Chewtobacca

g-force said:  You know, the most time consuming thing is really the convolution (deringing) filter. Painful really, getting rid of ringing without loosing too much sharpness. I suppose if I was working with that PAL version, I wouldn't even bother, as the ringing seems really low judging by the pics from the other thread.

That might mean that a ROTJ script based on the PAL GOUT would be less time consuming to write.  This would ease the burden on you somewhat.

There is no NTSC for AVCHD; nonetheless, PM sent. 

msycamore said: I believe it had two brief altered scenes with the ship Nostromo, where in the original film there was just a black background, it now has a added star field.

Good point!  I think you are right.   Fortunately the starfield doesn't trouble me though.

zombie84 said:  The levels throughout the rest of film probably are more accurate representations of the original answer print, for instance, the white levels of the awakening chamber were dialed down in some telecines because the primitive video couldn't handle whites like that (some early video telecines had the levels of the DC, which just blew out detail, which is why it was diaed back for the subsequent DVDs; the DC didn't have to adjust to such variables since video display was better).

That's really good information.  I always liked the whites on the quadrilogy version. 

ChainsawAsh said:

msycamore said:

It sure looks fantastic on those images, the color timing on Alien seems to be the modern Director's Cut timing though.

Wasn't that the case with the previous 2-disc and Quadrilogy DVDs, as they were seamlessly-branched?

Yes, and I think that is what mysycamore meant.  I had the same thought as he did when I saw the screenshots.  The color timing looked as if it might be subly different from that of the Quadrilogy on the BD screenshots -- maybe a tiny bit closer to the original?  Perhaps it is my imagination, but it would make sense, if the film has been restored, for the colors to be slightly different.

dark_jedi said:

But you must have missed it, g-force only has the NTSC versions, so those will work, either way the finished product is going to look a TON better than the retail GOUT.

No; I didn't miss it.  I am sure there is some way we could "enable" G-Force to work with the PAL ROTJ.

dark_jedi said:

I guess we could convert our PAL version of Jedi to NTSC and then use it instead, if we wanted to do the extra work.

That was my suggestion as well. :-)

That was the thread of which I was thinking.  I searched for it for ages, but Frink is right: the search function is awful.  I can never make it return the desired results, even when I search for subjects that I know we have discussed at length. 

The last comparison definitely shows that the PAL is better in terms of detail.  I definitely think that the ROTJ script should be written for the PAL GOUT.

Doctor M said:  Btw, I HAVE seen over 95% cause problems.  I usually like to know WHY a video isn't reporting 100%.

In my experience, with percentages that high it is usually that studios tack on logos and stuff at the start that are hard telecined, and the rest is normal film, unless it is anime you are talking about. 

Perhaps we should start a new thread for discussing this further. :-D 

I agree with Moth3r.  If you do IVTC, you could try:

mpeg2source("c:\oursource.d2v")
tfm(d2v="c:\oursource.d2v")
tdecimate()

The GOUT ESB seems to be pure film.  DGIndex is fine for percentages over 95%, and IVTC methods in Avisynth are not perfect either.  I have never seen DGIndex cause problems at percentages over 95% and I have used it a great deal.  My question was just meant to rule out the possibility that the script required 29.97fps, incredibly unlikely though that was.

g-force said: I don't own the PAL versions, is there a thread that describes what makes the PAL ROTJ better?

Permission not needed, but if it makes you feel better, you've got it.

There was a thread about the PAL ROTJ GOUT being sourced from a different master than the NTSC GOUT and, alone of the PAL versions, being better quality than the NTSC, but I cannot find it. 

Thanks for the permission.  I feel it is polite to ask from a community point of view.

I bet he will be ignoring Adywan soon too.

Thanks!  I believed you, but I thought that I had better draw your attention to that post in case you wished to correct/help the poster so no one else makes a mistake.  I think you are right about not using DVD-RB.  I have more or less decided to re-encode with x264 and leave it anamorphic, but I might make a DVD at some point.

C3PX said: Jedi Temple34 is now ignoring me. Interesting, I have no memories of interacting with this individual.

