Jonno

You'll be fine, trust me!

The only complication comes if you are given a .MDS file to go with the .ISO. If you are, you should load that into imgburn (instead of the ISO itself) because it gives instructions on layer break position and such.

Without one you'll probably be asked to specify the layer break yourself (it should be a fairly simple choice).

Darth Sipid

Darth Doctrinate

Darth Evitable

'Write image file to disc' or 'write' mode. Select iso file and burn.

The files and folders will be visible on the disc after it's burned - the iso is just the delivery package (you can use Daemontools or similar to dig around inside it should you need to).

Dolby stereo tracks (such as Temple of Doom) were mixed for a 4.0 channel layout - left, right, centre and rear (of course large theatres would present these channels across multiple speakers to ensure coverage of the listening space).

The 'stereo' part is admittedly confusing because we tend to associate this term with 2-channel presentation, but indeed these tracks are best experienced in a surround capable setup; 5.1 presentation is really not that great a leap from 4.0, as the additional channels simply provide 'split' surrounds (for panning of rear effects/music) and a dedicated bass channel.

For as pure a Dolby Stereo experience as possible, switch your 5.1 receiver to Pro Logic. This will steer the left, right and centre from the mix to the correct speakers, and send its 1-channel surround to both of your rears. Your subwoofer won't be neglected, since your receiver will filter off the lower frequencies of the mix for it (DS mixes don't tend to be all that bass-heavy, but they can surprise you).

You might want to give Pro Logic II a try - it's an altogether cleverer decoder than the original Pro Logic, and simulates stereo surrounds (basically upmixing the 4.0 source to full 5.1).

A sequence that rarely gets its due is the Falcon's journey to Yavin. A voyage which would probably have taken hours (or even days) is economically folded down to a punchy sequence of shots, simply cut together - there isn't a wipe until after they've arrived.

I don't recall if this was altered at all in SW Revisited - perhaps the planet shots were tweaked, but I'd be surprised if the editing was considered in need of fixin'.

borisanddoris said:

The audio is great.  The 5.1 track is awfully aggressive with some serious low end. My dual subs are being pushed. I'm honestly having more fun with the 2.0 1980 track in Pro Logic (not II, as my processor has both options): it feels so period accurate.  Add THX processing and you'd think it was actually 1980!  I've never heard Empire sound this good. 

 That's a serious endorsement, I really enjoyed the 5.1 but I reckon I'll have to give it another go-around with the 2.0 since it has your blessing!

metalmunki said:

Not only did you manage to sound utterly condescending, but you're completely wrong in this case.

The big asteroid they are clearly heading towards  is not that close in the cockpit scene, then suddenly is so enormous it's only partially on screen when we go to an exterior effects shot. In this case, having the asteroid visible in such a way in the cockpit scene actually hurts the shot that follows. That cockpit view of a big rock is a limitation of the effects/budget of the time, not some auteur's labour of love.

 I certainly didn't mean to appear condescending with that post - you genuinely didn't (and don't) appear to grasp what that edit is conveying.

I'm not arguing that the continuity in the asteroid's physical appearance couldn't use some work, if you really scrutinise it (something I hadn't done personally until I saw these stills). It's the notion that there's an error in the size of the rock that bothers me, as if ILM's budget couldn't stretch to a larger piece of styrofoam or something.

The establishing shot is scaled exactly as intended, because the Falcon is some distance away, then there's a brief passage of flight that we don't see (or need to see), then we see the Falcon's approach over the surface. It's very deliberate and quite elegant, focusing on the rhythm of the scene rather than slavish moment-by-moment depiction of every event.

Oh wow, never mind you're just an ass.

Quite likely.

Ady has changed comparative distance shots before based on continuity, this is no different.

It's different in that this isn't a mistake.

but please don't assume you're somehow more qualified to opine than the rest of us. You aren't a special snowflake.

A strange thing to say, considering you're the one questioning the visual flow of an incredibly well constructed sequence in an incredibly well structured film. It's an absolute masterclass in editing, and one which I'm admittedly quite defensive about since the horrific mangling of the climax in the SEs. If that taught us anything: you don't have to see everything.

It's inevitable really - a well-meaning invitation for suggestions opens the floodgates for those who, rather than pointing out actual shortcomings in the vintage visual effects, decide to start second-guessing the genuine craftsmanship of filmmakers at the top of their game.

Fortunately the actual work is in the hands of someone who well understands the difference between the two.

metalmunki said:

The problem here I feel(in the original, not just your edit Ady), is that there is a straight cut from the one scene to the next, indicating no passage of time, where as we can clearly see 'the big one' pretty far away in the first shot.

 Nope, you're labouring under the misapprehension that these films are playing in real time unless there's a wipe.

It's an absolutely standard aspect of editing grammar that a cut can omit unnecessary time - usually a matter of seconds, sometimes more - from a single scene. I would imagine that most viewers have an innate understanding of this.

If you start to pull on that thread, you'll have a wipe every 30 seconds...

I had the pleasure of seeing a 35mm screening of AG last night. The print was in good shape, on the whole, with wonderful warm colour and grain (though strangely the entire 'obituary card' was missing from the end... I wonder who would have removed that and why?)

Has there been any progress on the 16mm scan? I wonder if Poita might be in a position to help out.

Predator is up next...

