Well, I was one of those people, as I said above but I already knew the story from a book before seeing the movies, so it wasn't like I was missing the information.
Then it's probably a bad download. There are checksums in the first post, so you can try to use this to generate an MD5 checksum from your MKV to see if you have the correct, uncorrupted file.
Well, then something must have gone wrong during your conversion, because the ESB and SW MKVs are identical in terms of format.
Does the MKV work in your computer?
Well, if you had to use handbrake to recode it, it wasn't compatible.
I actually mentioned before, that I was thinking about doing a smaller mp4 version for those looking for a more compact download, so I might as well do it in a way that it'd be compatible with Apple devices (because, unlike the other way round it will still be compatible with most other devices).
No, thanks, it's really easy to find pictures of SW VHS relases on the internet - I just wanted to use this specific case, because it is the British 1995 VHS release (which is the source of the actual video, albeit, this cover is for the full-screen version).
^This.
Yeah, it seems like the uloz.to thing may just be some glitch. I had others report that it wasn't working for them one day and then the next it was.
No, the whole discussion is about whether it would be ok to recomposite FX shots in an unaltered version - I would have no problem with a version with fixed-up effects existing, as long as the true original is released as well. All I'm saying is, that a version with recomposited could not be called an unaltered version, because it would be altered a great deal.
Yes, that's it, thank you!
The original negative already has the effects composited - yes, the removal of the matte-lines would be a byproduct of recompositing, which would destroy the integrity of the effects. If someone would find the link to that article I always quote to back up that the compositing is an important part of the original effects, I'd apprecite it (I'm on my phone).
And all those shots in my previous post have clear matte-lines - look closely at the edges of the ships, they all have thin darker lines around them. And remember, that in those examples, the originals are from GOUT, which accounts for much of what you may call "faded" look.
The same as I said for SW - not until I have much more to update than just that.
I am at a complete loss as to how on earth does one find out something is 21ms late?
Yeah, no. Maybe when there's more to update than just cutting out one frame near the end of the movie.
Oh, so those frames don't appear at the same time? Could this be another PAL/NTSC difference?
It's very well possible (likely even, seeing as how their source is actually the GOUT itself) that it's the DeEd, which is off by one frame. And it seems, that in that comparison, the DeEd is one frame ahead, which means, that Project Blu is actually one frame longer, not shorter, right?
Well, I don't think anyone knows for sure but I think it's quite safe to assume, that they are far closer to 35mm, than the EE BD.
Nick66 said:
HDTV 2004 SE's?
Hmmmmm. I'm assuming they're just upscales?
I got all excited once when I found an HDTV FOTR w/o the green tint, until I realised it was just a crappy upscale of the DVD.
Harmy said:
No, they are definitely not upscales - the BDs come from the same master as the 2004 DVDs - the 2004 DVD master was done in 1080p and some HDTV stations did broadcast it in 1080i, so those are native HD (high quality HDTV captures are now available on myspleen).
And there were native HD broadcasts of LOTR as well but only TTT was shown in the EE version - so the EEs found online were usually 1080p for the theatrical scenes and DVD upscales for the extended scenes.
Nick66 said:
Interesting...yeah, now that I think about it of course you're right, re: the BD's coming from the same master as the 04 DVD's. Just didn't know they actually showed them on HDTV (not that I'm interested in them anyway...'04 is only slightly less offensive than '11).
I knew that the Theatrical LOTR had aired in genuine HD, and I actually did find the EE of all three films from an HDTV broadcast, but as you pointed out the EE scenes were upscales. I wonder who did this?
Thanks!
Danfun128 said:
I know this is off topic but i'm confused. Are you saying that the hdtv transfer of the LOTR trilogy is better than the blu rays?
Harmy said:
Well, it definitely has far better colors than the EE BD and it has far less DVNR than the theatrical BD. This goes mainly for FOTR though - the other two movies are I believe the same transfers for HDTV, OT BD and EE BD (although the OT BDs of TTT and ROTK also suffer from DVNR and EE of TTT has a green tint but to a lesser extent than FOTR).
On the other hand, all the HDTV captures of LOTR I've seen suffered from pretty bad compression artifacts - there simply isn't a really good HD version of LOTR out there.
Feallan said:
What about kk650's versions? I've yet to watch it, but supposedly it looks very good.
I'd download it now, but goddamn tehparadox is down for 2 days already. :(
Harmy said:
I downloaded it and while it is an improvement over the official BD, it still looks nothing like the original colors seen on DVD, HDTV and OT BD.
I downloaded it and while it is an improvement over the official BD, it still looks nothing like the original colors seen on DVD, HDTV and OT BD.
EDIT:
Let's move this discussion where it belongs.
Well, the matte-lines are usually what distinguishes the original shot from the recomped one. They are almost never as visible as in the Rancor scene though. Here are some examples:
Well, it definitely has far better colors than the EE BD and it has far less DVNR than the theatrical BD. This goes mainly for FOTR though - the other two movies are I believe the same transfers for HDTV, OT BD and EE BD (although the OT BDs of TTT and ROTK also suffer from DVNR and EE of TTT has a green tint but to a lesser extent than FOTR).
On the other hand, all the HDTV captures of LOTR I've seen suffered from pretty bad compression artifacts - there simply isn't a really good HD version of LOTR out there.
Like I said, if they erase the matte lines, it's a botched release in my book and isn't anywhere near being the actual original any more (there are two ways to get rid of matte-lines, either they paint them out, which usually ends up looking awful, or they re-composite the elements, which may end up looking "better" than the original but equally destroys the integrity of the shot).
That would actually be pretty cool :D
Why do I have to keep repeating myself? THE SOUND IS VERY MUCH TEMPORARY - the is no music yet, except where it plays a direct role in what is being said or shown (or where it was already finished from the old Sources Doc).
@Tobar: The "drowned music" example is essential, because it's not about the sound effects but about the score (two different Oscar wins being disrupted).
Good point about the thesis though.
@pitpawten: Yeah, it's more about this staying a fan effort.