Mavericks said:
Well, I already been there, just was wondering about video download.
In the first post of this thread...
In the sentence directly beneath the bright, colorful picture of Luke in his landspeeder...
There is the information you seek.
For the very cheap, the Raspberry Pi ($35) has been used as an HTPC.
http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/the-raspberry-pi-home-theater-what-you-can-and-cannot-do/
eldiablosuizo said:
No spam intended, but you might have to add another audio track option: in Navajo.
http://kgou.org/post/star-wars-you-never-heard-it-beforein-navajo
Oh man I would LOVE to hear that. Though there's no way that audio track is readily available since it's debuting in theaters next week. Plus it's probably synced to the Specialized Version, and it would take a native speaker to edit the audio to match the GOUT.
Ñø®¤ú§ said:
I was asking if this is Star Wars as it was in cinemas during 1977 or if it's just a project created to make it similar to the ones in the cinemas during 1977. I'm looking for the completely unaltered 1977 version in the highest possible quality.
ray_afraid said:
This is Star Wars as it was in 1977.
Ah ok, I'll get it then.
This is NOT what you saw in cinemas during 1977, but it's as close as is possible to get. This project is trying to as faithfully as possible recreate that using a number of different sources, but this is not just a scan of the original negative. There's still discussion about color grading in some scenes, for example. That said, this still may be better than what you saw in 1977 since this is all assuming a perfect print. If you went to a later screening in 1977 the print may have been scratched or degraded over multiple screenings. Also, not all theaters in 1977 supported stereo audio, so both mono and stereo are included in this project.
At any rate, this project's goals are recreating the 1977 film exactly, but saying that it IS the film that was seen in 1977 simply isn't accurate for a number of reasons.
chyron8472 said:
box said:
I guess I'll have to teach myself how to package 2.1 in an ISO like 1.0. I couldn't burn the AVCHD directly in OSX last time I tried.
Use ImgBurn to make ISOs. I've used other software, and it seems that ImgBurn really is the best. It seems cumbersome at first, but once you get used to the UI it really is pretty easy to use.
Thanks for the recommendation. I've actually used ImgBurn before - it's nice. I was just hoping I wouldn't have to spin up a Windows VM to package it.
waspattck said:
Why not just use 2.1's AVCHD in this case? It's already compressed and very close to 2.5 in content.
That's probably what I'll end up doing, since I'm lazy, and I have no intention of buying a BD burner any time soon. That said, there's a part of me that wants to share the best possible version of the film I can.
I guess I'll have to teach myself how to package 2.1 in an ISO like 1.0. I couldn't burn the AVCHD directly in OSX last time I tried.
At any rate - Thanks so much for all your work, Pan Harmy. And also to all of you in the "Harmy Army" for helping here on the forums, and spreading his work on all channels. Kudos.
I'm hoping to share out 2.5 via AVCHD on DL-DVD. Will this be possible by simply de-muxing enough audio tracks to reduce the file size or will a re-encode be necessary?
4 - Done on a 2011 Macbook Pro laptop screen.
I just scored a 4.
I think the DeEd needs more pink ;-)
marvins said:
Laserschwert said:
SpilkaBilka said:
timdiggerm said:
doubleofive said:
Yes please.hairy_hen said:
If there is interest in something similar for the audio side of things, I'll see what I can come up with.
Seconded.
Thirded.
Forced.
Your counting feels very forced.
Fifthed of course !
Sithed
aascii,
I'm in the same boat though I'm not in any rush since I'm only interested in burning physical discs for friends/family. But if I solve this before you find other help I'll post the recipe here.
FWIW, it may be easier to spin up an MS Windows VM, use tools on that platform to create ISO and move that back to OS X to burn.
box
The speeder's very noticeably more detailed in the De2.1, and as that's the most stable element of the shot, it's the most important part to be detailed. I doubt its worth it to redo the shot if you needed to composite the HD speeder into the LD rock blurs, but maybe put it on a wishlist for revisiting if you do a 3.0.
Harmy said:
I really don't see much difference there, except the Technidisc shot being blurrier and less detailed on the speeder.
the shadows in foreground rocks are deeper in the Technidisc and the background feels more detailed in the color variation of the blurs, though that's a bit more subjective.
Harmy said:
So, really? No one noticed that the Dewback is now actually HD and almost no GOUT is used (except a tiny bit on 3P0 where they cropped him off a lot in the SE rotowork)?
My initial response was "WOW, this is exactly how I remember it!" though I think that was more in response to the color shift.
I def noticed that the dewback and saddle to the left looked way better, but it's hard to know how much is color/contrast settings and how much is better original source. Also the sky is a better blue with better contrast with the antenna in background. Overall a great upgrade to the scene.
