It will presumably be especially needed for SW LPP based shots. What you did with that Leia test frame you posted looked very reasonable in terms of de/regraining.
I feel like I might be missing something. What is Laserschwert’s v2.1?
Yeah, I will definitely do some workprints for v3.0s - starting from scratch, there will be a large probability of errors.
We’ll see about v2.6 - if I did one, it would be just quickly splicing TN1’s shots in place of GOUT shots into the v2.5 lossless master and maybe fixing some of the more obvious color problems (it would probably end up looking somewhat like the Respecialized Edition).
Maybe consider replacing your animated Dewback by the cantina, you did a good job on it, but it does stick out a bit as not 100% authentic. That and the pink haze in the blue sky around some of your other fixes, like the Dewback mounted Stormtrooper.
Harmy’s rotoscoping has gotten better in recent years. But I still find it very impressive how well the un-extended corridor looks, considering how much camera movement there is and, surely, gateweave present on any non-specialized source (GOUT/35mm).
I think the whole Mos Eisley entrance scene will be a stunning improvement in 3.0. He did a good job before, but the (I think) lower quality scans didn’t really pair with the BD in some cases.
Harmy said:
I actually did consider doing a quick v2.6 or something of SW, because I expect v3.0s to take a long time to finish, but we’ll see.
That would be awesome. Maybe even just a workprint along the way, like Jedi 2.0 ended up being.
I personally think that there is no need to release v3.0 of all of the films at once - simply because SW v2.5 really needs an update and there is more demand for Despecialiazed SW than for ESB and ROTJ (mainly because this film is the most altered). Also, v3.0 of SW will be the biggest leap because apparently a bunch of new sources became available. But that’s just my humble opinion, of course it depends on Harmy and the rest of the community.
I agree, but of course Harmy will do whatever is right for him. If you ignore the issue of resolution, SW 3.0 will probably bring it closer in overall quality to ESB and RoTJ 2.5 (i.e., very little GOUT, great color, etc). But I’m sure it’s the most challenging of the films as well, so I could understand wanting to switch to working on the other films to avoid burnout.
I know it sounds like you’re joking, but you’ve brought this one enough times that I think you really do care about it.
I’m sure in the end, he’ll want to have every detail taken care of. This is someone who added a random hair in a frame back to SW. But for now, there are some recomps still present in Jedi (whether or not this is one), and I find it pretty funny to be most interested in a missing error, as opposed to (for instance) an error introduced by SE compositing (Obiwan).
I also think it’s fine to leave some of the fairly harmless recomps for now. The picture quality can take a bit of a dip when switching to 35mm footage. If better sources, cleanups, or rotoscoping can be done for 3.0, it would be tempting to have the more completionist despecializing, as was attempted for SW 2.5.
Anyway, I’m interested in the answer too, now. 😛 I’m sure you’ve put it on his radar, if nothing else. 😃
Or you can wait until he releases the final v2.0 which should be in the next couple weeks.
Or just get the 2.0 workprint mkv
Well, one would want the version that Dethalo fixed, also using Catbus’s subtitles to replace the missing jabba subs. But yes, it would work. Though Harmy put enough work into it since then, (color correction, cleanup, rotoscoping, and stabilization of the 35mm stuff, etc) that he’s actually calling the next version 2.5. He just posted, saying it may be out this or next week.
lol
Yeah, I decided to skip v2.0 for ROTJ, since the v2.0WP got a pretty wide release and v2.0 was supposed to be just the same as the WP only with a couple of fixes, but you’ll see this new version is much more than just that, so the next version, (which should be out late this week or early next week, I know I keep pushing it but it’ll be worth it, you’ll see, 😉 ) will be v2.5, followed soon by v2.5 of ESB, which will get all three movies on the same version and then I can focus on getting v3.0s done (v3.0 will be 1080p, so I’ll need to start pretty much from scratch on those).
Sounds great! (those of us looking over the workprint got the good news about 2.5 a little while ago - it really does look spectacular). Any idea which of the 3 you’ll focus on first for 3.0?
I saw the movie way back when it came out on DVD; I think I got it from the library, but I do not remember a single thing about it.
There’s really nothing memorable about it aside from ‘it took place during the clone wars’.
They’ve posted some samples in the ‘how to’ section. Encoding for dual layer discs (normal BD-DL) did indeed show some tangible improvements.
You’re right that there normally is a point at which increased bitrate isn’t worth the trouble. But this is a film with tons of grain, and the extra space does it some good.
All future updates will be posted here : http://thestarwarstrilogy.com/starwars/post/2016/01/27/Team-Negative1-Updates
and on Facebook.
Team Negative1
Are you leaving the forum?
I hope not.
Agreed.
All future updates will be posted here : http://thestarwarstrilogy.com/starwars/post/2016/01/27/Team-Negative1-Updates
and on Facebook.
Team Negative1
Are you leaving the forum?
I think he only wanted GOUT used for sync, shot timing issues, subtitle timing.
Any recomps that aren’t already dealt with are going to be as is until 3.0 I believe.
Great news.
Rob, have you tried burning the disc to make sure it works on hardware? I have only tested in powerdvd. If you do, perhaps give it a shot with the full film on the disc. LBA is surely important when it comes to making the branching occur smoothly?
Ooo. I have a question for the video codec experts. When I use FFMPEG to examine Harmy’s Despec Star Wars v2.5, it tells me that his video stream is at 23.98 fps which makes sense to me. When I use it to examine the Silver Screen Edition, it tells me that it is at 23.81 fps which surprised me. Why the discrepancy?
