Can someone post the checksum of the (joined) .MKV file of the Canal+ version? Just to know the file is intact or not.
It can be displayed with HJSplit.
Here's one: F314711CD228BFBCF3A1AEF2EA085012
dvdmike said:
Wowow stuff always has subs but with this being 1.75:1 the subs are in picture
At least I got that one right. The Canal+ version is still the best version then. WOWOW would be good for removing the logo though*.
(*Not that the logo would be distracting on the Canal+. It isn't. It's quite moderate. But since this a preservation forum, we're just talking about what would be the achievable from the present materials.)
ilovewaterslides said:
This dude said: " Don't have the Canal+ cap to hand, but the WOWOW airing is the same "old" transfer and is a higher bitrate anyway."
Hm. I must have mixed up it with something else. No burnt-in subs either?
I thought the WOWOW version had burnt-in foregin subs and was available in a more compressed format but no logo. I could be wrong.
Otherwise, the WOWOW would be the best source to remove the logo from the Canal+ version, since that's just as DVNR and EE-free.
Thank you very much for your efforts, dvdmike.
dvdmike said:
It has the DVD audio and the two commentary tracks
How could you sync it up with the broadcast? Was the movie exactly the same length (equal frame count)?
Impossible to do that without re-encoding (unless you keep it uncompressed, but that would be foolish), but as Harmy said, the loss can be unperceiveable to the eye when done right. It could even look a bit more detailed (or at least sharper without having the side effects) if you tweak the Canal+ version a little. Just the guys at the Universal went way overboard.
Harmy said:
Is it the same master as the BD only without the DNR? Cause it would be great if the logo could be removed.
Judging from the comparsion screencaps I've seen so far they're the same apart from the DNR and sharpening. What I had in mind was to mask out the Canal+ logo with the fixed (eliminated halos etc.) Blu-ray footage. I guess that's what you were thinking about too.
dvdmike said:
Thanks will give it a shot and keep everyone updated
It would be very kind of you to upload this Canal+ version, dvdmike. Who knows when and where would someone else do that for the fan community. Please don't give up on uploading. :)
Harmy said:
The green tint, where it appears, is not one of them and is completely intentional and confirmed by other sources beside the IB prints.
That's what I was asking, thanks. Thanks for your hard work for the community, too.
CatBus said:
The GOUT transfer is generally pink-shifted, desaturated, and overly bright compared to the better color references Harmy used.
It's not the GOUT I'm talking about, but my memories about the theatrical version. Are my _memories_ wrong? I just mentioned GOUT because that's a well-known old print which happen to show those things in neutral gray (which could be wrong).
Does anyone know why every big scale set (I mean: the Death Star and spaceships) that was neutral gray in the GOUT was toned toward turquoise in Harmy's version? I'm just curious what's the background of this decision. I seem to recall them to be gray or a little blueish gray, but not green the least. Am I wrong?
(It's very likely discussed before, but searching on this forum...)
Williarob said:
Yeah, I know, but I was trying to avoid having to do that... well maybe one day I'll do it properly, for now the stereo mix is good enough for me. It is after all, just for the kids.
Yeah, the stereo is fine for this purpose. Just please don't spread the 5.1 version. If it's available some people will think it's valid and jump on it just because of the '5.1' tag.
BTW, next time someone does a kid-friendly version, it's better to rip the subs and then read it through (or look for the bad words by searching). Less risk to miss something.
Williarob said:
Basically, I took the L,R, LFE, LS & LR channels from the original 5.1 DTS mix, then downmixed my stereo edit to mono to replace the center track.
Nononono, you shouldn't have done that. Keep it in stereo. You'd have to redo the changes on the Center channel if you really want 5.1.
Edit: explanation: the stereo downmixed to mono and inserted as Center channel screws up the balance of the sound room as anything that was in the Left and Right channels will now be audible in the Center too. It results in a significantly reduced stereo effect, and having the surround and LFE channels is very little compensation for that. Also if the stereo version that wasn't derived from the very same 5.1 mix (and most likely wasn't), it'll not be in perfect sync with the other channels, so weird effects (reverb, flickering and such) is expected to be audible in the music parts. Not to mention that only the Center channel was modified, so when a dialog is audible both in the Center and in another channel (and it happens sometimes), one will hear both. And there's a few more artifacts.
This would be an interesting project to do. I can't really say which audio would be the best, as I know there were tampering with it. Most releases contained an audio track different than the original (overdubbed lines, new sound effects etc.); the theatrical audio track may have been never released.
