blanks?

For this one? Verbatim M-disc. It’s gonna be passed down like a family heirloom.

Until version 3.2. 😃

I copied it to a network HDD dock and took a look at it… and I hate to be the first to complain about this amazing piece of work, but it looks like the grain was scrubbed and then fake grain was added.
Was that the 4k source or am I hallucinating?

Thank you for saving me the trouble of downloading. I’ll stick with D+83.

For those unable to detect the snark, D+83 (OTD83) uses the same sources as Despecialized, with the same issues. If you’re happy with OTD83, you’ll be delighted with Despecialized.

MarkM said:

CatBus said:

Verified, I burned this to a BD-50 and played it back in a hardware player. It’s glorious.

Do you mind sharing which authoring tool you used? tsMuxer is my go-to, but as you mention it is having fits with this one.

tsMuxer is what I used. You just have to be careful to keep the audio and subtitle options to a sane level. 32 audio/32 subtitle is the hard limit, but really that’s still too much if you have multiple lossless tracks. I only did one lossless track, to cut down on max bitrate. You could probably get away with more.

Doctor M said:

CatBus said:

Doctor M said:

Harmy said:

The 1080p version is designed for a BD25, if you keep only the English audio and one or two dubs.

The 2160p version is over 40GB just for the video.

Any recommendations for BD50 blanks?

For this one? Verbatim M-disc. It’s gonna be passed down like a family heirloom.

Until version 3.2. 😃

Not for me. I’m stepping off the upgrade train, 3.1 is my final stop. I can’t imagine what I’d upgrade for at this point.

I copied it to a network HDD dock and took a look at it… and I hate to be the first to complain about this amazing piece of work, but it looks like the grain was scrubbed and then fake grain was added.
Was that the 4k source or am I hallucinating?

That’s almost certainly exactly what happened. The primary 4K source (UHD disc) was heavily grain-scrubbed. To make that blend with 4K83-sourced footage, I have to think fake grain would be involved.

Doctor M said:

Harmy said:

The 1080p version is designed for a BD25, if you keep only the English audio and one or two dubs.

The 2160p version is over 40GB just for the video.

Any recommendations for BD50 blanks?

For this one? Verbatim M-disc. It’s gonna be passed down like a family heirloom.