logo Sign In

DVD-BOY

User Group
Members
Join date
20-Sep-2004
Last activity
28-Mar-2024
Posts
425

Post History

Post
#116624
Topic
The Indiana Jones Project (Released)
Time
I have to agree with digitalfreaknyc, one doc per DVD at the best quality (ala Babyhum) would be fantastic. If Indy3 wants to do a disc of skits and parodies as well, fine, but I'm really interested in the docs - I have Raiders from when it was a bonus LD feature with the Indiana Jones trilogy, but I wasn't happy with my first capture and have been snowed under with other jobs since.
Post
#104333
Topic
Got the LD rips - Now How Do I Make Them Work?
Time
Also, you're lucky to be part of that project, and have a chance to see the original trilogy in crystal clarity!

I view my videos straight off my computer, in hi-resolution, and that's why the MPEG2 DVD standard doesn't really do it for me.


...

I'm sure Enterprise looks fantastic in 1080i, but I think the point you're missing is that Enterprise is available in 1080i.

The X0 project will offer the best possible quality transfer of the laserdisc, but ultimately Laserdisc has a lower resolution to DVD - and unless the team do an upscale the video will be 4:3 Letterboxed, not 16:9 Anamorphic.

MPEG-4 compression would allow people to distribute these films more easily than DVD (1.4Gb-ish vs 4.35Gb), but the downside would be they would not be playable on set-top DVD Players.

MPEG-4 offers more efficient compression, it does not magically insert detail.


While I must thank ElectricTroy for allowing me to increase my post-count, I am starting to wonder if this isn't becoming some sort of trolling exercise...

Post
#104241
Topic
Got the LD rips - Now How Do I Make Them Work?
Time
MPEG-4, Ra Ra Ra!

Why is it you want to beat us about the head with MPEG-4? Do you assume that the fine people who have been restoring and archiving the Original Trilogy in this community haven't heard of it? That by investing time and effort into films of the late 70's early 80's they are somehow stuck in the same timeframe technology-wise?

Is MPEG-4 a better form of compression than MPEG-2. Yes, no-one is disputing that. No-one disputes that MPEG-2 is better than MPEG-1. It is an accepted fact. Technology improves.

So why aren't the people here using MPEG-4.

Well, which version do you suggest they use: Simple Profile, Advanced Simple Profile, Advanced Video Codec (AKA MPEG-4 Part 10, AKA H.264). I would assume AVC as it is considered to offer the highest quality and hence has been accepted by both HD-camps for the next generation consumer player (along with VC1, AKA WM9-DRMless and MPEG-2). But then there was only a discussion today on the DVD List stating that Sony are using MPEG-4 Part 2 for it's HDCAM systems:

Sony IS using MPEG-4 part 2 video for HDCamSR. They are using one of the high quality profiles that allows the encoding of 4:4:4 at 1920 x 1080.

Do not confuse this with MPEG-4 Part 10, A.K.A. H.264 or AVC. This is the original MPEG-4 video codec that was extended to allow for high quality studio applications.


With regards to XVID, the fact is both XVID and DIVX offer compatibility with MPEG-4. Infact I believe both offer a spec similiar to Advanced Simple Profile. DIVX has moved further away from the spec and has also insisted on sticking with the AVI as a container format, which supposedly doesn't offer the 'flexibility' of .MP4 or .MPG specs (Some people have gone as far as to say AVI containers 'cripple' the CODEC.) Although I haven't tried it myself, I understand that it is possible to extract the video stream from an XVID file and place it within a legal MP4 container.

I would also not consider now to be the best time to start putting all of your eggs into the MPEG-4 basket, especially not as an archival format. Software and Hardware encoders are still coming to the market, and as far as I know none of them offer all of the facilities of MPEG-4 to produce the best encodes (number of B frames etc etc - check Doom9 for all of the techy details)

Probably most importantly, MPEG-4 is an inherently lossy format, and so is not the best way to archive video. How easy is it to edit? What colour information is lost? I would assume considering how relatively cheap storage is today, that projects like X0 will be archived into HUFFYUV AVIs, which is considered one of the best capture CODECS on the
'market'.