Back in the day, Hong Kong Legends made an effort to recreate the theatrical track for their DVD by using different sources. They've ended up an reasonable compromise. I don't know if a better audio for the Hong Kong version ever came. If the Japanese LD version is surely untampered with then fine.
As for the video quality, I've seen the Japanese Blu-ray, and it looks OK for an old movie. It's not super-sharp but much more detailed than a DVD. The colors are pretty dull. If I would do this project myself I'd take the luma levels and colors from the New Line laserdisc version (they look superb), and eliminate the burned-in subs with masks using other releases. Police Story could look awesome again.
I don't understand some of the negativity here... it's pathetic. If J. J. Abrams isn't innovative, perfectionist, smart and daring, I don't know who is... he created Lost. Lost turned out to be a boring mess after the first two seasons, but if the beginning wasn't innovative, exciting, suprising and every-good-thing-bundled-together, I don't know what else was. And JJ was only involved in the best part of the series. Similar with Star Trek '09. It needed a rethinking... oh, the characters weren't the same and did things they would've never done in the classic Star Trek? That was the point, people! I can understand why a Trekkie would be angry over that, but Star Trek has been changed and became fresh and exciting again. I liked the movie and it's untrue it didn't have a story, and most importanly it had interesting characters with interesting interactions, a nice dramaturgy and nice visuals. It was virtually everything the prequel trilogy should've been.
The only work by JJ Abrams that I've seen and made me disappointed, was Super 8, because it was just a child movie. But it was still an excellent job in its own way. JJ captured the beloved '80s feeling and looks and everything, too bad he was too respectful and reused the old story without updating it.
JJ Abrams would have been my first choice for the new Star Wars too. I may be a little wrong, and there are smarter guys out there. JJ Abrams still has to be in Top 5, at least, in the worst case. Choosing Abrams as director is good news, but half of the people just whining about it. Why not bring back George for them? Duh.
Most people follow fashions, knowingly or unknowningly. The reason I say this is a trendy viewpont because back in the old days Return of the Jedi didn't receive much criticism from the audience; it was nearly the same widely adored as the previous two films. The critics were less satisfied, but due to their roles they always enlarge the problems and with each sequel they're more and more critical anyway. Meanwhile the internet took over the world (and the prequel trilogy started off) the fans got wider and wider community to talk to and slowly they've started to put on the critic attitude, overanalyzing problems they didn't felt obtrusive originally. This who-is-more-insightful competition lead to the present state, when it is cool thing to bash ROTJ and blur it together with the prequels. Once again, the loss of credibility for me here is that ROTJ haven't been heavily critisized by the fans for a very-very long time.
Also, this Vader-shouldn't-be-Luke's-father thing... it's just as suspicious. It was an unexpected twist, for God's sake. It had a very important role in the impact ESB had. It is evident nowadays because we've seen it a hundred times in ESB and in many other movies too since then. And some of you would now change it. Could someone come up with an idea remotely as interesting as this was back in the day? Common sense, people! It was one of the moments that made ESB what it was.
I love Return of the Jedi and I agree it's ludicrous how it became trendy to bash it in the recent years. Actually it was my favourite for a very long time. Then as soon as internet took over the world and I've noticed how Empire Strikes Back was considered the best of the three (and it wasn't really the cricitism of ROTJ back then) it made me revise my stance slowly. Nowadays I tend to agree that Empire Strikes Back is the best in overall sense, but I don't enjoy ROTJ any less; the theme of evil turning good and the way it is acted and directed is still very impressive to me. This Luke vs. Darth Vader thread remained the point of the whole trilogy to me and it makes up for every bad thing the last installment has. It was clearly in the same league as Ep. IV. and V. despite the (small) flaws and not something "else" like the prequel movies. I never really liked the ewoks but they weren't even remotely as stupid as Jar-Jar was, and I could go on.
As for fans who think Return of the Jedi is no good... what are they a fan of? One movie of six? One movie of a trilogy? Or one and a half because the first is still O.K.? Is that Star Wars? It isn't. It's just one (and a half) movie that happens to be a part of a saga. I have high standards myself but these expectations is getting beyond ridicoulos.
Shattered Glass is a good movie and Hayden Christensen is good in it too, but keep in mind he's playing a nerve-racking prick. I wouldn't even dare to say his acting was bad in Episode III. (it was reasonable), he just lacks the charisma and virility to play Darth Vader. He was nothing like the average fan would've imagined Anakin Skywalker.
