bkev said:I am curious as to why the decision was made to add it at all.
It was shakier in the theatre, but we don't have much in the way of usable references for that. It's a best effort. I'm not sure it's good enough either but I trust Harmy to make the call.
digitalfreaknyc said:
I'm confused. Why would you do it in PAL to slow it down to NTSC??
PAL timecodes are unambiguous when reporting problems.
Harmy said:
Yeah, it's kind of funny that we're having this heated debate about something that covers about 2% of two frames :-)
The nitpicking is just going to get worse the closer this thing gets to perfection. It is inevitable. It is your destiny.
How's this for framing the burn mark choice?
I think everyone agrees that if Star Wars were ever subjected to a proper studio restoration, the burn marks would not be in it. I think the LACK of a proper studio restoration of these films is a burning issue for everyone here, and the primary reason this project exists in the first place. And some of us want Harmy's project to be a substitute for that nonexistent proper studio restoration. But the simple fact is it isn't a studio restoration--it's its own project with its own priorities.
Damn it, I just argued against my preference. I gotta stop doing that.
Cobra Kai said:
For me, it's simple. These marks were not captured on film, and thus do not truly represent part of the finished product that the crew worked so hard to achieve.
Well sure, but someone also went in with a black marker on a few shots too, to correct some things. Now I agree with you, but there were changes even after the film was put "in the can" so to speak. Some, like the black marker stuff, was intentional. This was not. I agree only intentional changes to the "in the can" print should be restored, but people never really saw the "in the can" print either.
I think part of the problem is that I wish I could have seen it! ;)
Harmy said:
The thing is, even though it may have happened by accident, that accident is a part of the history of the film, since this particular damage was most likely on the original negative, so it's not that easy. It's like 99,9% of dirt in Puggo Grande is specific to that print but these burnmarks are something that all the prints had in common.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I definitely will restore them, I'm just trying to explain why I'm even considering it.
Yeah, I get your point and I dont envy the responsibility of making the choice. You're essentially trying to answer "What is authoritative?" and... there is no answer. You're just going to have to pick one and run with it, and some people won't like your choice.
I don't think it fits, overall, with the rest of your project--and I agree it's absolutely a good fit for Puggo. But everyone has a slightly different idea of what your project is trying to be and ultimately your idea of what it should be should rule the day.
Harmy said:
The burnmarks are something I'm not quite decided about
Okay, well I'm inclined against them, for what it's worth. The rest of the print has such a "cleaned up" look that they stand out more than they would have in a normal dusty, scratchy theatrical run. And as others have said, any normal restoration (Criterion, anyone else) would remove them.
As for the shake, I like the idea, but it still doesn't quite work for me in its current state. I suspect that the extra shake plus high compression makes the blur look worse than it would in the final product, and I might like it right now with less compression, who knows.
TServo2049 said:
From what I can gather, the burns were on all prints in '77. The source used to make the video transfers in the 80s was burn-free, but then the source used to make the '93 transfer had them again.
They are part of the '77 theatrical version for sure, but I'm on the fence about whether it's necessary to put them in the DEED. It's kind of jarring seeing them appear on an otherwise clean image, as opposed to on a print that already has other noise...
And looking at the blur that Harmy added to the camera shake, I see what he did. The camera shake effect in the SE looks different than in the original, where the image shakes longer and more violently. Since it's not a different take, I'm guessing that means that the shake was indeed a post-production effect, or that more shaking was added optically and what we're seeing in the SE is the original in-camera version. It looks like Harmy was trying to simulate the shaking effect from the original version. It still doesn't look as "rough" as the original, but unfortunately, there are no high-resolution versions of the true original, so I guess I'm fine with Harmy's new version as a compromise.
I don't know, I'm still with You_Too that the burn mark is the joke of the day. It just doesn't seem consistent with other choices Harmy's made up-to-now.
There are things, like subtitle shake, etc, which were technological limits and perhaps even mistakes but they were made during an intentional process of making the film. Then there are other technological limits and mistakes that were NOT part of the intentional process of making the film, and those were left out. Specifically, I'm thinking that if you want a real theatrical look you'd need to crop out ~30% of the current image, because nobody ever saw the edges in the theatre. But there's a reasonable expectation in the home video front that transfers will include a larger frame and will even be cleaned up, and up 'til now Harmy's gone that route.
We'll see what his take is but I'm thinking JOTD is a fair assessment. It has a historical basis, yes, and only Star Wars fans would really get it, but it's not for real. Then again...