I have some myspleen invites. PM me if you'd like one.
dblake83 said:
TK-423 said:
And how come the MKV of Star Wars 2.0 is nearly twice as large as the AVCHDs of all the 1.0 releases?
This topic has alrady addressed that. Here is a brief recap:
With either the right playback gear OR the the right eyes/vision compression in the data packets is highly noticable via artifacts, color depth and so on...
[...]
Those who for whatever reason want smaller file size there are plenty of free tools that will allow you to do (ruin) that ON YOUR OWN and google/yahoo/duckduckgo/etc can be your friend unless you are too lazy of course....
dblake83, I really don't believe that TK-423 was advocating for a smaller file. He's asking legitimate questions about an apparent discrepancy in file size between versions. Please don't jump down his throat or assume he wants anything other than clarification. Let's try to keep the dialog civil here.
bilditup1 said:
AntcuFaalb said:
timdiggerm said:
TV's Frink said:
More git arrogance, please.
Uh, okay?
Git is the best revision control system ever created, far superior to Subversion and other competitors.
I don't know... I still prefer Hg for DVCS.
I love these boards. Why'd I ever leave?
(...I've heard good things about mercurial but never tried it.)
$ git add arrogance.*
$ git commit -m 'MORE MORE MORE'
$ git push origin master
Copyright laws vary from country to country, as do provisions for fair use. That should have been the first question asked if we were having a serious conversation. But ultimately this endeavor is grey-market at best and the most practical conversation would be less about legality and more about how to minimize risk. Owning source material (DVDs, etc) could potentially be used as a defense to mitigate damages should legal action be taken. Depends on how good your lawyer is and about a million other factors (method of acquisition, jurisdiction of legal proceedings, jury/not jury, etc).
crissrudd4554 said:
box said:
http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/forum.cfm/How-Tos-and-Technical-Discussions/forum/12/
And for the record, the DVD5 they're talking about is a file that you burn (or mount) without alteration - it's an exact image of the DVD that will fit on a single-layer physical DVD. Where to find the DVD5 is on-topic here, but this level of trouble-shooting is not really on-topic.
Well I'll look into it more. If that's what the DVD5 is then it will do me no good. I wouldn't know what to with it. I can't burn it to a disc if I don't have a program that's designed to burn discs with multiple audio tracks. More well know programs that burn DVDs (Toast, Nero, Windows DVD Maker, etc.) only burn one track. I'll look up the Imgburn and see where that leads me.
I think you're missing something fundamental. You don't need a program that will "burn multiple audio tracks". All those well known programs will burn multiple audio tracks fine. They may have trouble burning if you're passing them a bunch of files that approximate a DVD folder hierarchy. But if a DVD has been properly authored with multiple tracks and exists as a single image file (iso, etc.) these programs will burn that fine. At that pont it's just the binary representation and they have no idea if it's a data DVD or a video DVD or what - they simple burn the bits to the disc. End of story.
http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/forum.cfm/How-Tos-and-Technical-Discussions/forum/12/
And for the record, the DVD5 they're talking about is a file that you burn (or mount) without alteration - it's an exact image of the DVD that will fit on a single-layer physical DVD. Where to find the DVD5 is on-topic here, but this level of trouble-shooting is not really on-topic.
crissrudd4554 said:
Well I'll look up Imgburn and check it out. If that doesn't work where do I find the DVD5? Is an actual disc or is it just a file that even if I got it I would simply have to burn it to a disc myself which would bring me back to the problem that has brought me here?
I have no bluray player/burner anything so that format is meaningless to me. I vote for a 2.1 MKV or DL-DVD iso, assuming 2.1 is close to done. Don't rush on account of us.
No need to apologize, Harmy. But I think it makes sense to let this be a free-for-all. After all, the average person is not going to read through this whole thread, so will miss any specific 'criticisms'. And the die-hards that do read this whole thread will probably have their own opinions about the choices you've made in terms of color and source material, so any version will appear to be a compromise to them.
Well, that hour included learning how to use GreaseMonkey, but yeah - there was a good deal of right-clicking on elements to see what their id or class was.
Still one hour versus how many have you put in for even small changes on your despecialization? I felt bad not trying to buy you a beer last summer when I was in Czech for a few weeks, so consider this a tip o' the hat and beer raised. T'uk!
^ this.
Also, it really shouldn't be that hard. I spent maybe an hour with Firefox and Firebug to figure out what CSS to override. If someone really wanted to do a nice job, unlike my quick and dirty hack, they could spend less than a day and create a decent alternative. Maybe the site could even support user-uploadable themes in the form of CSS files or even LESS/SASS files. That would be great.
I updated the script so it looks a bit better on the thread browsing pages. Also, this script pretty much runs as is on Chrome, too.
Cheers!