Here's another for the list:

Movie: The Fly (1986)

Format: Laserdisc  1503-80

Input Soundtrack: PCM 2.0 Dolby Stereo Surround 44.1 khz, 16-bit, bit perfect

Output Soundtrack: PCM 2.0 Dolby Stereo Surround 44.1 khz, 16-bit
PCM 2.0 Dolby Stereo Surround 48 khz, 16-bit (BD-friendly upsample)

Synced To: 2007 Blu-ray Release Region A

Ripped/Synced by: Buster D/Jonno

Notes: Contains the original Dolby Stereo soundtrack

Big thanks to Buster D for the original rip. I've done this one in the 'modern style', i.e. edited at native 44.1KHz and upsampled to 48 for the Blu-ray version. Both available on request.

Maybe he preferred the higher bitrate file, not noticing that it was cropped to the scope frame? Easy mistake to make.

Anyway, Harmy has said that the AVCHD version, while at a lower bitrate, will probably look better than a re-encoded version of the MKV (it having been encoded directly from source).

That said, if you prefer to use the MKV (to preserve your Spleen ratio, or just if you feel like seeing what happens) I can recommend UncropMKV as a friendly all-in-one encoder to make BD friendly video (it harnesses x264 together with a straightforward letterboxing script).

I just watched the new version with a couple of pals, and it's absolutely tremendous. The 35mm material is used to great effect, especially in Cloud City, and the colour work has precisely the right feel.

Special mention for hairy_hen's 5.1 track, which brings exactly the right sound to the phenomenal pictures.

By the way, I heartily recommend watching Black Angel before this - it makes for a fascinating pairing.

Finally finished:

Movie: James Bond 11 Moonraker

Format: Laserdisc  ML101710

Input Soundtrack: PCM 2.0 Dolby Stereo Surround 44.1 khz, 16-bit, bit perfect

Output Soundtrack: PCM 2.0 Dolby Stereo Surround 48 khz, 16-bit

Synced To: 2009 Blu-ray Release Region A

Ripped/Synced by: Jonno

Notes: Contains the original Dolby Stereo soundtrack

You've done a terrific job of adapting the Arrow format here - it's an unusual choice, but a very successful one.

One thought, and I know others might differ on this view, but as I see it 'Despecialized Edition' (and indeed 'Respecialized Edition') is the name of the reconstruction project; what's on the disc, on the other hand, is simply The Empire Strikes Back.

I prefer to suspend my disbelief where packaging is concerned, and forget for a moment that this is a fan project; particularly apt where a commercial outfit's house style is being used. What if ESB was a little less mainstream and it fell to a more niche label such as Arrow to release it? How would it be sold in that instance?

Not to dismiss or ignore the work put in by Harmy and others by any means, but perhaps the details of the restoration could be saved for the small print in this instance.

Inasmuch as you're stressing a mechanical device beyond its normal operating range - the disc will have to turn 3-4x its normal speed. I just don't see how that can be good for the drive, is all.

Anyway, this has very little to do with Harmy's 720p AVCHD or this project in general, so I'll leave my conjecture there ;-)

Laserschwert said:

(I've created AVCHD discs on DVD-DL discs that were both in 1080p and at Blu-ray bitrates)

Interesting - so how did that work out for you? There can't be many players that can pull that amount of data off a DVD-R without interruption, and I'd be a bit concerned about the lifespan of the drive concerned!

First of all, there's no blanket answer to your question - it very much depends on how the formats are implemented (I've seen terrific and awful examples of both).

Generally speaking, though, AVCHD format is limited to 720p video and ~DVD video bitrates (because it's designed to play from DVD media), whereas the MKV container can accommodate pretty much anything you like in terms of video and audio streams.

In this instance Harmy has used AVCHD for the first release, but intends to follow it shortly with a high-bitrate MKV; this will offer higher quality picture and audio (albeit still at 720p), which will be playable either on an appropriate media player or by burning it to Blu-ray disc.

Which version will have the rounded corners?

;-)

Tried Daemon tools instead of winrar and of course it worked fine - this should be the first step for anyone else who wants to tinker with the streams. Thanks Harmy.

I can't recall it being mentioned - will the MKV be letterboxed 720p or cropped to the frame size?

There does seem to be an issue with demuxing here - clownBD/eac3to chokes (it appears to be caused by stream 6 / audio track 5), and tsMuxeR gives up halfway through.

Just to be clear, I'm not trying to make an MKV, just remuxing it to a BD folder format; the problem is with the initial demux.

It's just a bit frustrating since, as others have said, the previous DEs behaved just fine...

It might be slightly better known here in the UK, where an abbreviated version was used on the cover of TV Times to promote the first film's 1982 premiere:

More details and contents on our friend's page here:

http://thestarwarstrilogy.com/starwars/post/2013/07/12/1982-Star-Wars-TV-Times

Is there any reason to believe it WON'T be true to the 6-track mix (given its similarity to the Dolby Stereo, and your access to the in-theatre reference recording)?

If it's a best guess scenario, I'd keep the naming convention for consistency.

bigrob said:

I can't wait to hear the 70mm audio mix in 5.1

 Have I still not shared that with you? I am a terrible friend. I will remedy this grievous oversight without (much) delay!

Anyway, while I did some syncs of the PCM tracks a while back (originally using msycamore's rip, then my own) Andrea was the hero who stepped up to capture the 5.1 AC-3 from that disc.

And no, it won't sync at all well to the DC - too many variations. But since we'll have the theatrical DTS mix for it, who needs a rough old 1979 effort? ;-)