Mithrandir said:
...but can a Star Wars movie belong without Vader's armor, or Vader's character as THE driving force? Yes, the prequels tried; we all knew that the prequels were just an excuse to see Vader again...
Prequel as an excuse to see Vader again? How much screen time did Vader got? A few seconds, maybe a minute in Episode III. The reason that prequels (and not sequels) were made because that was the easier thing to do; Lucas didn't have to figure out a whole new story with a new finale, only tell a story in details that had already been summarized. A cash-in of the classic trilogy.
ImperialFighter said:
As far as George himself is concerned, while I'm relieved he won't be the one to come up with the final scripts in future, I kinda wish he could *still* be the one that would have the final say when it comes to choosing *all* the final character/ship/set designs etc.
Hell no! I wish George Lucas NOT to have final say in ANYTHING. I'm grateful to George for creating the original trilogy and the Indiana Jones-movies, but the prequel trilogy proved that was all he had in him. If we want anything like the OT, someone else has to take over the creative decisions who has a good grasp of what made to the OT what it was, has fresh ideas and willing to carry on in the same spirit.
Tyrphanax said:
I feel like the general consensus has gone from initial shock, surprise, and maybe a little dismay to one of very cautious optimism; don't forget we've been burned several times before
I didn't forget. That's what George did to you, single-handedly. And now he's gone. That's why I don't understand your initial reaction. Mine was pleasure. There was no hope for anything Star Wars-related while George was in charge. From this point on, things only can get better.
BTW, for a few things that has already been mentioned. I thought the new Star Trek was great. After I watched I immediately thought that the Star Wars prequels should've been at least as good as this.
Indiana Jones 4: it wasn't really good, but wasn't as bad as most hardcore fan says. While the SW prequels seemed just made-for-money and such, they really tried to make IJ4 right. They brought back the original characters, they've made the script rewritten a hundred times and took ten years to finish, they've tried to repeat and rethink everything that was good in the Last Crusade, they've tried to top the Holy Grail-theme etc. They "just" didn't succeed, but you can tell they've tried everything. The sad thing is, it was the creative decisions where it went wrong. Because Lucas and Spielberg are so giant they're not walking on Earth anymore, don't take advices from anyone, don't trust anyone and probably noone even dare to tell them they're doing something wrong. No wonder none of them made good movies in the last 10 years.
Everybody is so pessimistic here! I'm actually quite suprised I didn't find a feast here celebrating the good news that George Lucas is - finally! - out of the picture, so some good Star Wars movies may come. Ever since I've seen all the prequels and found them an utterly constrained and disgusting patchwork, I've thought that some of the fans - the most intelligent layer of the fans - could pull together better screenplays, better ideas, better everything, and if someone in power would let them work on it, there could be hundred times better movies than the prequels were.
Up to this point, it seemed impossible to happen. I thought Lucas won't do sequels and even if he would, they would be just as bad as the prequels, and he won't ever allow anybody else to do a Star Wars movie. But now that he sold the rights, there's a chance that the new movie would be made by people who are actually fans of the original trilogy and see every problems with the prequels and smart enough to avoid them. Actually I'm worried that Lucas is still hired as creative consultant. Cleary he told all his original ideas with the first three movies.
I'm not worried at all that the reputation of Star Wars will be degraded further; the new movies will be better than George's uninspired patchwork. This is GOOD NEWS guys! :)
(As for releasing the OT, I don't think we can expect anything good, I guess George made sure in the contract that he doesn't want it to be released.)
Moth3r said:
Starting with the output from the g-force script, run it through a very strong denoiser to completely scrub all grain - but generate a "difference" clip from the source and cleaned video. Apply the subtitles, then overlay the difference clip. This is essentially adding the grain that was removed back in, only this time it will be on top of the subs.
Smart. It makes the subs more authentic than with the method I've suggested.
You'd probably have to put the subs onto a, say, full green background, create a mask selecting the green parts with ColorKeyMask(), invert the selection, ruin the subs (grain, blurring, whatever) and Overlay() the subs onto the already fixed video.
vbangle said:
I disagree. There will be people that will encode using your script. In fact there are probably dozens of people waiting for your script to do just that...
The minority (like me and a few others) are waiting for the script, but the silent majority will just download the (new) available encode, obviously Dark Jedi's and they won't care to get something else which is in essence the same (g-force's PAL version or original script). Probably that's what g-force meant...
Moth3r said:
I also thought the subs looked unnaturally "clean". My idea, as I explained a while ago in another thread, was to overlay a layer of grain over the text.
Agreed, but that's really just the cherry on the cake.