MPEG-4 will have its place over the next few years, but at present it makes no sense to step away from MPEG-2 / DVD as a distribution format. People want to enjoy these products on their TVs with a few cold ones (Have you never read Rikter's NFO files). MPEG-4 may make a smaller file to download, hence a quicker file, but at present I can't burn that to a disc to watch in the lounge. DIVX, yes, on some players, but the specs mean it is currently far more restrictive.

DVD has been hugely popular, and has become THE way to watch video content.

On a final note, I shall assume that you are a relative newcomer to these forums, so let me just point to the fact that there have been discussions about whether these preservations should upscale the video to 16:9 Anamorphic from their original 4:3 Letterbox, the issue of cutting-edge video codecs doesn't even reach the table.

And I'm done...

Post
#104153
Topic
Got the LD rips - Now How Do I Make Them Work?
Time
Originally posted by: electrictroy
Originally posted by: RikterThere are aome XVID versions of the OT on the torrent network - BUt why use such a low rez format for these films?

I don't know about XVID, but I do know that MPEG4 will exceed the quality of DVD (mpeg2), given the same amount of space. I've seen HDTV-quality vids encoded in MPEG4 standard that are absolutely gorgeous.

I'm going to check out the BSplayer. Thanks!

troy


You do realise that the DVDs the guys here create are normally based on Laserdiscs, and as such are normally a 'lower' quality than the official DVDs (No offense to DrGonzo, EditDroid and the rest, but you guys know what I mean).

I'm not sure exactly what you believe you are getting hold of.

If you want the best (visual) quality version of the original Star Wars trilogy, I would suggest buying the official DVDs.

If you want to watch MPEG-4 versions of the films: Convert a DVD with the likes of Nero Digital.

Yes, MPEG-4 can offer higher quality than MPEG-2, but I'm assuming until there is an HD broadcast of the trilogy (and even then, it will be the SE / 2004 edition), there will be no better version of the films to download than those discussed here / available at myspleen.

Kindest Regards

DVD-Boy
Post
#99108
Topic
Star Wars: Deleted Magic (Released)
Time
Originally posted by: Jedikev
This DVD will contain some special features ... NOT the making of documentaries, JediKev, since it IS a making of documentary when you think about it.


Ahh, i guess i'll have to buy from star wars to jedi the videotape, anyhow this is gonna a great dvd it shall be exellent. By the way is the "Vader chokes the guard scene" in Jedi in the dvd, just to let you know it would be really cool to see it.


JediKev,

"From Star Wars to Jedi" was released 'originally' on DVD-R by Dr Gonzo based on a video capture by BabyHum. I think another release is planned at some point - keep an eye of the torrents thread.

Unless I'm mistaken, any documentaries released by ocp will be 'originals'.

DVD-Boy
Post
#99104
Topic
<strong>The &quot;EditDroid&quot; Trilogy DVD Info and Feedback Thread</strong> (Released)
Time
Originally posted by: ChainsawAsh
Quick question: does it matter if the order of the files is different? For example, I was under the impression it was supposed to go AUDIO_TS, then VIDEO_TS, then JACKET_P. However, when I try to put JACKET_P into Nero, it forces the order to be AUDIO_TS, JACKET_P, VIDEO_TS, and I can't move JACKET_P anywhere. Does this matter? And how do I put the DVD-ROM content in? The whole "content" folder, or dump all the files in there, or what?

I burned it successfully before, but then I was impatient and said screw it, I want it now, and burned *only* the VIDEO_TS folder contents.


The folders will be written to the disc in the correct order, but most burning apps will display the contents in alphabetical order.

