Chewtobacca

For the second option in my post above, I deinterlaced the clip with QTGMC and then used SmoothFPS2, which uses MVTools.

function SmoothFPS2(clip source, int num, int den) { 
super = MSuper(source, pel=2, hpad=0, vpad=0, rfilter=4)
backward_1 = MAnalyse(super, chroma=false, isb=true, \
blksize=16, searchparam=3, plevel=0, search=3, badrange=(-24))
forward_1 = MAnalyse(super, chroma=false, isb=false, \
blksize=16, searchparam=3, plevel=0, search=3, badrange=(-24))
backward_2 = MRecalculate(super, chroma=false, backward_1, \
blksize=8, searchparam=1, search=3)
forward_2 = MRecalculate(super, chroma=false, forward_1, \
blksize=8, searchparam=1, search=3)
backward_3 = MRecalculate(super, chroma=false, backward_2, \
blksize=4, searchparam=0, search=3)
forward_3 = MRecalculate(super, chroma=false, forward_2, \
blksize=4, searchparam=0, search=3)
MBlockFps(source, super, backward_3, forward_3, num, den, mode=0)
}

MPEG2Source("25i Thomas.d2v")
QTGMC()
SmoothFPS2(60000,1001)

EDIT: Here’s an improvement. Replace the second part (that is, after the function) with what follows.

MPEG2Source("25i Thomas.d2v")
QTGMC()
SmoothFPS2(60,1)
ChangeFPS(60000,1001)

This is better (as far as I’m concerned) because the video goes from 50p to 60p before being brought down to 59.94fps, resulting in fewer interpolated frames. Using ChangeFPS() results in one frame in every 1001 being discarded, but with so many interpolated frames, it hardly matters. And it’s better than calling AssumeFPS() and having to adjust the audio (at least to me).

How does this look? It’s wrong from the point of view of physics because each sixth frame is an interpolated one, so the result is jerky.

EDIT:This is technically better (smoother), but almost every frame is an interpolated one, so the quality of each individual frame is not as high.

How did you make your 25i footage 50p in the first place?

EDIT: Please post an untouched sample from your source file.

Indeed! People often compare two sources and conclude that one of them lacks DNR, when it simply has less than the other. Apart from films that have been restored in a meticulous, frame-by-frame fashion (and these are few and far between), it’s hard to find modern transfers that are completely free of DNR.

pittrek said:
Correct, that’s the thing I’m searching for. Reason : I have a youtube channel where I compare various versions of different Trek episodes / movies. So if any of you guys could upload somewhere the said segment I’d be grateful

Oh, I see. You could recreate it quite easily because the error is only a visual one: a shot of Sulu is incorrectly repeated, but the audio track is correct, so all you’d have to do is swap the shot to make your comparison.

http://trekcore.com/blog/2016/06/one-more-change-in-the-new-star-trek-wrath-of-khan-directors-cut/

pittrek said:

I have finally received my STII Blu-ray from amazon.co.uk and unfortunately it’s the corrected version. Does anybody know how to get the incorrect version?

Obviously, I’ve missed something. Are you referring to the Sulu error? May I ask why you want the incorrect version?

Williarob said:
I have been testing the BETA of the new Color Balance tool and the results are very promising 😃

Lucky fellow! The shot of the swordsman looks particularly nice.

yhwx said:

Bono

Malo

NeonBible said:
How would I achieve this without re-compressing the AC3?

If you’re talking about modifying the file itself, then you can’t. This sort of change requires re-encoding.

If you want to do it on playback, some people use ReClock. I’ve never used it myself and don’t intend to start. Based on what you’ve described, I’d probably change the frame-rate of the video too and re-encode the audio.

0.94 would be about right.

If you decide to re-encode, try this.

LoadPlugin("TimeStretch.dll")
WhateverSource()
TimeStretchPlugin(pitch=94)

I’m not sure I understand your reference to 8%.

MMiS, if you explained how you converted mono to stereo, people might be able to perceive the value in what you’ve done.

