has there been any talk of a timetable for when ANH and ESB 3.0 are coming?
Talk, sure. Answers, not so much đ
We have top men working on it. Top men.
UmmmâŚdownloaded Hammyâs SW in MKV and plays perfectly; fantastic presentation through my blu-ray player!
I tried adding the subtitles with the MKV indications, but I must be doing something wrong.I added the movie and the .sup files to MKVToolNix, started Multiplexing and finished.
Played the file, which plays fine, and the blu-ray player movie info shows there are subtitles to choose, but doesnât choose them.They appear in numbersâŚ1, 2, 3, etc., instead of the names for each.
Any suggestions or where may ask for help with this?
Each player can choose a different way to display subtitle options. If you watch your MKV using VLC, you will likely see the names, as you expect â so the MKV is likely fine. The problem is likely that the Blu-ray player doesnât read enough information from the MKV to display anything but numbers to choose.
Blu-ray players generally have very basic MKV support. If you try burning a Blu-ray disc, it may do a better job identifying subtitle languages, if they are tagged with the right language codes. Or you could connect your computer to the TV and use VLC, if that works better.
SRT format has no layout or orientation data in it, so vertical subtitles are possible, but would depend entirely on the playback software. I donât know of any software that does this, and I donât see any way that it would be able to distinguish between the subtitles for onscreen text and dialogue. i.e. even if the software could do this, all subtitles would be vertical, or none.
PGS subtitles are another matter entirely, and I looked into this many times over the years. Back when I started this project, using EasySUP, vertical text wasnât possible with that software. Later, using Pango, vertical text either wasnât possible, or wasnât possible on Windows (I forget exactly what the limitation was). Now that Iâm using HTML, vertical text is easily doable using CSS writing-mode: vertical-rl. I thought I was about to be able to do something cool.
But now that it was possible, another problem revealed itself. Unlike the pan-and-scan versions of Star Wars above, 2.39:1 presentations simply donât have very much vertical space to work with, if you want your subtitles to be CIH-safe (i.e. to display only within the video frame). Sure, if you knew that you would be projecting it on a huge theater screen, you could reduce the font to a tiny size and make it fit â but for something that would be legible on a standard TV screen â no, you just couldnât make it fit.
So, in a nutshell, yes, itâs possible, but no, I no longer have any plans to do it. Youâd have to extend the subtitles into the black bars, which would get cut off on some projection systems, or shrink the text so small that it would only work on a huge projection screen. Since my PGS subtitles are designed for playback on an unknown variety of systems, I canât risk changes that would break things for anyone. However, if you want to do this yourself, itâs technically possible, if you want to make your own PGS subtitles and donât mind writing the code to make it happen.
Mr. BelbucusâŚi have written you a private message
Belbucus hasnât been active here in many, many years. If you have a question, itâs better to ask in the forum where someone is much more likely to see your message.
PM sent.
PM sent.
I would love a link for the sup files. Thank you so much for your amazing work!
Youâre welcome! PM sent.
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 youâre 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 itâs because Iâm on a mac?
Hard to say. There could be tsMuxerGUI version differences (Iâm 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.
Verified, I burned this to a BD-50 and played it back in a hardware player. Itâs 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 youâre 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 Iâve 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 â mineâs 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 Iâm also experimenting with menus, and just forget that nonsense. With menus, you canât even get a single lossless track in, even with very conservative authoring options. So if you want a disc with menus, youâre 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 couldnât 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.
Can I get a link please?
I only have .srt subtitles but I want the .sup files or PGS
Thanks in advance!
PM sent.
Can I get a link too? Thanks!
PM sent.
PM sent.
PM sent.
PM sent.
I think the initial confusion is that you mean rotj 2.5* (not 2.7) is still listed.
And I think thatâs 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 itâs 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. Itâs the same general process, just with better-quality sources in 4K. I suspect 2.5 wasnât 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). The DVD cover art is very similar, but some changes were necessary due to the different case proportions.
Theyâre 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. Thereâs nothing preservation-specific about these covers, so theyâd work just as well for Despecialized, 4Kxx, D+xx, or anything else you like.
There are also âalternate artworkâ versions, which more faithfully reproduce the artwork on the home video releases:
As a bonus, thereâs also cover art for the Holiday Special in a matching style (includes alternate artwork for runtimes with and without commercials; only non-commercial version is shown below):
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; bottom row is for alternate artwork and the Holiday Special):
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 Iâve never tried.
50GB BD-R will work, but youâll probably want to scale back the audio tracks, or youâll 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 youâre actually using donât go over that limit.
Holy shit, itâs been a while since I last checked in this 3.1 UHD version looks amazing. Itâll just burn to a regular 50gb BD-R right, havenât bothered looking into burning UHD.
50GB BD-R will work, but youâll probably want to scale back the audio tracks, or youâll 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!
The English tracks are theatrically synced, not sure about all the dubs but for dubs, falling out if sync by one or two frames shouldnât 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?
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. Canât blame the UHD source for this either.
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. Itâs gonna be passed down like a family heirloom.
Until version 3.2. đ
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. Iâll 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 youâre happy with OTD83, youâll be delighted with Despecialized.
No snark intended. I just donât feel the need to have fake grain added to the picture. Iâll 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 didnât 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 âI donât want fake grain⌠so Iâm sticking with this other preservation thatâs full of fake grain!â).
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. Itâs gonna be passed down like a family heirloom.
Until version 3.2. đ
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. Iâll 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 youâre happy with OTD83, youâll be delighted with Despecialized.
No snark intended. I just donât feel the need to have fake grain added to the picture. Iâll stick with D+83 unless I see some screencaps that sway me otherwise.
Do you think the official releases doesnât have fake grain? Why is fake grain so sanctimonious?
TIL that some old (pre-2020) versions of the D+ projects actually didnât 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 wonât even upgrade to a recent version of D+83/OTD83, and theyâre okay with the jarring grain transitions of the older versions. Thatâs a choice.
