RU.08

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?

I've never done a side-by-side comparison, I don't know if it was converted to PAL from NTSC, scanned separately in a telesync (like the GOUT ROTJ was), or converted from PAL to NTSC. I'll have a look shortly and post some screenshots.

I have both the original PAL and the NTSC DVDs. I can upload the PAL version to a tracker if you would like?

(edit to add...) The PAL version was released in 1999, not 1997.

Personally, I think if he put cleaned/stabilised probe over the original it would look better - I don't at all like how the snow dunes/hills look in the filtered version. Parts of the probe have become thinner in the clean-up process.

It's just my opinion, and honest feedback. The Despecialised Edition is Harmy's baby and it will look however he likes best; no one is going to agree 100% with every opinion a restore makes or each decision that he or she makes with their work. Overall Harmy's work is outstanding, indeed invaluable, and most of us here share that opinion.

Yes, but in the past, like when the OT was originally scanned for the 2004 DVD (which I believe was in 2002), the standards were different. Did they even do 4k restorations in 2002?

There's a lot to like in the PT, and in the theatre I really enjoyed ATOC. It's not as enjoyable with repeat viewings as other films, but then neither is ROTJ. Personally I think ROTJ is the weakest of the OT, and that ROTS is the weakest of the PT.

Harmy said:

While I'm waiting for more ROTJ 35mm footage, I decided to take Team N1's recent Grindhouse release of Empire and start experimenting with it for ESB v2.5 and here's the result:

...

Harmy, with no disrespect intended, I don't like how that looks; it's like taking DVNR to the extreme. To my eye I prefer the 2.0 to the 2.5 in that shot.

Good luck with you future versions though, the work you've done is really commendable, and I take my hat off to you for taking on these projects. :)

They're also on Demonoid...

No I mean the Greedo font is bold.

It would be nice if Disney bought M Verta's restoration for release, could work perfectly alongside their commissioned 4k restoration of (what we're all assuming is) the 1997 SE. It would also get a lot more disgruntled fans back on-side by showing the SW-fan community they are listening and willing to engage.

The shadow alignment is similar to Greedo's, except that it's blue not black and the letters are a lot thinner. I wonder why they changed the credit's font though for Empire Strikes Back?

Docsap did say he's working on restoring a 35mm version he's had scanned, so it may be that he has the original optical mono audio and knows how it sounds, or it may be that he's aware of what was inserted or changed in the Laserdisc (if indeed there was anything done to it to alter it).

Well not to burst your bubble, but I can see a torrent that has the exact disc (French Saw III dir cut) full BD, and I can see other torrents that have the Dir Cuts for the first two films as well, full BD rips. So if nothing else, it would just be redundant. Preservation refers to something that's not available at all at retail, not something that is available but inconvenient due to region coding, etc. I'm certainly not saying you can't share them, I fully believe in filesharing, just that I don't think they qualify as "preservations".