It’s a shame that you weren’t given the raw audio as PCM. It would be useful for future work on the mono mix. I’m sure that someone will want to work on it, and I’ve read a few comments suggesting that the noise reduction might have had some negative effects.

Many happy returns to you! 😃

Mike O said:
I’m starting to think that your solution, while I don’t want to consider it, might be a necessity…
…I feel like a relapsing drug addict.

That is indeed an effective analogy. What you are going through has the hallmarks of anxiety, depression, and obsession, but it’s also in some ways like addiction. Addicts have to be mindful of people, places, and paraphernalia.

Why isn’t it simple to swap a smartphone for a basic model that can be used to call and text but little else? Such models are very cheap, the swap does not have to be long term, and the other activities that Mike O mentioned can be carried out in other ways.

And (though moviefreakedmind did) I wouldn’t suggest that Mike O get rids of his computer. In previous posts, I’ve suggested ways in which he could limit access but still carry out essential tasks.

Bingowings is right. You have to change your telephone. Get your family, friends, and colleagues to help you restrict your access to these videos. I mentioned this early in the thread and feel it’s a step that you should really try to take at this stage.

And we may be strangers on the internet, but that doesn’t stop us from genuinely caring about your welfare or from being here for you as much as we can be. Stay in touch.

Mike O said:
But I can stop repeating what I heard in my head, over and over, like a CD on repeat, racking through my mind.

That’s a sign of anxiety. What you’ve gone through is a kind of trauma, and that’s your mind’s response to it. Other people have experienced this response too: it is not something that is unique or abnormal about you. It is important that you know that.

The repetition that you are describing has stopped for other people, and it can stop for you too. But you will need the support (and care) of others. Above all, you need to allow yourself plenty of time to recover.

^ What does any of that have to do with this thread? This thread is about syncing to the GOUT, not the Renegade Grindhouse ESB or anything else.

EDIT: You just posted all of that in the relevant thread anyway!

^ Yep.

SnooPac said:
By “extracted”, its meant extracted from rar to iso. Iso not modified (intentionally).

Got it!

And this is a rule on myspleen that the rars need to be extracted.

Of course! That was never the issue.

After a second reinstall, the tool seems to working properly. Thanks again, DrDre!

Harmy said:
Maybe between Star Wars and ESB, there were three other episodes, that we just missed 😉

I’d rather have had that than what we were given!

For me, it’s the original crawl or nothing.

^ I’d have included the 5.1 for that reason. Adding it is probably the biggest single reason why people remux.

g-force said:
In general, I agree Chewie. But, my favorite method of viewing downloads lately is to put it on a USB drive and plug into my Blu-Ray player. My Blu-Ray player is not smart enough to know what to do with an iso. Just sayin’.

That’s true, but I’m talking about redistributing the original upload in a way in which people can have confidence that they have what is legit/uncorrupt. We’ve had all sorts of problems in the past when people get hold of corrupt copies. The confusion caused tends to run on and on and clog up threads. (It’s a bit like when studios release fixed versions of discs but vendors don’t replace their stock, so the threads on Blu-ray.com are filled with people asking about disc codes and marks on packaging and the like.)

towne32 said:
Oh okay. I was pretty sure that this was about extracting from rar files.

Ah, so the archive was extracted, rather than the ISO. That’s different. I didn’t imagine that someone would put rar files on the spleen.

towne32 said:
Do you mean they extracted it and rebuilt it for the spleen version?

I was referring to this post.

SnooPac said:
The version that ended up on spleen was just the exact extracted ISO from Usenet. No changes were made. Not intentionally, anyway.

I took it to mean that the ISO had been extracted – somebody always does this. People don’t always view extracting it as changing it, which is how I interpreted the second half of the post. Maybe I misinterpreted it, but it’s happened before that extracting the ISO has caused problems with checksums and the like.

This happens every time someone extracts the ISO. Why extract it? Why do anything to it?