Asaki said:
Speaking of Christmas, when's that 16 mm preservation of the Holiday Special coming out ;)
A 16mm print of that would be a sort of "holy grail". Or maybe "holy fail" would be a better term :)
captainsolo said:
OMG THAT BONUS! COMPLETELY UNEXPECTED! MY FAVORITE!
A 16mm capture, too. :)
rnranimal said:
btw, looks like it's up on usenet for those who can go that route.
Dang, now how did THAT happen? I thought I had that disk right h... wait a minute, where did that disc go?? ...
Brooks said:
Well then theoretically couldn't somebody else convert the captures to an HD file? I'd like to help out if anybody wants to tackle it.
I'm sure if someone had a serious project in the works, I could make the raw capture files available.
Mavimao said:
If you wanted to make a native HD version, yes, but this was done at 720 x 480 DV. The image on the film frame was an anamorphic 2.35 image (actually wider, but I can't recall the AR on this specific print). So the 480 vertical resolution would work great on a 720p upscaled version in which 2.35 is 544 pixels tall. It would only need a slight upconvert and then stretched out. Plus the benefit of having a H.264 encode would be wonderful as well.
This is correct. I CAN make a slight but real improvement in the quality of PG and PSB by releasing them in HD, even though they are SD captures, because of the anamorphic aspect ratio. It is something I will definitely do - it's all just a question of priority. There are only so many hours in the day, and I have about 3 or 4 other SW projects in the queue, plus similar projects in other areas. For example, I might want to get ROTP out there before squeezing those last pixels out of PSB - it's still going to look pretty grungy after all.
Note this isn't the same as doing a real HD transfer to begin with. That I doubt that I will ever do, because I don't have plans to upgrade to HD telecine. It's not as simple as switching cameras, not by a long shot.
I have made the full raw captures available for other projects - for example, Harmy used a couple of segments to enhance his edition. That is really the main reason I've done these captures - for research purposes and to help others doing preservation work.
I'm very curious how the Lucas apologists' sect will view Harmy's work? These rude posts that pop up make me wonder if that's where they are coming from - or even from Lucasfilm itself? Actually I am a bit surprised there hasn't been more of a bombardment, like an active disinformation campaign or even a denial of service attack.
boondocks said:
At this point, why bother?? Why not wait for version 3.9, or better yet, version 9999999999999.0
The only question is, will there ever be a final, definitive version??? And if so, when??
THAT is your first post? Welcome to the forum, I guess. Geez.
Zottig said:
My thought has always been screw all other concerns and go for quality, this is about an optimal version of Star Wars, right?
I actually agree with you, except that I think it is important to have BOTH the blu ray and the AVCHD. Yes indeed, the highest quality must be preserved. But for this to have an impact, it must also be accessible. Most folks, if they have to burn their own blu ray to see it, just won't. They'll say "screw it, the official release is good enough". Most people don't care enough to make even the most minimal upgrade, because they don't understand the issues. But burning an AVCHD on a DL is so easy and for most people doesn't require any purchase. A lot of people could potentially do it, on a lark or out of curiosity... people outside of these boards, in the real world, who don't know they care until they see what they've been missing.
And yes, I too find the migration from CD to mp3 sad.
I too believe that the AVCHD is the most important release, because it is by far the HD format that most people can handle. To appreciate Harmy's accomplishment you need HD, which means you need a blu-ray player. And since most computers these days can burn DL disks, just about anyone who watches movies in HD can utilize the AVCHD to produce something better than the official SW BD.
In other words, the AVCHD has the best chance of going "viral", ending this destructive conflict, and bringing order to the galaxy.
No need for PMs just yet... watch the thread. I may have accidentally put it in the wrong envelope. I hope that person whose name is on the envelope isn't one of those nefarious uploaders. He said he was, but I thought he was just kidding.
It's done, and right now I'm trying to secure it so it doesn't accidentally get distributed. But darn it, I seem to have misplaced a copy. I hope it didn't end up in the wrong hands...