In terms of the rom content, I would keep it in a folder for neatness - I think 'officially' there shouldn't be any files in the root of a dvd-video disc, although I'm probably wrong considering Interactual puts an autorun.inf there. BTW, slightly off topic, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets has no AUDIO_TS folder.

The long and the short of it is that Nero will not / should not let you burn an illegal DVD-Video disc without at least giving you some warning.

DVD-Boy

Post
#96605
Topic
Thought on de-SE'ing the DVD
Time
Originally posted by: ChainsawAsh
Excuse my ignorance ... but isn't that basically seamless branching?


Unfortunately not.

Seamless branching allows you to to switch between different scenes of different lengths seamlessly.

So it would allow you to contain 2 versions of a film with different scenes, and link together the ones you need:

Chapter 1 (5 mins) | Chapter 2 (5 mins) | Chapter 3 (5 mins) would be version 1.

Chapter 1 (5 mins) | Chapter 2 (15 mins) | Chapter 3 (10 mins) would be version 2.

DVD Maestro would allow you to drop Chapter 2, or play Chapter 3, then 2, then 1 although perhaps not seamlessly.

The other name for Seamless branching is Multi-Story which kind of makes more sense. Remember that Multi-angle is clips of the same length (lightsabre changes between SW77 & SW04) and Multi-Story / Seamless Branching is clips of different lengths (I'm not sure I can thing of a Star Wars related example!)

DVD-Boy
Post
#95731
Topic
Letterboxed Widescreen vs. Anamorphic Widescreen Discussion
Time
I'm sorry MeBeJedi, perhaps it's been a long day but I'm just not getting the distinction, unless we're talking analogue and digital.

Quoting from Widescreen.org about Anamorphic (In the film sense):

When it comes to movie theatres, anamorphic movies are compressed horizontally. This allows a wide image (up to 2.40:1) to be stored on a standard (1.33:1) frame; however, when you view a raw anamorphic image that has not been expanded horizontally, people look thin and anorexic and circles look like tall ovals. Such a movie is then projected onto the movie screen with a special lens that expands the movie out to its original width on the screen.

So the image is squashed horizontally using a special lense to go from widescreen to regular. When projected it is then unsquashed using another special lense from regular back out to wide. Am I correct in thinking because this is done optically, information is not lost??

Now, Anamorphic DVD:

When it comes to DVDs, anamorphic DVDs are specially encoded to include more visual information than standard DVDs.

Between a 4:3 Letterboxed Movie, and a 16:9 FHA Movie yes this is true.

When an anamorphic DVD is played on a standard 4:3 TV, every fourth line of this extra resolution is ignored.


No problems, but let's ignore 4:3 Letterboxing from now on...

When an anamorphic DVD is played on a regular TV and your DVD player is set for a 16:9 TV, that extra information is restored; however, because that image is meant to be stretched by a 16:9 TV, the result will be that people look thin and anorexic and circles look like tall ovals. Now you can see where these DVDs get the term "anamorphic DVDs".


Ok, so both film and DVD horizontally squash the picture so as to make the most of the regular frame - the only difference with film is that the image can be anamorphically squashed all the way to 2.40:1, whereas DVD is limited to 1.78:1 only.

Both of these share the term "anamorphic" because if you look at the raw image (before horizontal expansion), people will look anorexic, circles will look like tall ovals, and squares will look like tall rectangles.


... there's no 'but'... They both share the same term because the both squash the image horizontally to store a wide-image in a regular-frame. Is film a lossless process, but DVD the information is lost?

Please, someone put me out of my misery, what is the difference?????
Post
#95718
Topic
Letterboxed Widescreen vs. Anamorphic Widescreen Discussion
Time
A 16:9 DVD is also known as 16:9FHA (Or Full Height Anamorphic)

In terms of Pal resolutions, a 16:9 image is 1024x576 when unsquashed. This is then squeezed to 720x576 when encoded / rendered and flagged as 16:9 so that the image is streched horizontally for 16:9 TVs and squashed vertically for 4:3 TVs.

