This user has been banned.
If it was all about the amount of time it would’ve taken then, sincerely no offense but honestly, you as a forum made a bad decision.
I was going to clarify 005’s statement since it’s not 100% accurate to my memory, but after reading this, nevermind. Someone else can bother.
- I am not going to alter the timing of the crawl or opening shot, since doing so causes unnecessary problems.
Have you considered replacing the overly-fast-receding SW logo with the correct-speed one from the Spanish language crawl? That wouldn’t require changing the crawl itself or the opening flyover.
Canon states six months between ESB and ROTJ.
Sadly we are going to have to find another print. The one I have has turned out to be toxic, and damn near killed me. We are yet to ascertain what the substance is on the print, but it is very bad news.
The print is also pretty bad shape.
Here is a sample.
https://wetransfer.com/downloads/b389dfc6c7adc0434cc6e3ad640e857a20181009113440/6b9d705f4177f746d01dcb12ed5b9da120181009113440/7d61a8
I’m really sorry about this, I got completely screwed by the seller, I am on the lookout for a replacement.
I don’t recommend any form of stick-on/adhesive label. They ruined most of the discs I used them on over time, and I’ve heard horror stories of them ruining disc drives as well.
If you want disc labels, the only truly safe way to do it is to get printable discs and use a compatible printer, unfortunately.
I think he’s wanting to know what the difference is in quality between 2.5 and 2.7 of Despecialized in general.
Here’s the thread about v2.7, which started as towne32’s personal color correction of v2.5 and grew into an official DEED release.
From his first post (paragraph 1 is from when it was just 2.5 with color tweaks; paragraph 2 is from when he made additional changes and he called it 2.6; paragraph 3 is about the current version, 2.7, for which Harmy provided him with the original source files):
…this is a color adjusted version of Harmy’s Star Wars Despecialized 2.5. … Harmy took a unique take on the color timing. Because he had access to frames of a scanned IB Technicolor print, he based the 2.5 coloring on that. Harmy did an amazing job matching those scans. Some of the big differences in color could have only made his job more difficult, and his product looks like Technicolor scans. … Harmy was not aware at the time that his scans had not yet been corrected to match the way the print looks when projected. … The goal is just to make a more consistent version color wise that, for me, is ideal for watching in a trilogy with Harmy’s other two releases.
…
This is now available as Star Wars Despecialized 2.6 as AVCHD, MKV, and BD iso with alternate crawl options. MKV format releases have a fixed Castilian audio track as well as Russian, Ukranian, Thai, and Navajo dubs (in addition to the tracks in 2.5). Replaced some shots using TN1’s Silver Screen Edition, mostly for purely GOUT based shots like Luke heading to his X-wing. I did some extra manual and automatic cleanup and stabilization, and did my best to match the color, contrast, grain, and sharpness to surrounding shots.
…
Despecialized 2.7 builds off of 2.6 with additional color changes, mostly removing some green from the desert and Death Star. Additionally, the “A Long Time Ago” card is a cleaned up version from the Silver Screen Edition (SSE). It also features Catbus’s excellent Greedo subtitles that were derived from the SSE, and Darth Lucas rotoscoped the lightsaber blade in Ben’s hut from the SSE. This version has better video quality as I used Harmy’s lossless encodings. It features a Hindi track and Project Threepio v9.2 subtitles.
He’s saying “father” in response to Vader’s telepathic “Luke” call from the Star Destroyer.
I saw Dial M on an active 3D Panasonic plasma not long after the Blu-Ray came out. I’d seen Gravity on the same TV and that one didn’t make me go cross-eyed, but the 3D didn’t seem to add much of anything to that movie for me, either.
House of Wax was in a theater years ago. Pretty sure it was 35mm and it wasn’t the red/blue glasses. I don’t remember a ton about it other than that I had to force myself to sit through the last half or so of it and take a bunch of Tylenol after.
Okay, last one for a while probably - alternate TLJ with the Dolby Cinema poster on front. I don’t know who did the logo removal on the source I used, but it wasn’t me. It had a prequel-style “Episode VIII” logo on it that I cropped out.
Here’s a textless version of that poster I made using the highest quality sources I could find:
https://mega.nz/#!LM0xFIBK!OE1LrWmMmgXb5DqYHOMzYhLv36gmK7_gU1tSM47j7vc
Hey look, a whole year later and I finally got around to using this - AND my preferred fan-designed logo, thanks to natedeug’s much more patient work in cleaning it up!
Here’s my preferred version (with the aforementioned logo and the Dolby poster - thanks again to Neverar for his excellent work in removing the logos on the poster!):
And here’s the official one-sheet with the new logo:
The “saga spine” variants are finished too, I just haven’t uploaded them yet. I’ll probably reupload all of these covers in all variants in a big album in the next few days so they’re all in one spot again. And maybe make a thread specifically for mine. I dunno yet.
Still gotta make a cover for Solo, too…
The TLJ teaser poster and Dolby Cinema poster are the best SW posters since the Struzan “Revenge of the Jedi” teaser.
I’ve seen tons of fan TFA posters that I like much better than any of the official ones. The “main” one-sheet is horrible, as you say, and I was very much let down by Struzan’s D23 poster.
Struzan’s prequel posters are pretty good (AOTC is probably the best of the three, which is funny because it’s far and away the worst movie of the saga). The SE posters work okay as a triptych but I dislike them as individual posters since all three of them get something wrong (ESB Leia on the SW poster, ROTJ Emperor and Vader’s ANH TIE on the ESB poster, and the ESB Cloud City Luke/Vader duel on the ROTJ poster).
Rogue One’s posters are all very generic, though I think there was one or two I didn’t mind. Solo’s posters mostly have a nice, pulpy feel to them, but I’m not too familiar with them as I kind of wrote off the movie during its marketing push.
