RU.08

Danfun128 said:

As far as I know, VHS tapes have only one audio option.

VHS does have two audio tracks, however players will only read one. When the VHS specs were first released, along one edge of the tape was the audio track, the other edge was the control track, and in-between was the video tracks in helical scan (the tracks which represent odd and even fields are pressed against each other with no space between them). Later, Hi-Fi audio was added to the VHS specification, but as I've just described every area of the tape is already used by video, the mono audio track, and the helical-scan video tracks. So in order to add the stereo audio, the hi-fi tracks were added physically underneath the helical-scan video tracks; thus they are non-continuous helical-scan tracks also. Unfortunately there is no way to select the audio, and any Hi-Fi VCR will read the Hi-Fi track (if present) instead of the mono track, however you can play the same tape in a mono VCR that does not have Hi-Fi heads and it will play the mono track and. It's very unlikely that it would differ from the Stereo track, but it's certainly not impossible.

Of course you have to have a Hi-Fi tape to begin with, and there's no guarantee that the OP's VHS tape has Hi-Fi audio if it's a really old release, in which case it will only have one audio track. If her tape does have HJi-Fi then it is possible to capture each track separately using two different VCR's.

Mason, dude. The Mondo looks pretty damn good in that screenshot, and moreover pretty damn accurate to the colours on the IB as well (remembering that the IB scan's colour correction is still a work in progress). If anything it shows how the IB's contrast is higher. That said, the scan still looks very good in its own right!

Ok, at the conclusion of our PM exchange this is now up on demonoid. Please feel free to help seed!! The files are all the same as from myspleen, so if you downloaded that you are set to seed.

And if you happen to be the only person on this planet without demonid membership, just PM me. :)

StarThoughts said:

I'm not sure what issue you may have with “BD,” but your use of “BR” as an acronym for blu-rays is, quite simply, factually incorrect. The acronym is “BD,” and has been since the inception of the format.

You're incorrect on two points. #1 - BR is an abbreviation of Blu-ray, and BD is one of two possible abbreviations of Blu-ray Disc, and #2 an acronym is an abbreviation made from the first letter of each word that can be said either as a word or as letters, for example "ASAP", BD, BRD, and BR all fail to produce a clearly vocalised word, thus they are not acronyms (unless of course you're suggesting you can say BR as "burr").

There is nothing incorrect about writing "BR disc", just like there's nothing wrong with writing "DVD disc", the only thing that you can't do is write "CD disc" since that duplicates the word the same as in "ATM machine".

StarThoughts said:

Every single commercially available Blu-ray has a stylized “BD” logo on it somewhere. It looks like this.

So what? I can show you DVDs that have "digital versatile disc" printed on them, or in some cases on the cover, even though DVD doesn't stand for anything.

I am happy to upload this to demonoid (+public trackers) for you. I would still like to see the unfiltered version if possible, you could just encode with a CRF of 14-16 at the original frame size and it should only come out at 4GB or so.

Yes it certainly has a magenta-shift, it should look better once it's been colour corrected. Frankly, from the screenshots the film looks to be in pretty good shape - not the frail, fragile condition described. And I should say in any case, what a great find! The only known IB print of TGTBTU known to be in private hands!!

Welcome back p. I love these 10-year old threads!

You raise a good point, scanning the film is one thing, but it then needs quite a bit of work by someone with the interest and the expertise to create a watchable release.

I was going to ask the same thing - they have lost credibility generally speaking, and I guess they've lost some SW credibility by announcing rapid development with "spin off" films. But rapid development isn't always a bad thing either, for instance Dick Donner shot much of Superman 2 at the same time as Superman 1.

It's on the Spleen and Demonoid.

You're better off just making a straight torrent of it, since all your peers will be presumable. Then ask someone else with a more reliable connection to put it on usenet, or mega, etc.

skoal said:

In my world, which may or may not be your world, BR=Blu-Ray.

Because...

Digital Video/Versatile Disc => DVD, but do folks say Digital Video/Versatile Disc? No. And I hope no one obnoxious chimes in and says they do.

Blu Ray Disc => BRD, but does anyone say Blu Ray Disc? No, folks say Blu-Ray.

Blu Ray => BR

DVD doesn't stand for anything, not "Digital Versatile Disc" and not "Digital Video Disc". CD stood for compact disc, so people took to assuming that the last "D" in DVD must mean disc, which is not necessarily true, so saying a "DVD disc" is not incorrect per se. Thus you are technically correct that by the rules of CD and DVD abbreviation, BRD, BD, or BR should all be correct abbreviations of either "Blu-ray Disc" or "Blu-ray" sans disc. However, it should be said that I am quite partial to "BD" because it goes back to the simplicity of "CD".

AntcuFaalb said:

CatBus said:

I'm not sure he got what he was aiming for with the scanlines.

The scanlines weren't explicitly put in. His script actually emulates how an aperture grille CRT (and other CRTs) functions and the scanlines in this case are a side-effect of that.

That's not really accurate, at least it doesn't look that way to me. On a CRT you only really see scanlines in progressive mode (e.g. old video games, arcade machines, computer monitors). In interlaced mode the scanlines are offset by the following field, but the scanline itself is significantly thicker than it is for the empty space between the scanlines. Here, I'll make a picture...