Nearsighted Scrappile said:
Ease up, Frink.
That's a contradiction.
Ok, then it's done! Leaving the menu as it was, also makes it more consistent with PG. All three will have the same look and feel.
Now I just have to make sure that it doesn't accidentally get into the hands of those nefarious sharers!
Harmy shouldn't be expected to re-upload the MKV, because doing so ties up his machine for days. It might be a good idea for someone to do it, though, so that this edit is always seen in the very best possible quality - especially by Lucas apologists.
Good point. It is set up to default to the 16mm mono audio. Without a remote, I don't see any way to change that setting - because you either need to get to the audio menu (requiring a remote), or you need to use the "audio" button (requiring a remote). That seems like a major drawback for people without remotes, even if I solve the time-limit issue for menus. Makes me wonder if I should be bothering to worry about people who don't have remotes.
Just to make sure I understand correctly...
Does the MKV version have the audio error?
Should I wait for a corrected version(s) of the AVCHD (and/or MKV), and is the plan to donote it with a new version number, such as 3 or 2A ?
Yeah, just deciding whether to do that one last menu tweak.
Y'all can probably guess why I favor at least one of the elements in the mono mix.
Yeah, definitely squeeze the most bits out of it!
pittrek said:
Usually it's done by creating x menus, which are identical. So let's say that you want a menu to play 5 times and then autoplay the movie, you can do it by creating the same menu 5 times, and after finishing the playback of menu 1, you play menu 2, etc. and after playback of menu 5 you play the movie. Even many commercial DVDs are made in this way
Hmm, that makes sense, I think I could do that.
I also have the sound menu, which isn't a motion menu, it's fixed. Do you know offhand how to put a time limit in DVD-Lab on a fixed menu? Or what to look up in the "help"? I've searched without success.
Thanks!
negative1 said:
if you, could you please make it autoplay after a set amount of time?
I haven't been able to figure out how, in DVD-Lab, to get a motion menu to loop for some period of time, but with an autoplay after a time limit. Does anyone out there know how to do it? Frankly I don't consider it essential, but if someone knows an easy way, I'm fine with adding it.
This is my last item to clear up (if possible) before it's all done!
Ooh, that's good.
Erikstormtrooper said:
Is there a place in the DVD menu to select the tracks, or is it only done through the remote?
Yes I have a menu for selecting between them.
captainsolo said:
You leave it as Dolby 2.0 and either in information or metadata can detail as 2.0 mono. This is how it is done on commercial DVDs that I've seen, the box and menus will list mono but the technical specs are just Dolby 2.0 ac3.
Do you know if the DVD standard allows for metadata in which one can specify 2.0 mono, so that a player could opt to display that information when that audio track is selected? That's what I'm looking for in DVD-Lab Pro2... I just don't even know if it's worth searching for (if it's not part of the standard, there's no point in my continuing to search in DVD-Lab for it).
Regardless, it looks like I'm going to stick with the 2.0 mono I've been using. Thanks for all the great feedback everyone.
Yeah, I am suspecting it isn't possible. DVD-Lab seems to let you specify what each language is, but apparently not what each "mix" is.
And, the reason that my DVD player is saying that both are stereo, is presumably because I encoded the mono mix as a stereo track with two identical channels. The reason I've been doing it that way, is because apparently some 5.1 systems play back mono in the center speaker only. Since many 5.1 systems have a center speaker that is inferior to the stereo speakers, I encoded it as stereo so that both mixes will come out of the main L/R speakers.
So now here is my next question... supposing that what I have said above is true, and the DVD player is capable of detecting the nature of the audio source and display that (when selecting audio on the remote), should I re-encode the mono mix as mono AC3 instead of stereo AC3? It seems to me that on the "plus" side, the type of audio would be properly displayed. On the "minus" side, some systems would play the mono mix through the center channel only, making it sound (on some systems) more anemic than it really is. As of now, I'm leaning towards leaving the mono track as stereo/fake mono.
Thoughts? PSB is done, I just have this one last decision to make.