Hoping Abrams goes with something more “classic” with IX than he did with TFA.
Watch some 50’s 3D before damning the format, thank you very much.
I’ve seen a couple. Dial M for Murder and House of Wax come to mind. It was uncomfortable and unpleasant and probably made me dislike the movies more than I otherwise would have.
I legitimately just don’t understand the appeal in any way.
All of this 4k talk has made me completely forget about the 3D versions of I-VI.
TPM got a theatrical 3D re-release in early 2012 but never made it to 3D blu-ray. The stereo conversions of AotC and RotS were finished shortly thereafter but have only been seen at fan conventions.
Then there’s the OT, which they were doing tests on as early as 2007 but was never finished.
People still give a shit about 3D? Why can’t that garbage stay dead? I can maybe see a 3D movie shown via a VR headset being worth it, but that’s it. Closest I ever came to enjoying 3D was Avatar in IMAX 3D and the first Hobbit in 48fps 3D, and with both of those I stopped noticing they were in 3D within about half an hour anyway other than having to adjust those stupid-ass glasses, so what’s the point?
I have literally never seen a version of ESB where he doesn’t say “father” in that scene.
Well, it probably won’t exist for some time, if at all. And even then, the DTS 1997 SE audio will likely be my primary source, which would rule out any alternate language tracks.
I actually think the Broadcast version is better although only stereo it is just better IMO… Might be slight parts missing due to adverts and so on but you can get it off archive at the mo.
How is it better than cinema DTS, laserdisc Dolby 5.1, or laserdisc PCM stereo?
You can always upscale ANH:R for that section in a pinch.
Likely not, as the DNR version had additional cleanup work and a different color correction from the non-DNR version. I’m sure you could take the DNR version and get the colors close to this (maybe Dre’s color matching tool would work?), but you’d have to start over and generate new LUTs - the ones shared here for the non-DNR version would give you different output colors since the starting colors aren’t the same.
Yeah, those are the most current version. Again, not sure if you’re noticing GOUT shots or just optical composite shots that are a couple film generations away from the surrounding ones or not, but these aren’t things that will be improved by getting the MKV version.
You might want to look into the Blu-Ray ISO versions of 4K77 and 4K83 for SW and ROTJ, or the 4K DNR MKVs if you have equipment that can handle 4K H265 video. That will at least eliminate the possibility of it being a lower-quality source patched in to remove a Blu-Ray change, but if it’s just an optical compositing thing then it will still look fuzzier, just in 1080p (or 4K). There isn’t really an equivalent for ESB yet, though (4K80 is a long ways off as it’s going to require a lot of work).
I wouldn’t recommend 4K77 Non-DNR for you as it seems like grain is something you’re not a fan of, and film prints of SW77 are pretty grainy. It’s still there in the DNR release (which the BR ISO uses), but significantly reduced.
All of those shots you linked to are effects/composite shots, which are going to be softer and grainier just by the nature of how they were done (multiple layers of film layered on top of one another). 4K83 in particular has shown (to me, at least) that ROTJ’s effects shots are noticeably less sharp/defined compared to its “pure”/non-composite shots.
Some of those shots might have been “Despecialized” using low resolution laserdisc/GOUT material, too, since they may have been made before higher quality sources like 4K77 became available. I’m not sure about that, though, and I don’t know which version of the AVCHDs you have (2.0, 2.5, 2.7), nor do I know offhand which GOUT shots remain in which versions.
Yeah, I explained the difference in video between the AVCHD and MKV. They use the same video master, but the AVCHD is more highly compressed than the MKV. So literally the only difference is the “blockiness” (compression artifacts) that you deem to be “irrelevant.”
If what you’re looking for is higher resolution (1080p vs 720p), you won’t get it. Despecialized is 720p in all flavors.
Maybe if you described your “gripes” with the AVCHD in more detail we could be more helpful to you.
MySpleen invitations are closed at this time. There are mutterings that it may be reopened again at some point, but it’s been a long time since they’ve allowed invites, so I wouldn’t hold my breath.
Ady did that because Threepio doesn’t recognize Leia’s hologram later in the movie, so it seems odd for him to mention her by name there. I think some versions of the scene (script? novelization? on-set dialogue? can’t remember) has him say “There’ll be no escape for the Captain this time.”
Isn’t that the US version?
Grain’s kind of beside the point. Grain is supposed to be there, it’s the film equivalent of pixels. The AVCHD will likely have less grain due to a higher degree of compression, while the MKV will be less compressed and thus more able to preserve fine detail, such as film grain.
The image I linked showcases the difference between minimal and heavy compression. The MKV is less compressed than the AVCHD, so if you notice any difference between the two, it will be similar to that “Avatar” comparison.
Having said that, the AVCHD versions are very carefully compressed, so they still look quite good. But if you’ve got a larger screen or sit fairly close to it, the compression artifacts will become more apparent and the MKV will be a worthwhile upgrade.
If you don’t notice any compression artifacts (“blocky” areas of the picture) in the AVCHD, then the MKV won’t really offer you much benefit. It depends on how readily you notice compression in general, the size of the TV/monitor you’re watching it on, and how close you sit to it.
Basically, if you don’t notice any difference between the “original” and “compressed” sides of this picture, then the AVCHD is probably plenty high quality for you. If you can tell the difference, then you’ll probably notice a quality bump with the MKV.
If you’re going to be doing any reencoding, particularly for color alterations, it’s always going to be a better idea to convert it to a lossless (or near-lossless) codec first. H264 is… not that.
I recommend Lagarith personally, though I’ve zero experience working with it in any resolution greater than 1080p, and even that does require fairly large file sizes.
