Harmy

http://savestarwars.com/technicoloribscreening.html

Yeah, it's closer to the IB print now. There were a few shots like that where it was hard to match the coloring because of the combination of the GOUT and SE but I've learned a few new tricks since then.

And here's another one:

I was actually hoping to use this shot from the B&W deleted scene from the BD set but unfortunately after some tests I found it was way too blown out to be of any use.

In the video, on the left, it constantly wipes back and forth between v2.0 to v2.1, on the right you can see v2.0 above v2.1.

And here's a picture of one of the changes I've just done in reel 3:

View at full res and look to the sky :-)

OK, here's the final coloring of the Ben scene. Pay no mind to the resolution of the v2.1 sample (bottom), it's just a quick draft render to show the colors:

http://uloz.to/x3eUYAJ/ben-test-new-mp4

I haven't tried my hand on creating a BD menu yet, so I'll see how difficult that will be and then we'll see - I'll leave it at that for now.

As to the lightsabres again, I actually discovered, that the source even closer to the look of the lightsabres but also to the overall coloring of the scene on the IB print reference is the 97SE (during the duel - Luke's sabre was already recomposited in 97). Unfortunately I discovered that when I was like 90% done with replacing the duel lightsabres with GOUT, plus the 97SE is heavily cropped.

dlvh said:

 

I feel that the light sabers are a VERY important part of this story, and that they should look as good as they did in the theaters in 1977!

I feel the same way, which is why I spent hundreds of hours putting back the original lightsabres from GOUT - it's admittedly still not perfect, for the reasons hairy_hen mentioned but still better than the SE.

 

Theatrical Capture...

 

What exactly do you mean, theatrical capture? This picture is apparently from the Special Edition.

I actually added a lot of grain to that shot to make it more authentic and also for the SD parts to blend better - make no mistake that shot is still at least 70% HD in the DeEd v2.0.

There was apparently some warping in the print they scanned for the 2004 SE and there's this little frame jump, so in order to stabilize it, I had to crop it a little more.

It's interesting too, since there's a color shift as well in that same spot. And the color shift is there in GOUT and 97SE as well, but not the frame jump.

Yeah, sure, you can get the mono mix in lossless, but is there any point to it? I mean, I can give a bad mp3 a lossless encode but it's not gonna sound any better. I'm not saying there isn't a point to it though, just asking your opinions.

Oh, and I decided to adjust the Ben scene after all. But like I said, it is only a tiny adjustment:

http://uloz.to/xTFGJkv/ben-new-mp4

I know this way it looks like there's nearly no difference at all but check this picture comparison out - the difference is best seen when switching between the pictures:

http://uloz.to/xkirujA/ben-compar-rar

Good to know, so that means I'm looking at around 2GB for the 5.1 lossless track, give or take 500MB, right?

Now lets talk other mixes in lossless, would there even be a point to something like that, since they don't come from lossless sources?

Troll much?

Yeah, at least for the AVCHD but hopefully for the BD as well.

OMG, that would be so terrible if an eventual official release was a despecialized edition! It would make me so unbelievably angry, if they just replaced the obvious changes and kept the rest from the SE. They should scan an original print - or several and combine them - so that there isn't even a hint of anything Special Edition.

thecolorsblend said:

Easterhay said:

You are right, though, that none of the films are safe.  Now, where's the TPM restoration project?! 

That's something I could support. People can pick on the weird puppet Yoda in that movie all they want but dammit that's what the original cut had.

It's in the works... ;-)

Yeah, welcome to the forum and thank you for those nice words!

@pittrek: Wabid's not trying to make a decision for the people who will be watching it, because they're free to decide to convert it (in most cases losslessly) to any format they might prefer. The only benefit of an MKV release that I saw (and still do) is that it is a way to release a high bitrate version before the BD with menus and all is ready. Then, when the BD is ready, anyone who is interested, can convert it to mkv if they're willing to put in a little extra effort (like 1 millionth of the effort I put into making the thing available to them and 1 billionth the effort of the people who made the movie) and if they're not willing to put in that effort, then they frankly don't even deserve to see it.

OK, so, this is crazy. Because if you read my last post, you'll see there's nothing to argue about anymore. I want to do AVCHD for those without BD burners and a BD disc for those with BD burners. Wabid's argument about releasing an MKV with the same streams as the BD at the same time being pointless is very legitimate. On the other hand, the argument about ISO being simpler for less tech saavy people then MKV is not legitimate, because I've had tons of people asking what are they supposed to do with this ISO file and literally zero asking what to do with the MKV. But I do plan to release a readme file with the BD ISO, explaining how to mount or burn it or how to convert to MKV.

And to be honest, I'm not trying to cater (as Wabid puts it) to anyone - I make this available in the formats of my choosing and preference, and those formats will never be the most convenient for everyone - and if someone isn't willing to put a little extra effort into a very simple conversion to their preferred format or figuring out how to play it, they obviously aren't all that interested in seeing it, and why on earth should I care about people like that?

I like Wabid's idea there; include mkv merge in the package with the BD release and write a batch file that will automatically make the mkv from the m2ts file.

Wow, that was a long post to support one simple point ;-)

And the plan is as follows (was even before your post):

Finish v2.1

release AVCHD first, as that will have the shortest rendering, authoring, uploading and downloading times.

render the larger BD video stream - author a simple BD with simple menu, lossless audio and only the some simple extras.

start working on ESB.

Keep working on extras throughout.

Release a bonus BD for the whole trilogy when it's all done.

There will be practically no changes for reel two. I really just started reel three but I do have some stuff done on it.

The menu background video is done (same as shown before with only slight variations), so once v2.1 is finished and I have all the audio and subtitle tracks, it hopefully shouldn't be too difficult to put the thing together.

Oh, yeah, no it's definitely not getting larger. The thing is that with the lossless audio, the movie may come near to 20GB even at the current bitrate (although that's just my assumption, as no one was able to tell me how large lossless audio normally is) so I quite like the suggestion that I'd make a BD with menu and film only (maybe just some little extra) and then make a complete bonus disc for the whole trilogy later, giving me enough disc-space and time to give the bonus material the bitrate and attention it needs.

Plus you can also mux the lossless audio in yourself as soon as it becomes available.

Why would I do v2.1.1? It will simply be v2.1 MKV and AVCHD and then whatever versions will be necessary for ESB and ROTJ (starting, and hopefully ending with v2.0) and then it will be STAR WARS TRILOGY Despecialized Edition Remastered on Blu-Ray. Since there will only be one BD release, there's no need for numeric labels.

And what would be the point of releasing the BD without the extras? I mean if someone needs a BD in terms of format, they can always remux the MKV with like two clicks. I don't think the menu is really that important, is it?