Oh, yes, working on it as we speak :-) And thanks for those pics, though I was thinking more along the lines of throughout the whole film :-)
That's a bit paranoid.
Um, care to explain? What's what?
Yes, when you put the picture in the forum (by clicking the little tree image) you can specify resolution. Just set it to 720 horizontal and leave the vertical blank.
It would be great, if someone could post screenshots of all the shots where Vaders buttons are blue, ideally with PAL GOUT timecodes, I'm kind of losing track.
@ builditup1: No, I'm sorry I snapped at you like that :-)
@ snicker: You can use http://imageshack.us/
You'd have to register but it's quick and easy.
That's a cool story.
I absolutely agree, the rules are in place and sure, some people will break them, everyone breaks the rules sometimes but only stupid people go and boast about it on a public online forum. I really do think that fan edits and preservations are in danger and that we need to clearly express what others have already stated above: They are not for sale and should only be shared amongs legal owners of the source material, provided it's still available.
The only thing that consoles me a little is that we are only very small fish in the sea full of real pirates, do a Google search for STAR WARS Blu-Ray 720p; there are hundreds, maybe thousands of different pirate copies of the actual official BD release, so 99% of people who will break the law and download STAR WARS in HD illegally are not going to download ESB:R or the Despecialized Edition, they are going to download Star.Wars.1977-1983.BluRay.720p.DTS-ES.x264-CHD or STAR WARS SAGA 1977 2005 BluRay 720p QEBS5 AAC20 MP4-FASM or some crap like that. And out of the 1% of illegal downloads of STAR WARS that our projects probably constitute, 90% probably do own the official release.
Yes, the compression amount is negligible even with the strongest settings and then it only takes way longer to pack and unpack.
Oh, I was talking about the finished product. And how many times do I have to repeat that I absolutely cannot do torrents...?
Yeah, I do not plan to add any extras that were already released somewhere before.
I'm hoping that what Jan said will work (I will of course test it first), so if you already had the mkv, you wouldn't be downloading the whole BD but only the menus and extras (and yes, there would be some). I'm not sure how exactly it would work with sound and subtitle files though - I have no idea how the BD structure works.
bkev said:
That looks stunning.
OK, I wasn't gonna say anything, so that it doesn't look like I'm trying to promote my own project over n1's, which I'm not, I'm actually really looking forward to it and I'm sure that the final product will look great, but I just don't understand what is so stunning about those pictures? They look like bad photos of a screen, very soft, with very little detail, even for the resolution they're in. Here's a bit from the first picture compared with raw GOUT (left):
Again, I'm not saying that this is what the final product will look like, just saying that there's nothing amazing about these particular pictures.
LOL, that's not a strange artefact, that's a fly :-)
Mediafire sounds pretty good. A 200mb limit is unfortunate, especially for a 25GB BD but it's not impossible.
I was also thinking, how difficult would it be to create a sort of a Blu-Ray skeleton, so that people who have the MKV (which will have the same video stream for the main movie as the BD) could simply download that and then mux it together to create a fully functioning BD? Would that be possible?
What pittrek says (and the situation in his country is pretty much the same as my country, since we used to be the same country).
Yeah, I don't know where I'm gonna upload now, because RS went absolutely crap and limited the dl speed to 30Kbps for free users, in other words, it is impossible to dl anything from there unless you have a paid account. Uloz.to kind of sucks too and MU is dead.
Just PM me the info you want to add and I'll dig out those work files (they're on an external HDD somewhere) and modify them :-)
Yeah, I think that line would normally get cropped anyway. Otherwise, it's actually surprisingly clean. And I'm not talking grain, that's obviously been scrubbed somehow (probably compression and bad resizing) but in terms of dust and scratches this reel seems almost like new.
720p
That's different, that's just blown out whites. I think it's the scan that's fuzzy here, not the print, I've seen different scans of this shot from two different 35mm prints and it looks way sharper and more detailed than the GOUT. This may be soft and have a flat smeared look because of compression though, it looks like it's from a heavily compressed file.
Yeah, no.
A) We're talking high resolution here, a good 35mm theatrical print should have resolution equivalent to up to 1080p but at least 720p, so a non anamorphic SD telecine can not compete with it in terms of detail, even if it was telecined from the original negative.
B) The medium of capturing image on film is grain, so a print will never be less grainy (smoother) than an earlier generation source - it will have the grain of all the previous generations + another layer of grain of its own.
Well, it's not GOUT ;-)
Yeah, I noticed that, it sort of jumps up and down a little, I don't know what the hell that is, it could be some encoding error. It could be the same thing that's causing the wall flicker. The encoding didn't go quite smoothly and the computer froze when encoding sound, so there may be a few encoding glitches in it. I might actually do another encode with a few fixes - it is a workprint for me too, you know - I can't see it play smoothly in fullscreen until I encode it either.
Cobra Kai said:
Harmy said:
Oh, no, it's good that you pointed it out (though I probably won't be doing anything about it in this case). As to that red sky shot, that is very much intentional.
The shot right before that one looks really blue. I'm guessing that this is not how it looked originally, but that the blu-ray color-timing makes it impossible to restore to the original look?
On the contrary, this is very much how it originally looked. I was quite surprised by it because in the GOUT this scene looks much less blue but this is what it looks like on the IB print (or well, close to this anyway).
