Spaced Ranger

UPDATED (twice):

Well, I went back to your file …
[deleted rest of the original comment – I wasn’t using the most up-to-date DVDStyler v.2.9.6]

Now, with this newest version (must be the one you’re using, too), there was no problem with DVD creation, subtitles and all. However, I made a test change in the video setting and lost the menu pictures (had to manually put them back in). That’s weird and suggests we’re not entirely stable here. (Be certain to do frequent “save-as” with progressive numbers to easily backtrack and try again.)

As my place-holder video is very short (2 min.), the subtitles don’t show (begins at almost 3 min.). I changed the first entry to 1 min. and it shows just fine! … but only after my player’s option was ticked to have subtitles “enabled” (and I thought technology was supposed to make things easier).

Everything seems to work fine but every button had to be checked to confirm proper navigation (a few were wrong) and proper action (a few wrong there, too). Also, the main video was set (or mysteriously reset itself) to “copy” for video and audio when it should have been “720x480” and “AC3 48K” (because we’re creating an MPEG2 video for DVD). Check your settings there, too. You should be able to generate successfully and operate the DVD normally.

(UPDATED INFO)

I gave your files a look-see and tried a few things.

First off, I like this new version of DVDStyler (I DL’ed v.2.8) over a very older version I had been using. Many work-around-features I made are now part of the program. Once I’m back on a real computer, I’m upgrading.

Your project file needed some tweaking to work without your original media. Pathnames are absolute, so just picking up the project folder and moving it breaks the paths. Fortunately, the project file is text and MS WordPad displays it’s format nicely (NotePad doesn’t). Therein I changed all the pathnames to where I put the files (all in the same folder was easiest).

Then I DL’ed a short YouTube video and made multiple copies as placeholders for your video files (not included, of course). This should’ve worked but as the video files were very short and your subtitles were for a full length movie. I guess DVDStyler didn’t like trying to link them up and threw a FAILED message on DVD creation. The subtitles were removed and that allowed the DVD creation to finish. (BTW, once there is some error, that situation might skew what the program expects and it throws out all kinds of odd errors about illegal boundaries or such. Once the original, real error is found and corrected, all those other errors vanish.)

I liked your DVD design. Some suggestions:

• Forget their default buttons, which don’t match your theme, and use text buttons (with a frame around it to show it’s a button) with color changes for the various states: normal / highlighted / selected
• DVDStyler is semi-smart and determines the next button to highlight (for example, auto(button5) or auto(none) ) when you press your controller’s arrow keys, which you can trust; you can manually change it in “button properties” to any other selection you want or don’t want a move in a particular direction for a particular button; same holds true for “action” when pressing the controller’s center key for the proper video / next menu to show
• Your chapter pictures can easily be made into motion menus by specifying the same duration time for all the pictures (I used 10 seconds, but you can make it longer, and it does look cool if you select your clips carefully); be certain to specify “loop” for the menu or the pictures will play once and then stop
• You can also put in a loop of music for the menus; the best procedure is to edit some music that sounds complete when looping smoothly; under 30 seconds is reasonable; that duration will be used for your pictures, too
• You put your menu backgrounds in as foreground pictures; I think I see why you did that – you saw the “safe area” overlay (turn it on/off with a right-click on the safe area for “view”) as an “edge of screen” and tried to make the picture fit that – but it’s really only a guide, for buttons and text; remove those pictures and make them menu backgrounds (right-click on the menu background for “properties”)
• Some of your pictures that you complained looked poor quality on DVD creation were actually poor quality to begin with, especially for being high-def; I tested DVDStyler with a clean 1920x1080 wallpaper and it looks perfect in the complete DVD creation (my old version had no smooth resizing so this now is so nice)
• From your development process, some program “garbage” was left that the interface no longer saw but was still in the code – if you make changes that doesn’t “register”, it’s probably this problem; you must look at the text file and delete garbage from there; for example, your 1st menu background had 2 background color statements:
  <rect width=“720” height=“405” id=“backgroundColour” style=“fill:#000000;”/>
  <rect width=“720” height=“405” id=“backgroundColour” style=“fill:#000000;”/>
  Even though I changed the background color in the program, it refused to accept the change. By manually removing the duplicate code in the text file, I got that to work in the program again.