A DVD Image is never stretched vertically, but horizontally.

An Anamorphic lense distorts the horizontal image so that you can fit a rectangle into a square (roughly speaking), so that you can make full use of the frame. In the same way anamorphic video when put onto digi-beta or whatever is squashed horizontally so that the hight remains constant, with as much detail as possible, but the width is squeezed to fit the new frame.

Film and DVD Anamorphic do the same thing, hence the same name.

DVD-Boy
Post
#91435
Topic
.: The Zion DVD Project :. (Released)
Time
I've never used the Sony Authoring system, but I have played briefly with their encoding set-up. I do remember being told that if you use the Sony equipment in conjunction with each other, it was possible to author a seamless layer break as the encoder could be told / would calcualate where the layer break would go doing a feature, and would gradually bring the bitrate down either side of the layerbreak, allowing the DVD player to store more frames in it's buffer as it were. As I said, not having used the authoring system, who knows if this was true or not.

As I say, true Seamless branching via the proprietry authoring setups (I believe there is 1 in the UK!) involves one system doing the encoding and authoring (and multiplexing), because it involves some pretty tricky juggling of frames and bitrates and gop sizes.

DVD-BOY
Post
#91223
Topic
.: The Zion DVD Project :. (Released)
Time
It should be relatively easy, although as Grisan says easier in Maestro.

The key points would be:

- Make sure your angles are the exact same length.
- Make sure they contain the same gop structure (Auto Scene Detect in Encoding is a big no-no)

I don't know in Scenarist whether you would 'break' the film down into pieces (which you can do with the 'start' and duration dialogues), and they join the pgc's together seamlessley, so that you have seperate chunks with the angles.

Obviously with Maestro you can have multiple bits of video on your timeline, whereas with Scenarist each 'track' comprises of one piece of audio, video etc.

ApolloOne may be of more use, depending what his 'weapon of choice' is.

DVD-BOY
Post
#91224
Topic
DVD Packaging
Time
Unfortunately, the flimsy outer sleeve is typical Fox packaging, vs Paramount's sturdier Indiana Jones box.

24, Alien, Die Hard, Simspons etc are all fox titles and feature poor boxes, whereas the likes of the Godfather, American Pie & Lion King released by other studios are much thicker.

A shame, but then WE all know we were short-changed with this set...

DVD-BOY
Post
#90992
Topic
.: The Zion DVD Project :. (Released)
Time
Originally posted by: DanielB
Using two angles does not mean using half the bitrate. It's a little un-intuitive, but multi-angle bitrates work like this: If you're using two angles, the MAXIMUM bitrate for EACH angle of video plus all audio plus all subpictures must not exceed 8.0 Mbps. Figure on subtracting about another 1.2 Mbps for each additional angle. So for a two-angle encode, you can still have a high maximum bitrate.
references? evidence?


Google is your friend, Daniel-san:

Howdy Trai - "Mr. DVD"

I was incorrect in the following statement:

> Check out the tutorial in DVDSP. They use 3 angles each at 6.4 Mbps. That
> would put the total data rate at 19.2 Mbps + the audio data rate. No
> problems.

19.2 Mbps is NOT the actual bitrate being delivered per second, because the
the other video streams/angles cannot be added to the total data rate per
second as they aren't "playing". But rather, being skipped over as you
stated. Sorry to mislead anyone. It is a fine distinction but an important
one.

However, there is a small correction to your post as well :-)

The maximum bitrate for multi-angle video streams per the specification is 8
Mbps not 7.

I was only suggesting 7 because it is never a good idea to push the bitrate
limits to their specification max.

The maximum sustainable total bitrate for a combined video stream (single),
audio and subtitles is 9.8 Mbps. Some players may support a burst rate that
is slightly higher 10.08 Mbps, but I wouldn't recommend pushing that.

