No no no, the mono mix and I think the stereo mix are sourced from lossy sources. Hairy_hen's 5.1 is sourced (at least for the most part) from the '93 LD's PCM.
I just took this interesting color vision test and scored 16 (where 0=Perfect Color Acuity , 99=Low Color Acuity and the worst score ever in my gender and age group is 444445389). Not too bad, I think :-)
I may make the test compulsory for everyone wanting to engage in any future DeEd color correction discussion with me :-D ;-)
Well, you know, when h_h said it would be done in a couple of days (like two months ago) I decided to wait and now that it's taking much longer and I'm thinking about releasing the mkv without the lossless tracks, I have this feeling, what if the lossless tracks are done two days later and I release an incomplete version and keep getting asked on how to mux in audio and to re-upload dead audio tracks and so on and it will all have been possible to be avoided by waiting just a couple more days.
double post.
If it was up to me, I wouldn't give a crap about lossless audio, especially for the mixes that are already sourced from lossy sources but I want to put out a quality release that even the audiophiles here can appreciate. I personally really can't tell the difference - hell, I just recently tried listening to a 96000Hz 4608kbps FLAC of a Beatles song and then a 44100Hz 128kbps MP3 and couldn't hear any difference whatsoever and this was on my friend's hi-fi equipment.
Well, yes, once I get the lossless audio files, the MKV can be out within a day and I can finally start putting together the BD.
Yeah, the logo has already been fixed for v2.5
Well, you can see some bits in the DeEd sources documentary.
I'm pretty sure he did, yes.
TV's Frink said:
brycebayer said:
True dat silverwook. I wonder if M Verta is still on target for 2015?
I wonder why it matters.
Well, it could actually matter greatly - if he finished it before the release of the new SW film and offered it to Disney, they could use it for a BD release, which would be a perfect promo piece for Ep.7, which they keep telling us wants to follow in the tradition of the original films.
Well, it is of course a blow up, but it would still retain much more detail than a 35mm print.
Oh, yeah, that's right. I guess it wouldn't be too hard to write a script that would apply different settings to just that section of the movie, right?
I just remembered that back then, I had You_Too render it for me, because I didn't have a BD drive yet, so I couldn't even rip the BD myself - rendering it yourself using the script (or an improved one possibly) would definitely be a better way to do it.
Well, I've still got it rendered at 15GB 720p but it may be best to ask You_Too to send you his script and you could render a lossless version for yourself - that's how I'd have done it if I had the experience back then.
zeropc said:
at the end it's still a different thing what you see on set and what you see in the finished product.
Well, exactly - and what you're seeing in cinemas, through digital projection, is pretty much what is on what would be considered the equivalent of the o-neg in digital film making, so the fact that something is scanned from the o-neg doesn't mean that you have to get lobster-men and hoe makeup if the restoration is done sensitively.
Well, the whole debate started over the question of whether there would be any point to doing another Despecialized Edition using this as a source for the altered shots and I was just pointing out that it might be. And I completely understand that it may not be the preferred version for everyone but it could be worth the effort for the additional detail and overall cleanness - and also, since the detail on the BD isn't much beyond 720p, it isn't really beyond a really good theatrical print.
And what was also left out of the debate so far is that the ultimate release of Star Wars in '77, for which the crew must have been aiming, was not 35mm prints but 70mm prints.
Yeah, building the BD structure that way could impact compatibility and I definitely wouldn't want anything to get recompressed.
Both repulsively expensive.
Well, apparently, Encore doesn't support adding more than 8 audio tracks, so I'm gonna have to use something else to author the BD - I think I'll try MultiAVCHD but I find it a bit confusing.
I have a feeling that the o-neg vs. print discussion shifted quite a bit from what it was originally about - the original question was whether the SW BDs yield better detail than a scan of a 35mm print - and IMHO, the answer is yes. Whether or not that is desirable or even important is of course a question of personal preference.
Yes, these kinds of supplements, while they may go well with any theatrical version (or approximation of such) are just generic SW supplements and aren't DeEd specific or even connected to the DeEd as a project. In other words, they have about as much to do with the DeEd as for example Star Wars Begins does - someone could definitelly use SWB as a bonus disc to go with the DeEd, but it is its own separate project, just like cleaning up/reconstructing deleted scenes would be and should therefore be discussed elsewhere.
Plus it has nothing to do with this project.
Not really - check out the original image:
Well, the fact that the pores are specifically Luke's isn't the important part :-)
That's what I love the most about HD, how you can actually see these minute details on people's skin and then also fabrics and such - I find it fascinating and it gives a whole new dimension of reality to the viewing for me - whenever I compare some screenshots of different releases of movies over at caps-a-holic.com (and I do that often, when I'm trying to decide which release of a movie to buy or whether to not buy it at all if a clearly superior master isn't available in my country), I always go for details of people's faces, as these are always the most revealing as to which master is superior.
Well, of course the colors are shit, this is the 2004 version after all, but the "waxiness" is there because of the upscaling from 1080p to 4K (waxy faces were never really one of the 2004 master's many problems) and there is simply more discernible detail in the pores on his skin on the BD and the scars on Hamill's face are much more visible.
I didn't say it couldn't, just that to do it right is very difficult.
Also, here's a better example of what I was saying before:
It is a 4K scan of a very good LPP 35mm theatrical print (that I'm told was done on a professional scanner, not a home built one - and it seems like it, since you can see the grain structure of the print well defined) compared to a 4K upscale of the BD - while at first sight, the print seems better, because the BD bears unmistakable signs of the upscaling, when you look closely, the BD actually resolves more detail on the skin.
And now imagine what kind of detail level could be achieved if they did a proper 4K scan of the original negative, when even a poor 1080p scan of the o-neg, that doesn't actually resolve much beyond 720p, can show more detail than a 4K scan of a projection print.