You_Too said:
Joke of the day. :D
Anyway, that WP3 looks great otherwise, and I skipped through the WP2.3 a bit and it looked stunning as well.
Great job! As usual. :)
Glad to see StinkyDinkins' contribution making its long-awaited appearance. I was afraid Harmy had forgotten.
I like Gaupol for editing (text only), easySUP for rendering to graphics. But really there are tons of editors on the text side. Let's not derail this too much--You_Too actually prefers simple text files and he will render them himself.
Darth Tater said:
Looking great as usual, Harmy (the movie's not bad either, you handsome devil! :P)!
We're gonna need a bigger room...
You also have Brazilian Portuguese!
Seriously, though--if you take a list of the most widely-spoken languages on earth, and filter based on latin alphabet, Portuguese is #3, after English and Spanish. It's a good one to include!
I guess I didn't specify: I just need an e-mail address to send them to. They're not big.
EDIT: Okay you have the files now.
You're going to need to PM me then. Also I have some interesting tweaks you can use for the graphics if you're interested.
Also it turns out I can do BDN+XML. It's not the format I've already rendered, but it won't take much time to re-render them.
You_Too said:
They'd have to be SRT for us to be able to convert them to BDN+XML format, which the guy making the menu for the BD said he will need.
Okay, I can do SRT. For each foreign language, I have both "forced" and "full" variants. Forced is designed to work with the matching foreign dub (just crawl text and alien subs), and full is for the whole movie, to accompany the English audio. For English, I have standard and SDH. PM me with which versions you want and they're so small I can just e-mail them to you if you give me an address.
These are not the verbatim GOUT subs. Most of my changes involved making subs appear onscreen longer, but you may also see other tweaks and corrections here and there, particularly some formatting differences. Also, when I say they accompany the English audio, I mean the original surround mix, not the mono mix or later revisions.
Well I can package up my SUP files and send you a link, which you can opt to use or not. I may not have this ready for a few days, though.
There might be some utility that would upscale DVD subs to BD subs just by scaling the graphics, so you would not have to OCR and re-render. I've never seen anything like that before though. And you'd lose sharpness, etc. I think you have to use text files at some point in the process.
The PAL GOUT has subs in those languages, and they are available on the newsgroups. However they are in graphical format so you need to OCR them, and OCR is very hit-or-miss, requiring manual correction unless you want the occasionally incomprehensible subtitle. Also some of the GOUT subtitles are simply wrong.
I'm waiting for Service Pack 1 before I deploy it.
Hells yeah.
Hey DJ, if you're still interested I think we may still be able to do something. SUP files with PGS contents definitely work on Blu Ray because I've made test discs already. However, they might not work with all authoring software--that might be the problem. I'm just using the free stuff: tsmuxer and multiavchd, and I haven't done any menu interactions at all, but I can definitely say it works with Blu Ray, using the remote's "Subtitle" button to switch around.
I also have "regular" subs that are traditional mostly-below-the-frame Arial subs (non-English subs have to be like this). Also if you don't like the fonts/placement I've used, you can plug in different values and generate your own SUP files. The workflow is pretty simple, and I designed it to be a framework anyone can use. Basically you plug in an SRT file and out pops a nicely rendered 720p subtitle.
My project really has its own priorities and they might not mesh 100% with yours. I'm not terribly intersted in fidelity to existing home video subs for example, and I make changes whenever it met some other goal, some as having the text onscreen slightly longer, etc. Let me know if you're interested in any part of this, I'm flexible and would not be offended if you wanted my process but not my files, etc.
I still want those screencaps tho ;) But I'll wait.
Also, I've got workflow documents for how to make subs with new languages (e.g. Swedish), but I ain't doing them myself. Sorry I'm a bit burnt out after three films in five languages...
The format is PGS, and the file extension of the files I create is .SUP (very different from the DVD .SUP format though)
I am making 720p subs in five languages to accompany your project. Are you interested? ;)
Basically once I have some screenshots of your alien subs (once those are finalized), I'm releasing my project to the world. If you need them before my project is released, I can arrange that too.
EDIT: The languages are: English (regular & SDH), Spanish, French, German, and Brazilian Portuguese. And trust me, the screenshots are relevant, I'm doing something weird involving matching the English subs to the alien subs and it happens to look awesome IMO.
Bah, apparently marking it as forced does absolutely nothing--at least for DVD--you would still need to use some sort of menu logic to turn them on and off when you changed audio tracks.
MultiAVCHD looks promising for HD encoding, perhaps they work differently, although my hopes are low at this point.