If you never knew the reason for the 9.8 Mbps limit:

1x DVD drives sustains 11.08 Mbps. 1 Mbps is taken up by navigation overhead
leaving 10.08. The DVD-Video peak data rate was/is constrained to 9.8 Mbps
to support buffering for seamless branching which has nothing to do with
multi-angle video FYI.

Happy New Year Gang!

-pete
-- Courtsey of Apple's DVD List Archive.

I believe multi-angle is based upon interleaving the angles together, which is why there can sometimes be a pause before your player changes angles as it clears it's buffer as it were. Seamless branching is more complicated as it involves encoding and multiplexing the files in such a way that they 'ease in and out of each other' for want of a better term.

As it appears the seamless branching guide deals with pre-prepared streams, perhaps Dr Gonzo could help out with his copy of TFDVDEdit?

DVD-BOY
Post
#90403
Topic
.: The Zion DVD Project :. (Released)
Time
I must admit I've never fully tried doom9's Scenarist guide for seamless branching - I'm more of a Spruce Maestro man myself with very limited playtime on either Scenarist or Creator.

As I understand it, seamless branching is possible due to the video being encoded and multiplexed together in a very specific way, which is why the only system that can do it is a proprietary Toshiba Encoding / Authoring system - somebody please correct me if I'm wrong. Sonic have never annouced that Scenarist can do true seamless branching, otherwise they would have been shouting it from the rooftops. I believe they can do seamless multi-angle, but as already stated that is based upon the streams being the same length.

TFDVDEdit. Before I say anymore, Dr Gonzo, I love your DVD set, and so far it is the only set I have downloaded.

Now everyone I've spoken to about TFDVDEdit, have said that Trai Forrester is full of Bantha Poodoo, and is trying to build an elite 'club' with his software. From his website he promises that his software does alot, but then it's a case of "If you have a problem once you've bought it, TOUGH - NO REFUNDS". Don't get me wrong, I've read up on his seamless branching article, and have been excited by it, but various people I've then spoken to, who have both met the guy and been in the DVD Industry for a long time, have not said the nicest of things about him. Again, I'd be happy for someone to prove me wrong.

Speaking of which, has anyone tried a 'seamless branching test', say for example a 10 minute segment around jabba in ANH?

Zion, seamless branching on not, between Laserman's video capture and your menus, this sounds like one niiice dvd set.

DVD-Boy
Post
#89567
Topic
.: The Zion DVD Project :. (Released)
Time
Zion,

Seamless branching isn't possible on any kit (unless you know somthing I don't...) but if you just want to highlight the changes you've made, and aren't making the scenes any longer, you should be able to use the angle feature as you intend for the opening crawl.

I haven't tried this myself mind you, but I'm pretty sure if you set the video to angle 2, it will keep this through the whole movie, even the parts without a second angle (It's as if the 1st angle fills in the blanks in the 2nd angle if that makes sense!)

With regards to burning DL discs, I heard setting the book type to DVD-ROM can help, as can burning via DVD-Decrypter: something about burning from an ISO file means the layer breaks gets put where you author it, while just using Nero means it fills the entire first layer, before going onto the 2nd layer. Also the cell the layer break is put on has to be flagged as non-seamless, which Neror may or may not do.

Oh, and I too love the menus !!

DVD-Boy
Post
#65454
Topic
UK differing 2004 Star Wars Trilogy DVD BoxSet Covers...
Time
Hi Guys,

Long time reader, first time poster!

I pre-ordered my MVC copy yesterday instore, with a view of getting one of those boxes. Now, I haven't had a look at the box itself yet, because the instore price is £32.99! I don't see how that box can be 'free' with instore pre-orders, when the boxset is £26.99 (+ £1 P&P) if you order through their website!

The sales assistant made a big deal out of the box, saying it would be £10 if you bought it seperately but you got it free when you pre-ordered.

Now I'm a packaging-ho like the next man, but that's a lot of money for a box.

Jeff