Chewtobacca

It sounds like you are editing correctly anyway.  If track A is fading into track B at a cut point, track A should extend several frames beyond the cut point (i.e. to the right of it), and track B should start several frames before the cut point (i.e. to the left of it).  Womble does tend to make random pops at times anyway, but having those options checked should help.

This is a known bug with Womble.  You have to overlap the two audio tracks that you are crossfading and apply at least a three-frame fade out to the first audio track and a three-frame fade in to the second.  

If you do not do this, the pop might not be in the preview, but it will be in the exported file.  Womble is a pain sometimes.

When you say you have two video tracks on the timeline, I take it you mean one next to the other on the same track, but they are from different sources rather than the same source.  Are you working with muxed audio?

Another thing that helps is making sure these options in Womble's options are checked:

• Gop size compliance for DVD recording;
• Use CRC protection;
• Re-encode the whole audio if any part needs fixing.

Possessed said:

Alright well I'm tired of waiting around on this forum for help.  Everythings done, but I'm not going to upload a 4 gb dvd on a free account and I'm not getting a premium account.

I would be willing, but I don't touch torrents under any circumstances.  Try uploading it on a free account.  It might not take that long.  Multiupload is supposed to be good and quite fast.  It would be a shame if no one saw your edit. 

ChainsawAsh said:

Heh, yeah, you're a bit late on the reply there, Chewie.  ;-)

You're right LOL!  I only checked the date of the last post that Kurgan added so I didn't think to look at the others.  It didn't occur to me that the thread would be so old.  I assumed it was a new thread.

My mistake...  :-)

zeppelinrox said:

Well, AssumFPS would alter the running time and as I explained previously, I didn't want to change it, as things would get ugly really fast if I had to start messing with audio :P

Oh, I see that I did say "playback speed" at one point. My bad.

I understand now.  Thanks! :-)

Womble outputs atrocious quality when it exports HD material.  You really need to think about using another editing program if you want to edit in HD.

I suppose you could export a lossless AVI from Womble and then encode that with MeGUI or something.  I have never tried it though.

Moreover, if you are keeping full HD resolution, I recommend you encode to at least a DVD-9 size.  A DVD-5 will not cut it.

You might want to check out adigitalman's (DVD) extended edition of TPM, if you only want a pure extended edition.  It might have done your work for you. :-)

CompMovieGuy said:

Look up what DVDs are Anamorphic but are pillerboxed, yes they do exist
Some older James Bond movies, Transformers The Movie PAL R2....while not quite common, its done

I don't need to look it up now that I know what you mean.  I thought you meant that I had some kind of setting wrong--that's all.

CompMovieGuy said:
As to your "edited" point, that "junk" on some DVDs is actual picture information on some DVDs, and it is not overscanned if your setup is configured properly. And all stuidos and companies should "alter" the standards for such is pretty laughable....

No, it just looks like picture information.  It does not count towards the computation of the aspect ratio. It is indeed junk and can merrily be discarded.

Studios have no need to alter their standards.  What I am talking about is part of the DVD standard and always has been.  Any studio that doesn't author a disc in accordance with it is making a mistake.

I dont want to clog up Djs thread anymore, all hes doing is taking gforces script and carrying it out, if you have a problem with the script (which it sounds like you do) then Id say take it up with gforce in his thread.

I have done so, and I was asking dark_jedi about his plans for his implementation of the script (which was on topic) before you began this argument.  You are right about clogging up this thread, but I think we're through anyway, so I will not post in this thread on this topic again.

CompMovieGuy said:

To the first point, yes, per the player, NOT the TV.

The TV needs to display them at 1:1, if you are using an old player or sending 480 to the TV then YES you would need the TV to stretch the picture (wide mode).

But if you are using an upscale player, and at that one that is not super cheap (Bluray or quality DVD player), then you set the mode to regular or full or whatever it is and set it to 1:1 pixel map (on the TV), and the player itself determines the signal to send via the control menu of the player.

I dont know how you might be doing it, but perhaps youre sending the wrong signal or you just want an anamorphically enhanced pillarboxed image.....

That's just total nonsense.  What on Earth is an anamorphically enhanced pillarboxed image?

edited -  do you mean the eight pixels of junk on either side of the "core" 704x480 image?  If so, then yes, that is what I want, and that is how all DVDs should be authored.

The TV needs to be set to 16:9 with DVD material, whether you are upscaling or not.  Moth3r explained what the player should upscale to above.

@Chewtobacca

They should be viewed in Wide/16:9 mode even on a set with a 1:1 mode, or a small error in aspect ratio will result.

I think you are getting non anamorphic dvd output confused with anamorphic dvd output. Yes, non anamorphic DVDs are tougher to make display properly correctly on some HDTVs.....but this isnt going to be the case with these encodes, obviously

Needlessly resizing the video horizontally will lower quality. The script could easily be adjusted to remove the horizontal resizing.

If you dont want to resize it to the full area afforded by the anamorphic enhancement.....you want him to take out the resize all together and just make a separate non anamorphic for you? cmon now its call working with what you got

There is not a snowball's chance in hell that I would confuse non-anamorphic and anamorphic DVD output.  Anamorphic DVDs are not at all hard to make, and this has nothing to with making a separate encode for me.  I can and will make my own.  This is about ensuring the best possible release for the community.

I never said I wanted all the resize taken out,  Resizing for anamorphic needs to involve vertical resizing of the GOUT image, not horizontal.  Horizontal resizing is not necessary and will adversely affect the image.  A 704x480 DVD does use the the full area afforded by anamorphic enhancement, and yes I support an anamorphic release.

