Chewtobacca

I hope that 2015 is a good year for all of you.

althor1138 said: Just because there is slightly higher chroma resolution with 4:2:2 doesn't mean that is perceivable. I'd recommend putting out only blu-ray compliant files. Even muxing into a file container such as mkv can have unwanted effects.

I agree.  Moreover, eac3to reports that there is something wrong with the frame-rate of the video stream, which might have implications for decoding.

Jonno said: I think the issue is that, while decent BD players support a range of colorspace outputs, the BD video spec is only ever 4:2:0.

Yes.

I can't imagine that would be a very pleasurable experience - don't folks like to get immersed in movies any more?

If the PC is set up properly and connected to a big TV screen or projector, the experience is just as immersive and pleasurable – at least to me.

rchdggr said:  Sooo, I downloaded the 720p DVD9 version. Do I just burn it on to a DL DVD disc as is ("write files/folders to disc" using ImgBurn)?

As is, the MKV is neither DVD nor AVCHD compatible, so you cannot simply burn it to disc unless you know that your player can handle files of this kind.

Jonno said: Is there a quick route to BD-friendly video without re-encoding?

 No.

For those who want one, I made an (unofficial) NTSC DVD-5 from the 1080p version. PM me for links.

EDIT: There has been some interest in synchronizing this to the NTSC GOUT.  It is not an interest that I share; however, people who are re-encoding to end up with compatible files might wish to take the opportunity to mux in their favorite audio, so...

Loadplugin("C:\Program Files (x86)\Haali\MatroskaSplitter\avss.dll")

ESB=FFmpegSource2("02-ESB_Grindhouse_1080p_BD25.mkv").ConvertToYV12()#.ShowFrameNumber(scroll=true)

ESB2= \
Trim(ESB,    0,3096).Loop(12,0,0) ++ \
ESB.Loop(6,30727,30727).Trim(3096,    35385) ++ \
ESB.Loop(3,35381,35381).Trim(35381,    59546) ++ \
ESB.Loop(7,59544,59544).Trim(59544,    59758) ++ \
ESB.Loop(5,59753,59753).Trim(59753,    75034) ++ \
Trim(ESB,75030,75978) ++ \
Trim(ESB,75978,90851) ++ \
ESB.Loop(7,90852,90852).Trim(90852,    104633).DuplicateFrame(13781) ++ \
Trim(ESB,104627,121679) ++ \
ESB.Loop(24,121679,121679).Trim(121679, 150156) ++ \
ESB.Loop(11,150134,150134).Trim(150134, 0)


return ESB2

The frames that are duplicated are in places without a great deal of motion, and some of them are almost certainly at reel changes (where there is a difference in the number of black frames after a fade to black), so the script is not as bad as it looks when it comes to frame duplication.  Take it or leave it. :D

Happy Christmas, everyone! :-)

You might try VideoReDo.

Doctor M said:ADM's video is a mix of 29.97i and 23.976p video.  So short of re-encoding to full progressive, this needs to be edited with the pulldown flags intact(?)

It does.  Have you tried re-encoding the whole audio?  I can't think of anything else.  It's been years since I used Womble.

Does the end product have to be a DVD?  If not, you could perform an inverse telecine, edit in another program, and use then x264 to recompress.  With decent settings, you probably wouldn't notice any difference in quality.

Yes, or simply demux the video stream.

^^ What Darth Mallwalker said.

I make menus in Photoshop, save them as PSDs with the buttons as layers, and right-click on the layers to link them up.  This approach might not help you though...

Those are more or less my conclusions too.  (I never end up using Yadifmod either.)  For QTGMC, I would add only that the higher the resolution, the less apparent the benefits of using the slower presets are.  For SD, I usually use the default; for HD, I often switch to fast.

Yes; rePal is certainly another option.  I always struggle to see much difference between the different plug-ins that undo field-blending: some of the resulting frames look better with one plugin and some with another, so I tend to stick with SRestore.   The quality of the bobber makes more of a difference as far as I can see.

There are blends – many of them.  Try SRestore.  I think you might be right that the original frame-rate is 25fps, but I'm far from an expert on this sort of thing.

It would help to have a short sample with plenty of movement.  The absence of blends is encouraging.  It suggests that the conversion was made by duplicating fields, in which case it should be possible to comb out the duplicates.

Mavimao said: He did work on Jedi's audio? I just remember him doing the Stereo and Mono 77 mixes on S.W. 

Belbucus definitely released audio for all three films because I still have the delay values.

SW: + 1.017s

ESB: + .948s

ROTJ: + 1.015s

I can't remember what the tracks were, nor do I know whether Harmy has any use for them, but I thought I'd point out that (as far I can recall) they are all synced to the NTSC GOUT.

CatBus said:hariy_hen's ROTJ 5.1 audio used NTSC GOUT by mistake, but he plans to fix this.

I could be wrong, but I think that Belbucus' audio pre-dates the decision to use the PAL GOUT and is also synced to the NTSC GOUT.

JawsTDS said:Here's a link that contains both progressive and interlaced material from the show

It's slightly more complicated than that.  There are sections with progressive material, sections with true interlaced material, and sections with field-blended material.

JawsTDS said:The plethora of companies that have released the show on VHS/DVD from the late 80s till now have always used pulldown. It's a confusing scenario, but they got it done flawlessly somehow.

I doubt it.  The scenario that you outlined in the first post is far from common, and there is no flawless solution.  You could try using DGPulldown to add 3:2:3:2:2 pulldown flags to the video.  This is one of the presets: check the fourth radio button (25-->29.97).  The advantage is that you wouldn't need to re-encode the video.

EDIT:  I misread the first post.  It seems that you are talking about stand-alone players.  In which case, you will have to re-encode the video in order to resize it.  You will have to resize carefully because of the interlaced sections.

If you really want to spend time on this, you could write an AviSynth script that breaks each episode into sections, handles each section separately, and then recombines them.  For the progressive sections, no processing is needed; for the interlaced sections, use your favorite deinterlacer, such as QTGMC or YadifMod; for the field-blended sections, do the same as for the interlaced sections, but follow it with SRestore.

After that, you would have 25p material and various options from which to choose when making the conversion to NTSC.  It's probably too much work though.

PDB said:  Sounds best left to a person who knows what they are doing with AVIsynth scripts.

I'm not quite sure what this means.

EDIT:  The work would not be difficult: it would simply be very laborious, so it's not as much a matter of knowing what one is doing as it is of having the time and the patience.  (In my opinion, it's not worth the effort.)

Spaced Ranger said:  And I'm guessing a (working) Avisynth script probably won't do better than the paint program demonstration.

Yes, and whoever wrote the script would have to resize every shot in turn, which would be a mammoth task.

TServo2049 said: I'll probably just do a WeTransfer to you two Wookiees...

 Hahaha!  Thanks. :-)

That is confusing because the director's cut was released in 2002, so it doesn't seem old enough to have some of the features that this broadcast has.  I understand what you're saying about this channel's having pan-and-scan versions of almost everything they broadcast, but I don't understand the hissy mono, nor the presence of the same caption as the ABC TV cut.

Perhaps this is simply a different TV cut, or perhaps the director's cut somehow pre-dates the DVD release  Regardless, I would definitely be interested in having a look if TServo2049 is willing to share it.

^ Perhaps there isn't, but I'm still curious to see what it looks like.  I also wonder if what SilverWook saw initially was different from subsequent broadcasts.  He said that the commercial breaks and fade outs were in the same places, and he knows the film well.

SilverWook, was what you saw in widescreen or 4:3?  I had assumed it was 4:3.

I suspected that that be the case from what was being described.  The two are very close.