Harmy

timdiggerm said:

I don't see how this would be possible without 35mm sources.

So glad to see this done.

 Well, if you were really prepared to spend eternity on it, you could probably reconstruct the edges from other sources.

Wow, that is awesome! So will you share the secret of how you did it? Did you have some 35mm sources? Are you doing this for all the cropped shots? I already did a few in ESB DeEd v1.0 but I obviously used the GOUT and they weren't very good and I was going to leave redoing them and doing the others, which were discovered later, until I could get my hands on 35mm sources for them, so I'm very curious whether there are some already available somewhere.

So who was the person asking you that question? It wasn't your wife by any chance, was it? ;-) But seriously, congratulations, man! And know that your efforts are greatly appreciated!

Oh, well, it's true of most projectors, but it's possible that some projectors can actually do true 24fps but I've never seen one. I know that digital projectors in cinemas definitely have higher refresh rates then 24Hz, so it seems curious, that a home projector would do native 24fps.

But with a color wheel, the projector has to refresh 3 times for each full-color frame, so my guess would be, that its true refresh rate for 24fps sources is 72Hz, thus producing 24fps in full color and for higher frame-rate sources, it's capable of even higher refresh rates.

Yeah, that's exactly what I was saying - if your BD player didn't do the conversion to 60fps, your projector would do it, because it refreshes 60 times a second no matter what, so you're always watching 60fps, if you have a 60Hz monitor, TV or projector, or you're watching 120fps or 240fps, if you have a TV with that refresh rate, so whether your TV or your BD player does the conversion shouldn't really matter much, the conversion always happens.

The question is what actually happens when it gets converted to 720p60? My guess is, that it simply shows some frames 3 times and some 2 times, which is something that happens on a 60Hz monitor or TV anyway and on a 120Hz or higher, the frames are simply going to be shown that many more times, right?

Yeah, sure, there will be an AVCHD of v2.0 of ESB and ROTJ. I'm actually just waiting for hairy_hen to send me the latest audio files, so that I can release a v2.5 AVCHD of SW.

hairy_hen: That's great. When you have the tracks encoded, please PM me. I encoded the video at the same bitrate as the v2.1 AVCHD, so in order to have the same tracks on this one, I need them as follows:

TRACK 1) 5.1 1977 70mm six track mix @ 640Kbps

TRACK 2) 2.0 1977 stereo mix @ 256Kbps

TRACK 3) 1.0 1977 mono mix @ 128Kbps

TRACK 4) 2.0 Isolated score @ 192Kbps (music only)

And any information you can give us for the doc will be very appreciated! :-)

Well, it hides the horrible GOUT quality. And yeah, it's still far from perfect but I think it will do for now and then I can make it better when I have some actual 35mm sources.

OK, so how's this?

I decided to ditch the mate-line, because it gave away the mask and it wasn't all that accurate to the original anyway and I redid the rotoscoping from scratch, because the old mask has become too much of a mess to keep tweeking it.

Nope, I think it's time now for you to take over it, because hairy_hen is just too busy. Thanks!

They may still change - I think it may be better to wait for the finished docs, then make English subs and then translate those.

Which reminds me, isn't there anyone who would encode the audio for the v2.5 AVCHD for me? If not, I guess I'll just use the audio tracks from v2.1.

No, I was never going to do that myself, I really lack the knowledge for it.

And it's great to hear the other voice-overs are almost done :-)

Here's what I've been working on for the past couple of weeks:

http://uloz.to/xryMPWu2/167-168-compar-mp4

Top is v1.0, bottom is v2.0.

Well, ask yourself this: Are you currently participating in an internet discussion about Star Wars? :-D

So, do you think they actually just dropped the extra frames? I always through there must have been more to the conversion than that or it would have been even choppier looking. I can't find any information on it anywhere though - it's always just articles about how awful the 48fps looks but never an explanation of how they did the conversion to 24fps.

It's interesting to note, that while I haven't seen the Hobbit at 48fps, I saw some other videos at this frame-rate and I always got the soap opera feel from them but not so from 60fps videos - those actually looked awesome to me - I guess 60fps is so close to what we're actually seeing in real life, that it just looks good, while 48fps still registers as fake, but in a different way than we're used to with 24fps, which we taugth our brains to perceive as the movie look, 48 fps rather reminds our brains of the native 30fps of soap operas, or sped up footage.

I think the AVCHD encode actually only took something like 3 or 4 hours.

Well, I let it run over-night and then in the morning I had to go to work, so I just turned the computer off and then I forgot about it. But yeah, the fact that the encode was finished over-night is pretty awesome :-)

Oh, I just remembered, I encoded an AVCHD version of v2.5 a few days ago and then I totally forgot about it. What I need for it is for someone to provide me with the soundtracks. What I need are the tracks, which are in the v2.1 AVCHD, at the same bitrate they are there, but encoded from the lossless tracks that are in v2.5 mkv, because IIRC they are newer and better versions. I could try doing this myself but I'd fel much safer if someone who actually knows what they are doing did it for me.

Speaking of bad CGI being over-used, I'm watching the Hobbit 2 on Blu-Ray just now and some of the effects are incredibly bad - like early 90s bad. When I saw it in theater, I saw it in 3D, which makes bad CGI look a lot better, because it adds realism but in 2D, it looks totally horrible. And even some of the green-screen effects are just mindbogglingly bad - I even noticed a clear black matteline-like outline around Bilbo in one shot and it's good 3-pixels-wide in 1080p.

And the whole film just looks somehow unrealistic - I think the frame-rate conversion from 48 to 24fps may be at fault there, or maybe it's the fact that the film's been shot digitally, I don't know - either way, it is a visual disaster, as well as a storytelling one.

Wikipedia:
By mid 2006, about 400 theaters were equipped with 2K digital projectors with the number increasing every month.

So, considering that ROTS was released in 2005, I wouldn't exactly call its 35mm release limited :-)

Wow, that's pretty cool :-)

Oh, no problem, man - I totally understand real-life takes precedence. That's why I didn't even write to you or anything

Well, the new computer is finally up and running with everything in place.

I've been working on ESB lately. I'm still waiting to get the narration for the documentaries, as I need it to time the shots to it.

No way, you'd never get the edges right.