I wouldn't worry about it.  All I ever did was be friendly when he was arguing with almost everybody else and offer to share an audio track with him if it ever came my way, and he put me on his ignore list too.  I think he is ignoring everybody.

You're welcome, Bingo! :-)

Bingowings said: I appreciate that in modern parlance franchise has generally come to be seen as referring a series of films, television shows etc and related material but strictly speaking it refers to authorised distribution and selling.

I agree.

Bingowings said: On the Theatrical Sound section in the second paragraph part of a sentence reads "excepting the two-decades-out-of-print".

I'd alter that to "except for the two decades out of print"(if you want to add emphasis underline it, the hyphens look strange rather than percussive).

I agree with changing excepting to except, although this is preference, but you are wrong about the hyphens.  It has nothing to do with emphasis: it is accepted practice when one uses a long phrase as an adjective/modifier.

This looks great so far.  Stupid question: you guys do force film the video in DGIndex before using the script, don't you? 

I did this as a matter of course without thinking about it.  I cannot see why it would make much of a difference to functioning of the script, but just checking.

edit - G-Force, are you planning to work with the PAL GOUT for your ROTJ script?  Unlike the other two movies, the PAL is supposed to be better quality.  I would prefer to have an NTSC output, but one could easily work PAL to NTSC conversion into the script.  This would mean one could work with the best source material and it could produce PAL and NTSC outputs by just adjusting or deleting a few lines.

I also hope you will give me permission to release an MKV of this. 

PM sent.

LeeThorogood said:

 

Being in a PAL country I usually wish for the opposite when I see a cool NTSC release. If only the world could have adopted one standard using the high resolution of PAL and the frame rate of NTSC *sigh* 

 

You can always play NTSC in PAL regions, so no need to wish! :-) 

Pupil and I make a sort of hybrid between PAL and NTSC for personal use.  It is an mkv encoded at PAL resolution but running at 23.976fps with the audio slowed back down to match.  It plays on a media player and is great to watch.  

skyjedi2005 said:

I own the factory pressed Gout.  The quality is shit. 

So what?  You can still watch the films, and the cleaned up versions are far better than the factory pressed GOUT.  Just because the quality of something is less does not mean you have lost it.  It's about the film, man.  If only Puggo's excellent 16mm transfer, with all its image problems, remained of Star Wars I would still watch it any enjoy it.  I watched it the other day, and I still enjoyed the film.

skyjedi2005 said:  Maybe losing star wars forever and not being able to revisit my formative years

I really do not understand this point of view at all.  Why have you lost Star Wars for ever?  The cleaned up versions of the GOUT are starting to look very good indeed.  The OOT is available in a number of preservations.   You can watch it any time you want.

Put Captain Solo in the Cargo Hold said:

Ah so much pessimism. Star Wars and Indy are just fine. We do need proper DVD release though.

That pretty much sums it all up.

A B C said: PS: And I'm glad it happens in my good old observatory.

You observe things that are happening in your observatory?  Now that's dedication.

Oldschooljedi said:You should really preview the avs files in Media Player Classic before you encode to make sure that you get the right result before you encode this because encoding is really slooooow. 

Yeah, that's good advice.  I do preview the files.  Last time I forgot to remove the Info() line in my script, because I am so used to working with it on that I do not notice the data in the top left unless I am specifically looking for it.  I appreciate the help.  I would probably have left the convert LB 4:3 to 16:9 option off, if you had not told me, as  I would have that thought the script was doing that and forgot the IFOs and the like.  Thanks! :-)

edited- I just noticed your advice conflicts with this post:

http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/GOUT-image-stabilization/post/435610/#TopicPost435610

What do you mean by "a definitive cut"?  Whatever you mean, I suggest you wait for the Blu-ray release, use 2.35:1 and start your own thread in Fanedits of Other Films.

Drat!  I wish I had known that before rendering... Oh well, off I go again.

Thanks, satanika!  I appreciate the help.

avoidz said: But these sorts of continuity mistakes happen all the time, so it's not a bother.

Mielr said:

I don't like the ropes, either. They're even less plausible than Han hanging by his toes (they had time to tie ROPES around his feet?)

That's how I see it too.  This fix has always seemed misguided to me.