Now this worked for me. If you are having problems, make a copy of your project file to work on. On the copy, try deleting, for example, the subtitles (since that was my problem), and see if you can complete a DVD creation. Keep working backwards, in small steps, until it works and then go forward to find what when wrong in the previous step. BTW, select “just generate” when DVD creating to use your media player to test without wasting DVD's.

I’ll keep checking your original project for code that is obviously glitched. In the meantime, try a creation and post what error messages it may give you. If your problem isn’t creation but operational, describe where & what happens or doesn’t happen.

solkap said:
I bought the Blu-ray Trilogy just so I could have a clear conscience about getting the Despecialized films.

And, in many/most countries, that makes you legal for backups and copies for alternate media devices, even if altered and made by an agent (someone else). No need to constantly look over your virtual shoulder for the maniacal Hollywood Police.

… would there be any advantage to saving as an ISO and burning with ImgBurn instead of burning straight from DVDStyler?

I’ve never saved as an ISO or burned directly in DVDStyler. I always save as a DVD folder (it just duplicates the simple file structure that’s on a DVD) for easy testing on most any player before a burn. Once I like everything, then I burn that folder to DVD in Imgburn (saves wasted test discs, but you need the extra harddrive space for it’s size).

Colson said:
In regards to 35mm grain, which would you prefer:

For a preservation? That would be the best as can come from scanning and recording. Preservation done. But there’s always the next step and that would be (partial or full) restoration.

Personally, I see film grain as just another type of image damage. Others want the theatrical experience, including film grain(1), which I get, too. Sound is even more – mono, stereo, 4/6 track pan. But it’s not “one or the other” … unless there is no money and/or drives to archive the milestones in the film’s restoration. [insert donations advertising here] 😄

(1) film grain is cumulative from the negative on up the production chain – answer prints, editing, master prints, distribution prints, and later-distribution prints (copies from previous surviving prints). The farther back down you go, the less grain you get … to a presentation which the director gave his approval and we never saw.

Imagine It Entertainment writes:

… just how much information is actually on film … The following images are a simplification to illustrate some general points. … and will vary based on specific film stocks.

		• • 8mm and Super 8 film has a maximum resolution of 2K horizontal lines. • • A 480 line SD scan will only get about 40% of the details from the film. • • A 1080 line HD scan will get about 75% of the details from the film. • • To truly archive 8mm or Super 8 film it must be scanned at 2K resolution.
		• • Older 16mm print film has around 2K lines. • • Newer 16mm and S16mm can have up to 3K lines of resolution. • • Although an HD scan is good, it only gets about 50% of the details from the film. • • To archive 16mm film a 2k scan is required for older print film and a 4K scan for newer film stocks with smaller film grain.
		• • Older 35mm film has up to 3K lines while newer 35mm film can have in excess of 4K lines. • • An HD scan only gets about 1/4 of the film’s details. • • A 2K scan (2048 ×1556) will get about 50%. • • A 4K (4096 x 3112) scan will get the majority of the film details. Newer film stocks with finer grain will require a 6K scan in order to truly archive it.

This is from the other 2001:ASO thread and it shows particular consumer-video releases, of which was the subject . .

Remember that when movies are made (which are mechanical & analogue in nature), the target is mainly the theater’s screen and, as with (old analogue) television, there is a safe area … outside which picture may or may not show.

Okay, it looks like a forum bug … of using a different style for smaller browsers. I discovered this when I resized the laptop browse slightly smaller for more open screen area. The problem is the forum code thinks my new size is cell phone sized, and hence the different, larger-everything format. A fix would be to ID the device. Or, rather than use browser size, use the desktop size (might still be a problem if a phone has native high resolution).

That is the popular stand-alone book?

Or a broken set of the collector’s edition (which includes a couple of extra books, besides the CD & filmstrips)?

I was afraid of that possibility. Although, other websites look the same. I’ll look into my main browser settings and other tests browsers installed to see what’s up. Thanks.

This is definitely cool! We had a discussion of the original theatrical soundtrack some pages back in the other 2001:ASO thread Cinerama 70mm 2001 preservation. Is it possible?, beginning just below midway down page 11. (This soundtrack disappeared in favor of the 5.1 remaster.) It had all kinds of interesting things like positional-pan dialogue.

HAL wants you! … to help! Ask your 2001:ASO-fan friends, too. Even small amounts add up to getting it done.