The SSE container has an error. But the video stream is fine and plays correctly.
Hi. I have a request. I would love to burn this to a DVD or Blu-Ray, but I want the title crawl which has “EPISODE IV: A NEW HOPE” on it. It’s a banality, so I thought to add it myself, but apparently technology hates me because the only editing software that managed to import the movie without trouble was nerfherding Movie Maker for Windows XP (which is obviously a problem, since I don’t want my Star Wars in 4:3)
So I humbly ask, could anyone please edit and post a version with the “EPISODE IV: A NEW HOPE” in the crawl?
Or you could download the Respecialized version.
JEDIT:That’s not a jab. I’m just suggesting.
…personally, I like just calling it “Star Wars” again. It makes me smile just thinking about it. 😃
I understand what he’s saying, though. For those who are used to the film in its 1981-1996 state, being (essentially) unaltered but with the IV crawl is what we’re used to. Respecialized is 1997, and therefore very different throughout. Despite not having personal nostaligia for the 77 crawl, it’s just not a big enough deal for me to change it, and it’s nice to have it original as possible. Still, I do really like the idea of seamless branching options for BD.
As for the footage differences with Harmy’s, I guess that’s from Harmy doing his best, brilliant trickery to recreate the original from remastered sources that used slightly different footage. Again, I can only guess.
Nope. Harmy doesn’t sacrifice the original sync to make things work, as tempting as that could be for recreating wipes and such. The soundtracks are set in stone, synced to a GOUT standard. Harmy’s are at times imperfect by a frame or so, but not intentionally.
Hi. I have a request. I would love to burn this to a DVD or Blu-Ray, but I want the title crawl which has “EPISODE IV: A NEW HOPE” on it. It’s a banality, so I thought to add it myself, but apparently technology hates me because the only editing software that managed to import the movie without trouble was nerfherding Movie Maker for Windows XP (which is obviously a problem, since I don’t want my Star Wars in 4:3)
So I humbly ask, could anyone please edit and post a version with the “EPISODE IV: A NEW HOPE” in the crawl?
I really don’t think I’m going to render and post a version for this change. But if you want better luck importing, demux the files into the 264 stream with tsmuxergui. It can be edited in many programs, like Premiere, in that form, but not as an mkv.
Tested the image. It does seem to be working!
Though the use of alternate audio tracks has kind of complicated things. Both versions have an audio hiccup at the time of the cut, so it’s hard to tell if it will actually be clean when the appropriate audio is in place.
That is great news indeed.
Like I said, there’s an easy enough fix. Vfx is just having trouble with multiavchd for reasons unclear.
I always worry when I hear about stuff like this. Since my tracks were made with the official DTS encoder, there shouldn’t be anything wrong or incompatible about them, unless they’ve been extracted improperly. It must be an problem with the authoring software.
The only possible reason for it on my end could have been not selecting ‘embed timecode into file’ as an encoding option. I can’t remember whether I did that or not, and I don’t know if it actually makes any difference. That might explain the program’s inability to determine the true length of the file. Other programs aren’t having this issue, so it could well be something else entirely.
Thanks for responding. Wasn’t blaming you, certainly, but I also didn’t know whether or not it was an official encoder used. Perhaps it could be the timecode embed option.
Clearly, tsmuxer and multiavchd play nicely with it. VLC shows the same wonky run time that Adobe does. So, even if those programs are wrong, there’s a specific mechanism for the error rather than random chance or adobe’s sloppiness.
I don’t have a problem with you working on your project, I was just trying to make sure AVCHD video isn’t being passed off as a Blu-ray, which would confuse someone trying to get the best quality available of Harmy’s work. And I was negative on the lossy audio on a Blu-ray since I think a Blu-ray player is probably more likely to be hooked up to sound systems that can take advantage of higher quality audio tracks, than most computer setups, and people probably expect that from a Blu-ray disc. Insurmountable problems with the audio tracks makes using the AC3 tracks an acceptable, or at least understandable, alternative; where I got concerned is when you stated you “ended up using the AVCHD”, AVCHD as a term represents a video encoding technology, not audio (though it can contain audio in its BD compliant structure), so it wasn’t clear, to me, what you meant you’d used as sources.
If I have this straight, you started out wanting to do everything with AVCHD video and the AC3 audio that was included with it, you figured out the MKV’s video was far better, you tried a number of methods that tried to reencode the video [it didn’t read too clearly after that if you found a way to keep it from reencoding, if you ended up using reencoded video, or if you went back to AVCHD video], and your last problem was the DTS-HD MA tracks were messing everything up and the AC3 tracks ended up working for you.
If I may speak for him again, since I posted some of the problems, the different problems were sort of inter-tangled. Encore should work without re-encoding, if your files are proper. But the DTS wouldn’t work with it. A way that some of us get around this is to use filler audio tracks in Encore, and then replace them using multi-avchd with the DTS. For him, for some reason, multiavchd rebuilds the disc in a way he doesn’t want (I forget if it re-encodes the video, it certainly makes new default type menus and removes the ones he made). The solution he went for is to use Encore with less than ideal audio files.
I would be curious if LPCM works. Should have no losses, and there is hopefully plenty of disc space.
Perhaps another option would be to open those DTS hd ma tracks in audacity and save them as LPCM?