Chewtobacca

Perhaps that might explain why JediTray is having problems, although he says he downloaded his NTSC copy from fanedit.info, and as far as I know the Miami version was only ever PAL, so he must have the original in NTSC.  Strange!

 The Miami was released originally without the extras.  If I have time, I will see if I can convert the original Miami to NTSC, but I do not have the time or the inclination to add all the extras in.

I tend to do it the way Moth3r does it.  The advantage of the previous methods is that you only have to re-encode the audio, which is quicker - video is slower to re-encode than audio - and better if you prioritise video quality.  The advantage of Moth3r's method is that the sync should be perfect, whereas in my experience with the other methods, the result is very good, but not quite perfect as it is if you match the videos frame by frame.

If you use Womble, you should have Re-encode the whole audio if any part needs fixing checked in the options.  This helps prevent compatibility problems when playing the result on fussier DVD players.

JediTray said:

I got my NTSC from fanedit, and the playback is too fast.  That tells me there was never a proper authoring of an NTSC, but rather a PAL conversion was done. 

No; it tells you that something went wrong somewhere.  PAL conversions do not suffer from fast playback because the PAL speed up is undone as part of the conversion, or it would not really be a conversion.  Something has gone wrong somewhere.  Has anyone else seen the NTSC version that is posted on fanedit.info?

JediTray said:

Is there any chance of getting an NTSC version of this that is not sped up?

If you are talking about the Miami version, you would have to convert the PAL version.  NTSC conversions of the original version are available at fanedit.info.  I believe Jambe Davdar's original was PAL; if so, there is no chance of an NTSC version that is not a PAL conversion, if that is what you mean.

You could split it onto two discs.  If you want suggestions for further cuts, make a big SD XviD as a preview and upload it.  I would be happy to give it a go. :-)

adywan said:

something was screwed on the colour corrected master and that is why i never released a 14gb mkv of that one.

Thank you for explaining that, Adywan.  I did wonder. :-)

I will never understand why people think encoding something that is only about 17GB originally to a BD-50 will ensure quality though.  I could understand a BD-25, but downloading and burning a whole BD-50 takes ages and is a waste of time and money, if the quality is not going to be any higher.

I do not see what anyone gains from attacking someone's work like this.  Most people will never notice these problems in motion, regardless of what this person claims.  It is always hard to work from problematic source material, and Adywan himself freely admits that the color correction leaves artifacts.  The result is certainly not perfect, but it much better than the original overall, and if people think they can do better, nothing is stopping them from trying. 

I do think the AVCHD of ESB is better than ANH though, and the MKV is very good.  I love watching it.  A DVD-9 is usually too small for 1080p to look really good, and while the difference between the AVCHD and the MKV is not great, it is definitely there.

Erikstormtrooper said:

Harmy, I know you worked from some PAL sources. Do your edits have the PAL audio speedup?

No; the  speed up was accounted for on conversion to 23.976.  The audio sounds fine on Harmy's edits.

A B C said:

The blue filter on the left is sure awful, but the "pristine" contrasts + the sharpness look "too much" (for me) on the right.

I agree.  The image on the left looks more natural; the one on the right seems manipulated.

A B C said:I think it was a bit long if I remember.

I think you are right.  Shortening it and lowering the volume a little might be a good compromise. :-)

HotRod said: I'm so tired!!! :)

Go to sleep then. zzzzz  :D

A B C said:It was a general statement, not personaly orientated. Nothing bad.

Of course not :D  -- I simply had no idea what the sentence meant.

 The other thing it means is that I see the SE "Ommmhh" like an improvement (for once!).

Ah!  I understand.  I appreciate your reasons and will indeed listen to both again, but I have simply never liked how the oomph sounded.

A B C said:I think your use to return to the original sources (which I have myself) may alter your judgement about this.

What does this mean?

This HD discussion should form a new thread if it is to carry on, but...

brash_stryker said: I was always under the impression that all HD is 23.97...

Unfortunately not! HDTV in Europe is 25fps.

Harmy said:contrary to belief of many there is NTSC and PAL with HD video, there's no difference in resolution but there is difference in framerates

I disagree.  A framerate difference is not sufficient to make an NTSC/PAL distinction meaningful in HD.   There is also no need to correct the pitch if the audio comes from a PAL DVD, as the studios almost never bother to correct it in the first place, so in fact the original pitch is restored.

Back on topic: I agree that Vader's scream should be put back to its original form.

Thanks again! :-)

Doctor M said:If you ever get too confused, Citizen's aspect ratio calculator is something I really couldn't live without.

Thank you!  I can usually calculate the aspect ratio myself: I was just checking because I have never converted fullscreen to fullscreen before.  In my head, it seemed as if simple resizing 720x576 to 720x480 would squish the picture, as there is no anamorphic stretch invovled, if you see what I mean, but obviously that is not the case.  I think the different PAR for NTSC fullscreen is the factor I was overloooking.

Thank you, dark_jedi.

Doctor M, may I ask how you would convert PAL fullscreen to NTSC fullscreen?  I only need to know the figures for resolution/resizing because I can handle everything else.  It is just that I have never converted anything that was not widescreen before.  I take it you cannot just convert from 720x576 to 720x480 as you might with anamorphic widescreen?

FanFiltration said:

"You have a woman's hair style!"

I'll warrant that hair's never been used to rope a pair of sea turtles on a desert island and save a Captain!

Ye know not what "ye" would do to a busy fellow such as Frink.  I vote neigh!

I am still waiting for your take on the matter of Tom's haircut, Bingo -- before it is destroyed alongside the rest of reality of course.

Bingowings said:

Dave Ross of The Crucible says :

.This is my ultimate victory, THE DESTRUCTION OF REALITY ITSELF!

lol!  Now you're talking! 

FanFiltration said:

I am sick of people involving themselves in other peoples lives (and death).  Mind your own darn business, Doctor whoever you are!

What about the haircut though?  Surely, that can kind of involvement in other people's affairs must come as a relief to every living being.

xhonzi said: Oh, and I vote Tom gets a haircut.

Now that is the kind of poll I like to see around here!  Are you reading this, Bingowings?  Honestly, posting a poll about an ethical dilemma when we could be arguing about far more important matters such as hairstyles.

Bingowings said:

Tom Of Gallifrey asks :

But if I kill. Wipe out a whole intelligent life form, then I become like them. I'd be no better than the Daleks.

This observation has never made sense to me.  It seems to me that there is a world of difference between a living being that takes one life with great reluctance, only because it would save many, and a group of ruthless living beings that deliberately seek universal conquest and destruction of other life forms.

I vote yes, but only on the strict terms in which this has been presented.

edited - I vote yes to ...could you then kill that child?  not to does Tom have the right? to which I vote no.

C3PX said:

TV's Fink: Nay

Chaz Solo: Ye

Chewtobacco: Yea

Captian Solo: Nay

Warbler: Abstains

Hey!  Why does Garbler escape with his name unchanged?   :D