What about the MUSE release? Did that have "To Be Continued..."?
I bet it did.
What about the MUSE release? Did that have "To Be Continued..."?
I bet it did.
Unfortunately, I don't have a copy of these LDs to work with myself. I'd love to get my hands on a raw, untweaked, high-quality LD-to-digital transfer of the PAL editions to toy around with ;)
Hmm... I might be able to help. Eventually....
Somewhere in my basement, I've got what's probably the best PAL LD player ever made (Pioneer LD-V4300D) and three copies of each of the 1993 PAL discs (two French and one German, I think).
The PAL versions aren't a panacea, but they're pretty good. And better than the NTSC verions in a lot of places.
In what way did it not give acceptable results? I've never actually tried it, myself.
I'm assuming it requires both source and target to be lined up, both spatially and temporally?
(Heh: guess we're sort of hijacking this thread.)
The average of nothing and something is... something, I guess.
In other words, if you averaged a part of the JSC where there was no picture information (all black), with the part of the 2004 DVD where there *is* picture information, then all you'd get back is the 2004 DVD picture. And I'd be inclined to think you'd then see the edge pretty clearly.
Even lining up the 2004 DVD and the JSC would take longer than the day or so X0-1138 purports to have been working on this.
On a vaguely-related topic, one experiment I've never tried is to use ColourLike() to give an HD target the same colour palette as the JSC.
Here is a cap I made from the JSC of (probably) the same frame as X0-1138:
If you look at the right-side edge, X0-1138's "cap" has more information than appears on the JSC.
Ergo, either X0-1138 is significantly better at this than anyone before him (or her??), or the image is not from the JSC.
Interesting that we're still talkin' about LD transfers after all this time...
The X0 Project screen cap wasn't a hoax. It was a proof-of-concept, using some borrowed proprietary equipment. Sadly, only Laserman knew the details of exactly what was done, and how.
Even just making a good LD cap is *hard*. I've got three copies of the JSC, plus a very competent player (a Pioneer LD-V4300D), plus Laserman's personal cap card, and still it's tricky. (Of course, I haven't tried it for a while. Now that the Blu-Ray is even further off-track in some areas, it might be time to pull out my stuff and give it another whirl....)
Once the caps are done, then lining everything up to use TooT is a bit tricky, too (and keep in mind I created the concept, if not the programming, so I know what I'm doing).
What's needed thereafter is some custom processing -- but that's also tough as hell, because all the sources would probably have to be lined up manually.
And, at the same time you're working on a good LD-cap project, things like Mike Verta's 'Legacy Edition' and other good work get done, and make all your hard work look sorta futile.
Which is where the X0 Project got to, and then ran out of steam. Which, personally, I'm really sorry and bummed about.
So I'll sort of quietly be looking forward to -- and yet skeptical about -- this new project. My take thus far is that it's got more than enough enthusiasm from X0-1138, but is lacking in technical chops. I would be delighted to be proven wrong!
Maybe someone should start archiving the SkyHD versions just in case.
There's at least one guy on a BT site I frequent that caps eps at 1080p, OAR, and then posts 'em. He also downsamples to 720p and posts that, as well.
There's also somebody here (prolly reading this thread, even) who has capped ep 10 (and others?) but who doesn't (yet) know how to get the stuff off his SkyHD box. I'll bet he susses it out pretty quick, though.
In any case, yeah, it's lookin' like it'll be possible to watch these in 2.35:1 from here on out, one way or another.
It'd be cool to be able to match the SkyHD video with the CN audio: 1080p at 23.976fps would be perfect!
Still don't get why CN crops theirs. SW stuff is, and always has been, scope!
(Except for the Holiday Special, I guess...)
In my opinion, since this was a really quick shot and easily glossed over by less discerning viewers (i.e. kids?), it would have been cooler to see this done *right*, with Ahsoka's shadow -- sans lightsaber blade -- slicing up droids. It'd look like she just waved a flashlight at the droids, and they split in half and fell down. Cool...
Anyone notice that in Ep 14, as we see Ahsoka's shadow slicing up a pair of droids, her lightsaber also casts a shadow? That can't be right...
I have now confirmed The Clone Wars is natively 2.35:1. Episodes are shown at their OAR on Sky HD, but are cropped to 16:9 on Cartoon Network.
I've made screen caps to prove it:
Cartoon Network HD
All caps made in MediaPlayer Classic Home Cinema, as PNG files at full size. Full Size for the Sky HD encode I have is 1280 x 544 (2.35:1), although the shows are broadcast at 1080p. Full size for my Cartoon Network version is 1280 x 720 (16:9, or 1.78:1); don't know what the broadcast resolution is. Sky HD caps are from Episode 11. Cartoon Network caps are from the recap of Episode 11, at the beginning of Episode 12. Images shown here are JPG, at a constant height of 320 px.
You'll also note that SkyHD doesn't have any annoying logos on the picture at any time.
The episodes are 16:9 (HDTV ratio) originally, not 2:35:1 (film ratio).
I respectfully disagree. I compared screen caps, and the opening of the Sky HD version shows all the stars that CN shows (i.e. full height), plus more on both sides. I sincerely doubt the creators would make a 2.35:1 opening starfield for release to British TV, and then crop the show itself. It's probably possible to confirm this by comparing some shots from the show -- something I might do tonight.
Just because I'm that big a nerd, yo.
Has anyone (besides me, obviously) noticed that the Sky HD versions are full 2.35:1, and that the Cartoon Network versions are cropped to 16:9?
Why doesn't CN show this show in its OAR (original aspect ratio)??
but it will be a cold day in ***** before i ever touch a newsgroup,
or post files there (see my sig)....torrents work for me, so i don't
mess with anything else......besides here in the US, some providers
are cutting off the whole alt.* newsgroups anyways...
Off-topic, but I gotta fix some FUD:
I have a 10Mb/sec down connection, and with a premium news host (like any of Giganews, Easynews, UsenetServer, etc.) I can completely saturate my connection. ALL THE TIME. Usenet is NOT inherently slow! Not too sure about inefficient -- but if it's able to consistently fire 10 Mb/sec into my computer, whether it's really efficient or not is moot.
I'm also a member at several private tracker sites, and I do get good torrent speeds. Some even run at 10 Mb/sec down. But definitely not all torrents run that quickly. On Usenet, *everything* runs fast! So if I have a choice between the two methods (Usenet or BitTorrent) for a given file, I always choose Usenet.
With a premium news server, NOMP, and a subscription to Newzbin, Usenet can be just about as convenient as BT.
Doing a little housekeeping, now that I have an HP MediaSmart server, and I find that I've got two separate downloads of some of the WG stuff. First thing I noticed is that the two copies of the 8GB Jedi I have are different sizes, by just a few bytes. D'oh!
I've looked through this thread and all the .NFO files, and I don't see file hashes or CRC32 numbers available. Could you (yes, you, person-who's-reading-this) post the CRC32 numbers (or MD5 hashes) for whatever WG files you've got (8GB or 13GB, any Episode), so (a) I can dump whichever of my two copies is corrupt; and (b) we can make sure the checksum info is available for whoever else checks down the road?