Forum style is back to original oversize text (ouch, my eyes), and big, vertical buttons (ouch, my push-button finger) . .

Corrupted style files?

ElectricTriangle said:
It’s got quite a bit of DNR on it.

Mavimao said:
Oh wow, it’s quite sad how little detail is gained by going from the DVD to the Bluray…

This is a LucasFilm production and we can see how poorly they do things. Don’t blame the film. This Blu-ray shot, at Caps-a-holic shows they blurred the spacing between the overhead lights so much (both same edition of the DVD and Blu-ray) that even the old laserdisc resolves better . .

Darth Mallwalker said:
What ever happened with Antonio’s Fabulous laserdisc capture?

I know! I’m dying to see that one, too! (And, or course, his setup for doing it.) Think positive, or you’ll end up getting old … like these people . .

poita said:
Here it is:
https://we.tl/DGoJ000BWW

That was so EXCELLENT! And that was seeing the 1st-pass, then the 2nd-pass came and …

This is going to be AWESOME!!

Another 2¢, use the abundance of good color, on-the-set photos as a color correction guide. I’ve always been deimpressed by how much real color is missing from the various releases (and it gets worse with each new version). Here’s a proof-of-concept with the 1st-pass image, compared it to a set shot (from online search), and CC'ed into this . .

UPDATE:
Just wanted to add these picture settings (yellow highlighted) for the curious.

First applied, my Technicolor-izer approach does not rigorously duplicate Technicolor film sensitivity – it’s only a proof-of-concept that progressively increases a primary-color’s saturation as it becomes increasingly dominant among the remaining primaries (per pixel). It shows very little effect at this stage, but the color correction will bring it out . .

Next, get your eye-droppers ready! The color correction is likewise rule-of-thumb from a paint program, working on individual R-G-B components. It mostly consists of setting the spectrum end-points to approach the dark (>0) and light (<255) areas of the reference picture (into the legal picture range of approximately 16-240). Then gamma independently moves the R-G-B mid-points to approach the similar middle-colors (≈128±). Fine tune it once or twice, for when one setting affects another, and then you’re done . .

I’ve used wetranfer once before and did it completely anonymous. It’s just – do an upload (click on the sideways-V graphic and choose “link” to bypass all that e-mail info), get the download link (which is good for a week or so), and put it out for anyone to use.

Or use anything else you know or for which you are already set up. I’ve DL’ed from GD but it’s very slow for me. But a small download, of ZIP'ed up files, won’t matter much.

SilverWook said:
I also had to agree to be the Caretaker at the Overlook this fall. What could go wrong?

Maybe . . .

H e r-r-r-r-r-r e’s WOOKIE !!

. . . ?

alexp120 said:
… I am, at the moment, satisfied with the current home video release.

The Blu-ray? Oh, I hope not …

Spaced Ranger said:
I tried a test color-correction to confirm that the 2001 HD release (screenshot from the DVDBeaver review, linked previously) wasn’t some unholy Lucas-Lowry space graffiti. Fortunately not, for my simple histogram R-G-B manipulations corrected the spectrum nicely:

LOL … then don’t forget to “trademark” it – Masturpiece™

This “typo” (or “easter-egg”) should be worked into the cover artwork.

So "THX 1138 – masturbation or a masterpiece"?

Thanks for all the snippets, poita, of one of my top favorite films!

And that last clip is AWESOME!

BTW, THX 1138 – a “Director’s” cut (2004+)? or just tinkering?

George Lucas Interviews: THX 1138 - Made In San Francisco, American Cinematographer (1971) page 13 reads:

			" No film ever ends up exactly as you would like it to, but with minor exceptions, THX came out pretty much as I had visualized it, thanks to some excellent assistance – and a whole lot of luck. "

NOTE: I’ve updated the Google-Books links to be a “first viewing”, so you can read them.

silverwheel said:
He [Lucas] does complain about it in the Maker of Films interview from shortly after the film’s release. … how they disrupted the feel of the movie, how he was editing by feel and how their re-ordering ruined that.