Simple example (no RGB offset):

Top field:

Bottom field:

Combined:

And this is what happens when all you do is upscale (spline36resize) and then "add" scanlines (really you're adding the "black" between the scanlines):

The difference of course being that spline36resize would keep the film at its original speed-rate, whereas the combination of fields would produce a double-rate file (50 or 59.97 fps) since each field is visible for two frames. You could certainly design such a script that leaves you no visible darkened lines and retains the correct brightness of the image; which is more akin to how it looks on a CRT.

Anyway, yeah you could do that, leave yourself a more solid looking picture, and then apply the RGB offset, but it still won't really look the same as viewing a CRT - better to buy yourself a cheap CRT tellie and watch it direct!

Yes, from a draconian interpretation, a more liberal interpretation says I do own the source material, on a different format. The rule says "content providers deserve to be compensated", which I agree with, I disagree with compensating them TWICE for the same transfer. And that's now where I'll end my part of the discussion.

I own up to four copies of some movies already, the last thing I need is to buy more duplicates in my DVD/BD collection.

This is really a very small difference of opinion, I can see some have a different opinion to me and that's fine. There's no need to be preachy about it. I own several copies of SW. I have uploaded well over 1TB (probably more than 2TB) on just the SW DE 2.5 torrent alone, the main thing I have done with it is to seed it for others, I think I watched it once from start to finish.

@doubleofive - since Lucas clearly said that DVD version is the definitive version, changes present in the 2011 version run counter-intuitive to the argument the buy it instead of the DVD. ;)

@towne32 Yes, the remaster will still be the SE or so I expect, and as I mentioned when that is released I'll buy it. And then I might do my own version.

I mean no disrespect to Harmy or anyone else, and this is where I'll leave my part of the discussion on this.

Well I think that's splitting hairs, IMHO. We're not talking about two different products, we're talking about the same thing released in different home video formats. I'll buy it in the future when there's a better quality transfer, I've already bought the 2004 Lowry "restoration" (supervised personally by George Lucas). Lucas declared that it was the definitive version:

“The other versions will disappear. Even the 35m tapes of Star Wars out there won’t last more than 30 or 40 years,” he said.

“A hundred years from now, the only version of the movie that anyone will remember will be the DVD version, and you’ll be able to project it on a 20ft-by-40ft screen with perfect quality.

"I think it’s the director’s prerogative, not the studio’s, to go back and reinvent a movie.”

And that was around 2004 or 2005 wasn't it (before the "GOUT")?

The blurays are the same as the DVD, just in a different resolution. Like most people here I own more than one copy of the SW trilogy on home video.

Lucas always liked doing that, just sitting on the SW trilogy and not releasing it, he refused to release it on bluray or hd-dvd in 2006 (when it was re-released on DVD that same year as we all remember), and for five years until 2011 by which time he could have had new transfers done as is the norm now for HD, but he didn't. So what was the point in waiting 5 years to release it in HD?

Disney should be keen to avoid getting the same reputation.

Yes, I didn't buy the blurays either since I have the 06 DVDs and don't see the point in paying again for the exact same 2004 transfer released in 2011 on BD! If they'd done a fresh scan, which we all believe Disney is now doing, I would have considered it.

Vinnie981 said:

Hello.....Im the owner of Blu-Torrents. Just thought I would stop in and say hi.

*If any are still waiting on a invite you can just PM me as well with email addy.

Hello Vinnie, I have an account already (that I haven't used yet!) and I have some things to upload sometime. I'm sure your tracker and I will have a good relationship in the future! :)

Nice to see that dark_jedi/teamblu have a new home for their releases.

hairy_hen said:

One thing the Team -1 version makes very clear is that the special effects shots were considerably grainier than the rest.

 Yes, all optical effects shots have additional layers of grain (including the optical wipes) - some more than others. A true restoration would de-grain the entire film, correct all the dirt and scratches, and then re-grain scene by scene. That goes way beyond what Harmy's version is capable of delivering. You also may want to reduce the overall grain one generation (since this comes off a print).

You don't need a burner, just put the .m2ts file in your media library and stream it.

mverta said:

Well consider this:  About 95% of the Special Edition is the original film.  We've all spent seasons "patching" restorations with varying materials.  It's a helluva lot easier to patch 5% than to do the whole thing end-to-end, take it from me.  The issue with patching the Lowry restoration is that its such a disaster it's like having to do the whole thing anyway.  So if they get the look right, if they get the tone right, if they get all the little details right, we'd be a long way towards Nirvana.  The only thing I know is that even with the negative, the film needs a giant heaping fuckload of work. 

Yes, if their restoration looks good. As you mentioned the Lowry restoration isn't great, it all depends on how the restoration looks.

On another note, I'd like it if they'd start putting 4k releases on "disc 2" of BD releases, that would actually encourage me to add more BDs to my library (which already has quite a few). Of course they won't, but it's not a bad idea to give your customers the best product you can!

I have put it on demonoid. There is slightly more picture than the NTSC version (except of course for the introduction shot which is simply cropped differently), and the contrast is higher (hence crushed blacks). Generally the PAL version has a bit more detail (see screenshot 3 e.g. lampshade and seat, or screenshot 4 wallpaper).

But even so Mike, your version may look better - not all 4k restorations are the same. If they made it look as good as Robocop remastered looks, then no problem I'd love to see that. However, I still think they're only scanning the 1997 o-neg, after which all the 2004 effects will be re-added.

You guys do realise that any of you can dl it from the spleen and then upload to usenet, right?