All anamorphic DVD require display at 16:9/Wide mode.  Displaying them at 1:1 is simply wrong, unless you are almost certain that the studio neglected to take nominal analogue blanking into acount when authoring the DVD, in which case the studio made an error.

d020 said:

Today I compared the NTSC Faces LD of ROTJ with the PAL DVD of the GOUT and it seems to be the same master. The dirt and aliasing artefakts where the same. So I don´t think there is much to gain from using the PAL release. Perhaps they just used a different filter than the NTSC release.

Nonetheless, the PAL GOUT looks a bit better than the NTSC.  There is no reason to not use it.

CompMovieGuy said:

With all do respect Chewtobacca, this is 2010
You should as well as most people on this board should have a TV/monitor that will accept/do 1:1 pixel mapping

I do have a TV with such as setting, but that is not the issue, as Moth3r explained.  DVDs are meant to take overscan into account; if they do not, they have been incorrectly produced.  They should be viewed in Wide/16:9 mode even on a set with a 1:1 mode, or a small error in aspect ratio will result.

Needlessly resizing the video horizontally will lower quality. The script could easily be adjusted to remove the horizontal resizing.

Dark_jedi, are you going to alter the resizing values in G-Force's scripts to prevent horizontal resizing?  With the greatest of respect to G-Force, the values in the scripts are simply wrong, as they needlessly stretch perfectly good picture, shifting it into the overscan area.  It would be much better not to resize horizontally.

zeppelinrox said:

TDeint(Mode=2,Order=0,tryWeave=true)
Spline36Resize(720,480)
ChangeFPS(23.976)
limitedsharpenfaster()
converttoyuy2(interlaced=true)

I don't understand why you have put interlaced=true because it looks like you have deinterlaced it.  Also, may I ask why you have used ChangeFPS and not AssumeFPS?  I just don't understand. :-)

I really would post this over at Videohelp and ask manono or jagabo to have a look at it.  The source material seems really quite problematic. 

Doctor M said:  It's just one of those things that I don't feel strongly about preserving from the theater.  It's just subtitles FCOL.

I agree with this, and I do not care much what the subtitles look like.  Nonetheless, some people with Constant Image Height Projectors might want them in the picture.  (There are actually 21:9 televisions, but they are far from common.)

G-Force, did you adjust the scripts to avoid horizontal resizing after all?  I think this would be highly desirable.

Moreover, surely someone who wants use these in their own projects will apply the scripts to the original GOUT DVDs not an encode. 

TV's Frink said:  The other thought I had is that if I do this, J T34 might see it and then unignore people and ruin the fun.

Thoughts?

I doubt he would.  I do think this thread should stay in off topic though.

By the way, Moth3r mentioned somewhere that J T34 was ignoring him, so you could add him to the list.

Frink, it would be fun to edit the first post with a second list of all the people Jedi Temple34 is confirmed to be ignoring and see how long it gets!

Harmy, I watched this last night and overall the colors looked fine to me.  I did not spot any glaring errors.  I will have another little look and PM you any small points I notice, but so far this looks very good. :-)

zeppelinrox said:

All apps report as interlaced, bottom field first.

It's quite obvious when I tested it by encoding a short clip without deinterlacing. It looked pretty bad.

I think that's why the DGPulldown technique resulting in a shimmering/vibrating/pulsating picture LOL

I agree with all of that.  Just for reference, don't rely on apps to tell you something is interlaced, as they usually just report how it is encoded.  It's best to look at the video.  :-)

Those shots Darth Mallwalker posted look pretty bad.  I don't think there's anything that can be done about that. :-(  I wonder what happened.  Perhaps the video was improperly deinterlaced and then reinterlaced somehow.

zeppelinrox said:  The problem I'm having is that I can't stand the ghosting/blended frames that many guides deliver and it doesn't help that the source is interlaced. 

Is it truly interlaced?  I supppose this must be the material that does not come from the film itself, because that is obviously not interlaced.  I am afraid that I am not likely to be much help.  I have never actually used Convertfps() or Changefps() to be honest!

DarthBo said:

schorman13 said:

Not everyone has the pal source to start with though.

Unlike the ntsc source?

LOL!  What DarthBo said.

Either way, dark_jedi will make sure an NTSC version reaches people.  It seems that many don't encode for themselves anyway.

ChainsawAsh said:

Plus, if the NTSC is synched to the NTSC GOUT, you can just use one of the PCM audio tracks synched to the GOUT from laserdisc transfers.

That's true, and it would be better than re-encoding the PAL audio.  I seem to remember Moth3r saying at some point that the PAL and NTSC GOUT DVDs for ROTJ had the same number of frames, so it should be possible.

Murry Sparkles said:

Ive just realised i  on Jedi Temple34 ignored list :-(.

Did you post in his thread on DTS?  I think he might have put everyone who posted in that thread on his ignore list regardless of what they posted, which might explain the fact that his ignore list sometimes seems randomly chosen.

bkev said:

Will the final version be pitch-corrected Harmy? A particular pet peeve of mine, I must admit... I'll go into more detail on the edit itself once I do more than spot check it

Which final release are you talking about: the PAL or the NTSC?  Harmy has said that there will be both.

If you are talking about the pitch correction that is sometimes part of a PAL to NTSC conversion, then I doubt it will be necessary, as PAL source material is almost never pitch corrected in the first place, so slowing down the PAL audio will restore the sound of the original audio.

If you are talking about something else, then my mistake! :-)

Zeppelinrox, are you aware of the audio issue that was explained in this post?  Apparently, the audio for this project cannot simply be slowed down in the usual fashion owing to the way in which it was made. 

I'm just checking.  Sorry if you know this already! :-)

JediTray, G-Force is talking about using the PAL version because it is of higher quality.  A conversion to NTSC could be built into the script, so an NTSC release would still be made; it is just that the source would be PAL.