Chewtobacca

Andrea, if you are using EasyBD Lite, disable b-pyramid because it does not like it.  This also helps compatibility, as does disabling weightp.  You might also try closing gops.

Level 4.1 requires 4 slices, whereas Level 4.0 does not. Once you have chosen one, there is no reason to change when remuxing (as you said you did in post 2).

Does multiAVCHD not accept elementary streams as input? If it does, that's what I'd use.  What are you using to encode?

kk650 said:I have to disagree with you though about his colours being better.

I don't think they're better – just different.  They are practically perfect as far as I'm concerned, but that's just personal preference.  You might be right about what looks natural and what doesn't, and I neither know nor care what ESB looked like theatrically.  In fact, Ady has said that the color correction on it was incomplete, and his work has moved on, so I probably like the colors of his '97 SE more than he now does. :D

I have to maintain consistency in colour grading across the three films in terms of fleshtones and white balance, I would not be doing so if I did something similar to what he's done, but if you like what i've done with Star Wars, I do hope you at least give my grade of ESB a chance to see whether it changes your mind about what colours look good to you. The fact that you liked the scene after the chamber tells me you liked the fleshtones and white balance on my regrade so try giving the whole film a chance when I release it, you may yet be surprised.

That all makes sense, and I will give your release a chance.  I meant to say only that it's not worth trying to take my preferences into account when regrading the film because they're too different.

And I don't think it's blasphemy round here to criticize Adywan's work.  Plenty of us do (respectfully, of course). :-)

To be honest, I don't see much difference.  :-(  Pleasing me when it comes to ESB is almost impossible though because I think the colors that Adywan gave to his reconstruction of the '97 SE were practically perfect.  Just please yourself with the colors for ESB, and I'll wait patiently for Star Wars. :-)

kk650 said:As for ESB, did you check the 'normal' clip as well that has reduced saturation or just the first technicolor one? Its sounds like your issue with the amount of blue when luke's in the chamber is simply an issue of saturation, not of the colours themselves.

Sorry.  What I wrote was rather vague.  I did mean that I don't like the colors themselves in the chamber.  :-(

Yes.  I checked out both clips.  I prefer the classic one, as I do for Star Wars.

I really like your latest settings for Star Wars, kk650, especially the "normal" version, which looks just right to me.  As for ESB, I'm not sure.  I don't like all the blue when Luke's in the chamber, but the following scene looks good.

^^ The colors in the image that shows Sean Connery look great.

This is a new thread for the 1080p version, so it's possible that not everyone who supported NeverarGreat in the old thread has gotten round to posting in this one.  I still support this project and am pleased to see the move to 1080p.

The Aluminum Falcon said:Spartacus (1960)- 2/10- An unmitigated failure in almost all respects. It is DVNR'ed to the point that the figures start looking like wax, and one gets the uncanny valley effect. It was taken from an old transfer ridden with scanner noise. To add icing on the cake, the color restoration work, based off of an IB print, done by Robert Harris, has been completely ignored. The audio prevents this from having a 0/10.

The HD DVD looks like the BD but lacks the heavy DNR.  I tried to color-correct the HD DVD to match the Criterion DVD, but ColourLike()/ColourLikeFBF() can be used to render only short clips because of a livelock issue.

I agree with Moth3r.  Andrea, making a disclaimer that others can use is a good idea, but it need not be set in stone.

Happy Christmas, everyone!

Mickey's Christmas Carol is great and short enough to watch after one of the other versions in a single sitting.  I also like the Patrick Stewart version, largely because of his performance.  The 2009 version was surprisingly enjoyable; like Warbler, I don't have a problem with the animation.

This was a good idea for a thread. :-)

drngr said:Perfectly clear to you; as a reader of your post I saw a factual statement with nothing indicating what you based it on.

The fact that I didn't say what I was basing the statement on does not make the statement unclear.  Not giving a basis for a statement and saying something that is ambiguous are not the same thing.

drngr said:Err, what?

What I said is perfectly clear.  If you disagree, just say so, politely.

This review compares Sony's 20th Anniversary DVD and Metrodome's UE DVD.  Despite some color and framing differences, the two look very similar.  Although I didn't compare the UE DVD and BD frame by frame, they looked almost exactly the same when I watched them. I can't prove it, but I'd say that all three share a source.

I thought that only socks were admitted to this thread.  What are you guys doing posting in it?

Ric was an entertaining sock because he seemed to have a personality of his own, like a good ventriloquist's dummy.  Other socks achieved this in the short term, but Ric remained amusing in the long term, partly because we all knew that he was a sock who wouldn't be overused or used negatively: it was a running joke.  The fact that Frink was allowed him for this reason (and because he slipped through the net) made the forum a brighter place.  It's a shame that he was a casualty of the recent activity, and I would respectfully ask that he be reinstated.

skyjedi2005 said:Also what is the best version of the full frame 4:3

I say it's the Sony disc, but none of the 4:3 releases are great.  All the PAL ones are field blended, as far as I know.  Unfortunately, my Sony 4:3 disc is missing.  :-(

TServo2049 said:The only question that remains is if the LD has a 1.66:1 framing that contains all info shown in both the 4x3 and 16x9 transfers.

That is indeed the question.

You made me want to watch Bakshi's LotR! :D

TServo2049 said:Would any of the 1.33:1 releases have been open-matte, rather than cropped? I know quite a few animated films were shot at 1.33 and then matted.

IMDb says that the cinematic process was spherical, so I think Watership Down was natively widescreen.

Yes.   I'm sure.

The UK and Australian BDs use the same transfer as the Ultimate Edition DVD and the 20th Anniversary Special Edition DVD.  The Reconstructed DVD uses a different transfer according to this review, and that seems likely to me, because it looks very different.

I have bookmarked links to quite a few informative sites about Transformers: The Movie.  I'll post them if anyone is interested.

bigrob said:maybe that will give an indication to colour timing?

Unfortunately, the colors on that DVD are far too saturated, especially the reds.  They are not broadcast legal, so I wouldn't use the disc as a guide to color timing.

If I had it, I would send it.  I thought that all the LDs were the same AR, but some are 1.33:1, according to LDDb.  It seems we need to track down 34003 or 3127-4.

Andrea, have you considered preserving the LD of Watership Down?  (I know it's not on your list, but I thought that this would be the best thread to ask about it.)  Apparently, it's 1.66:1, which makes it the only OAR release on home video.  All the later DVD and BD releases are cropped to 1.78:1, and the framing looks too tight. The only other option is the OOP UK DVD from Universal, which was cropped to 1.33:1.

It's field blended, which is a real shame because it's an interesting release, despite its many flaws.

And I was indeed referring to eBay auctions in my previous post.  Thanks for setting me straight.  :-)

althor1138 said:   Also, it would be nice to have confirmation of ESB and ROTJ.

I am experiencing the same issues with the '97 SE of RotJ.  The pars fail to repair the archive.

I've not tried ESB.  To be honest, I'm not keen to download over 60GB just to be faced with the same problem.