Skywalking: The Life And Films Of George Lucas pages 96,97 read:

			" … THX was delivered to Warner Bros. Coppola came by the Mill Valley house on the evening before he was to take the film down to Burbank. Murch showed him a reel, and all Coppola murmured was ‘Strange, strange.’ "
			" Coppola insists that THX was barely cut, but to Lucas, they might as well have chopped up the entire movie into little pieces. "

UPDATE: edited the Google-Books link to be a “first viewing”, so you can read it! 😃

Glad to help (only because it should be easy & I’m time-squeezed too). If you don’t mind letting others know what problems were encountered and how they were addressed, put your link here. Otherwise, a PM is fine for the code, and then I’m back to comments here (as long as that’s okay with you).

@ poita

Spaced Ranger said:
[strike-out] Later (one of the GL re-releases) they tried to fix it up as best they could. Did they “invent” what we just found out? That making a deliberate mis-registration, and/or altering the brightness/contrast of the R-G-B channels, with hiding all the rough edges in the size reduction to consumer-grade releases, would result in a “passable color” shot? [/strike-out]

So , as this earliest film has the shot clearly having some color(ing), that disproves my above newer theory of original film B&W and later colorization.

[strike-out] It is interesting supposition that the early shot may have actually been B&W, by mistake (lost/damaged negative with only B&W dailies remaining) or deliberately (for a “monitor shot”). In the editing it was either lose the B&W shot (no time/budget for a monitor effect nor a re-shoot in color) or use it as is because it was such a good shot. [/strike-out]
Still … Look at every other shot of children in the movie – strong and saturated photography. But this shot stands alone in it’s oddly weak and unnatural color/tinting. … It still bothers me. Must work up a new theory . . .

What’s old is new. I guess that puts me back to the original theory of production B&W and release colorization … if I can demonstrate adding color to B&W using only digital techniques that translate to analogue ones available to the Lucas crew in 1970. (The original demonstration used my standard paint program techniques, which probably would have been beyond the tricks in their toolbox.)

So, exactly what could they do? Obviously changing brightness of the printer light (by us sliding end-points up or down, in sync? or using gamma?). Changing film stocks? or using neutral filters then upping the brightness? (by us changing contrast). Also, printing Technicolor, or using color filters, for individual R-G-B manipulation (by us working on R-G-B directly)?

Any clarifications or other digital manipulations that could be duplicated in analogue adjustments?

If you’ll post your DVDStyler “saved project” file (no media; it’s just the program code) somewhere (https://www.wetransfer.com/ seems to be a good, free service), I can look at it.

poita said:
Here is the segment for Spaced Ranger:
https://we.tl/QqRu36MOrd

Thanks!! (Sorry for the delay … I just had to try some tests immediately!)

I thought to try a Technicolorize™ (proportionally enriching evermore alone primaries) to get it stronger. Funny thing was, aside from it emphasizing the mis-registered edges, the interior color didn’t change much. It was almost like processing equal R-G-B . . . as in a B&W picture. Hmmm. So next was to align the registration (it looked like a simple horizontal stretch/squeeze) before trying again. And guess what happened . .

[old incorrect picture (wrong recombine produced “B&W”) replaced by corrected one (proper recombine)]

. . the picture went to B&W (mostly B&W, as I’m probably off by half-pixels or smeared resizing)!
. . nothing. The skin color, such as it is, was still there. (Pardon my previous test mess – I must’ve made a recombine with channel duplicated. Oh, well.)

It is interesting supposition that the early shot may have actually been B&W, by mistake (lost/damaged negative with only B&W dailies remaining) or deliberately (for a “monitor shot”). In the editing it was either lose the B&W shot (no time/budget for a monitor effect nor a re-shoot in color) or use it as is because it was such a good shot. Later (one of the GL re-releases) they tried to fix it up as best they could. Did they “invent” what we just found out? That making a deliberate mis-registration, and/or altering the brightness/contrast of the R-G-B channels, with hiding all the rough edges in the size reduction to consumer-grade releases, would result in a “passable color” shot?
Still … Look at every other shot of children in the movie – strong and saturated photography. But this shot stands alone in it’s oddly weak and unnatural color/tinting. … It still bothers me. Must work up a new theory . . .

That’s my working theory at this point.

ADDED:

BTW, even without RGB alignment of this shot (the same if it was aligned and then deliberately misaligned), I resized it (consumer video size), set black (black leather) & white (lights) points, and added a touch more of saturation – all to the laserdisc snapshot values from early in this thread.
At least this shows it’s been the same over several releases … more or less. Hmmm.

film:

laserdisc: