guiser

Oh man, I'm so excited for this!  Thanks for all the hard work guys!

Maclanachu said:

Well, the thing with newsgroups is you have to *gasp" pay for a usenet service. About $100-120 per year.

Mac.

There are providers out there that have flat rate plans where you pay by the GB.  Much more economical if you don't do tons of downloading.

That cover looks amazing!

fluxon said:

TV's Frink said:

You probably just need to enter the captcha when prompted.  There's a time limit (~20 sec) and if you don't enter it in time, it gives that error and moves on to the next one.

Yeah, you were right. I tried it again and the captcha popped up. It didn't pop up last time. Thanks

Sometimes the popup is hidden behind another window (or on another monitor in a multi-monitor setup).

poita said:

guiser said:

Thanks for checking.  Must be the years I spent watching old fuzzy VHS recordings.

I went back and noticed the stars disappearing early in Puggo Grande as well, but they seemed to actually get brighter if they were on the edge of a letter and as they appeared right at the bottom of each letter (strangely no spacing below).  Not sure what would cause such a thing to happen, but I'm done obsessing over titles now.

I can't wait to enjoy 2.1, thank you so much for all your hard work Harmy and to everyone else in the community that helped out with this amazing project!!!

I think is mainly due to the brightness of the text washing out the starfield that it is composited over, and the telecine gear (and reduction prints) not having the dynamic range to cope with it.

Thanks, I assumed there was a technical reason for this that had something to do with the transfer process, but have exactly zero experience with physical film :-)

Harmy said:

guiser said:

guiser said:

Just watched the 2.0 again and I noticed something during the opening crawl.  It seems as though the stars disappear early and reappear late as the scroll passes over them.  Almost as if the text has some kind of opaque black border.

Is this correct?  I've never noticed it before in any other version but I'm not all that observant most of the time :)

Bump, anyone?

Sorry, must have missed that. I saw a high def scan of the original crawl and the black outline is very much there.

Thanks for checking.  Must be the years I spent watching old fuzzy VHS recordings.

I went back and noticed the stars disappearing early in Puggo Grande as well, but they seemed to actually get brighter if they were on the edge of a letter and as they appeared right at the bottom of each letter (strangely no spacing below).  Not sure what would cause such a thing to happen, but I'm done obsessing over titles now.

I can't wait to enjoy 2.1, thank you so much for all your hard work Harmy and to everyone else in the community that helped out with this amazing project!!!

guiser said:

Just watched the 2.0 again and I noticed something during the opening crawl.  It seems as though the stars disappear early and reappear late as the scroll passes over them.  Almost as if the text has some kind of opaque black border.

Is this correct?  I've never noticed it before in any other version but I'm not all that observant most of the time :)

Bump, anyone?

Just watched the 2.0 again and I noticed something during the opening crawl.  It seems as though the stars disappear early and reappear late as the scroll passes over them.  Almost as if the text has some kind of opaque black border.

Is this correct?  I've never noticed it before in any other version but I'm not all that observant most of the time :)

stretch009 said:

 

Is the bluray going to be censored or something? 

If I had to guess, I would say yes.  The Blu-ray will only contain the "changed' version of the film, where "changed" contains various edits over the years.

ilovewaterslides said:

To me, the Full Frame edition of BTTF looks better than every other DVD edition that you can find. The quality is amazing, there's less MPEG compression artifacts than the widescreen versions. The colors as well look fantastic.

The FF looks better to me also.  The blu looks way to red and seems to have higher contrast...

Was anyone else thinking of changes they would like to see while watching the movie for the first time?  Sites like these... :p

Chewtobacca said:

In respect of the 3D BD of BatB, one can extract the left-eye stream (00272.m2ts) and obtain a 2D version.  The color timing might not be the original, but it is far better than that on the 2D Blu-ray / DVD.

Just curious, is there a technical reason to use the left eye stream as opposed to the right?

Thanks for the reply.  It is running pretty fast for the amount of data it's processing (125GB of raw video data as reported by the analyzer, the actual video files are much smaller than that).

For now, I am calculating the average luma for each frame (which is nicely just a single AviSynth command) and I have a python script to average that for the entire video.

The overall purpose of my experiment is that I'm trying to analyze some videos that I re-encoded from DVD for my phone.  I used the same settings in HandBrake (constant quality feature), but the quality is definitely not constant across different files, more like constant within each file.  Some of them look fantastic, but some look horrible.

My current theory is that the quality is not properly being adjusted for the fact that dark scenes don't compress as well all things being equal.  I'm not sure this is the case yet since I don't have enough data points.

Hi everyone!  I'm trying to use VirtualDub and AviSynth to calculate some things about a video file I have (I have almost no experience with video editing, etc.).  I don't want it to actually convert anything, just do analysis.  The script can open the video just fine, but I'm wondering about performance.

Currently I'm using the "Run Video Analysis Pass" in VirtualDub to execute my script, but am wondering if there is a faster method to use.  I'm getting about 350fps during this process so that might just be all my machine can handle, but for an entire feature length film it still takes about 10 minutes (give or take).

Is there a way to get VirtualDub to execute a script without performing a "dub" operation?  It occurs to me that this might be a ridiculous question :-) 

TK421138 said:

... I want it to be just like picking up a book only on a DVD with each book's pages turning automagically for you while in sync with the record.

This sounds like a cool idea.  I'm wondering if there is software out there to create this kind of effect for you?  Some type of slideshow software that could render the entire thing to HD video.  That would be compatible with pretty much everything.

You could release the audio and image data files as an extra included on the disc.

Troyig88 said:

... Jabba's boat ...

OT: This made me LOL, not sure why.  Never thought of it as a boat before.

dvdmike said:

 

First encode, not 100% happy yet 

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/148709

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/148710

 

This looks very warm to me.  I'm not sure how the original looked though, I saw this movie for the first time on VHS and TV.  I remember it being quite cool (color wise) at the time.  Also I could be remembering incorrectly :-)

Double post.

I've only watched the beginning of reel one so far, but it looks great!  Thanks for all your hard work on this project!

I really enjoyed the making of featurette.  It's nice to see how these projects come to be and hear from some of the people involved.  I wish more projects would add them, fascinating info...

Harmy said:

Aren't you guys a bit off topic? You're just repeating what has been said on this site a hundred times and you're repeating it in a way that makes other people think we're a bunch of whining fanboys. Urgh, I have to stop reading this thread, I get pissed of every time.

Anyway, guiser, yes, that is right, the FLAC version is fine. The stereo and mono versions are probably fine too but there's a small chance they may not be, so as long as people are remuxing the 5.1, they may as well remux those too, just to be sure.

Excellent, thanks!

hairy_hen said:

The two channel version of the 70mm track isn't in the Despecialized Edition—what I was referring to there was the actual 35mm stereo mix, which I also encoded to AC3 along with the mono.  The links are there just in case there were any problems with the tracks in the first mkv.

 

That reminds me of something I'd forgotten to point out, though: since the 5.1 mix was created by upmixing a stereo track and is not truly discrete, downmixing it back to stereo again is inadvisable.  There is a distinct possibility that doing so could cause phase problems, most likely heard as distortion in the high frequencies, which obviously is a less than optimal listening experience.  The most obvious cause of such phase problems would be the fact that the surround channels (which contain a certain amount of unavoidable crosstalk from the front) are delayed by 10 milliseconds, and definitely won't align properly in a downmix.  Add this to the fact that Dolby Digital decoders may drop the LFE channel when downmixing, in which case the main benefit of the 5.1—namely, the added bass content—would go unheard.

So if, for example, you will be listening to the movie on headphones, or any system without a subwoofer installed, then the two channel version of the 70mm track could make for a more optimal listening experience.

Since it isn't included here, due to the 5.1 more properly representing the theatrical experience, the user would have to mux it in themselves, but it may be worthwhile depending on what kind of listening setup is being used.  The links for it are in this post if anyone doesn't have it yet.

Thanks.  If I understand correctly:

- the 70mm FLAC encoding is ok (no encoding issues, not included in despecialized)

- this is a re-encode of the 35mm stereo and mono mixes (from Belbucus, just in case there was an issue with the version inside despecialized)

budwhite said:

hairy_hen said:

 

 

It may not be necessary, but just for good measure, here are the re-encoded stereo and mono as well:

part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4

Is this the 2.0 stereo 70mm and the belbecus mono?

Bump...

negative1 said:

guiser said:

negative1 said:

just watched your version on a bigscreen tv yesterday,

it matched our's pretty closely also... for some reason

watching it on a tv with different settings was quite

different from viewing it on a monitor....

 

i'm used to watching almost all my videos on monitors,

so it's just a matter of setting your color preferences

to match what you think is right.

 

later

-1

I wonder, do you think this has something to do with the differences in output range between TVs and computers?

that, and the colorspace..

 

but mostly the gamma settings are different for 

those devices..

 

also, once harmy tweaks the scene (or scenes),

it will match even more closely with the 

reference shots..

 

later

-1

Very interesting.  The recent versions of MPC-HC seem to support color management.  Movies on my hardware calibrated display seem to look much better when compared side-by-side with other players, though there are many options that change the look.

You seem to be able to set output range, gamma and rendering intent (the one I'm still the most confused by).  Are videos tagged with a profile similarly to the way photos can be?

atomic66 said:

I got a CRC error on part 3 of the 640 kbps.

Download twice but no luck.

I was able to extract the 640kbps audio without any problems.  Maybe a transient error with the file hoster, or try restarting (and updating) JDownloader if you are using that.

AntcuFaalb said:

I'm beating my head against the computer.

Unlike with raw capture #5, QuickPar'ing the raw capture #4 RARs consistently fails with the message: "Failed: Could not allocate output buffer". This is supposedly caused by having too much memory available, so I tried running it with 1/2 of my 4GB in use, but it was still a no-go. Similarly, I tried running it with a minimum amount of memory in use and, as expected, it was a no-go.

>:-O

Maybe try decreasing the size of the par set?