Harmy's RETURN OF THE JEDI Despecialized Edition HD - V3.1 — Page 149

Doctor M said:

My complaint is, while fake grain seems more natural, if it wasn’t there before you add it, you are just destroying more detail that wasn’t scrubbed out of the film with the grain.

digitalfreaknyc said:

Thank you. That’s precisely my point.

And the answer is precisely the same.

I’d imagine also that while individual frames may lose a miniscule amount of detail, the fact that grain varies in location by frame means that in motion all available detail shared between frames should still be visible as our eyes view things temporally.

has anyone else encountered an error that part 2 of the RAR is corrupted, when trying to extract the 3.1 UHD MKV? I’ve tried redownloading part 2, and still get the error.

SnooPac said:

CHEWBAKAspelledwrong said:

has anyone else encountered an error that part 2 of the RAR is corrupted, when trying to extract the 3.1 UHD MKV? I’ve tried redownloading part 2, and still get the error.

It’s available at 2 different sources. Did you try both?

Just tried it. Same result.

CHEWBAKAspelledwrong said:

has anyone else encountered an error that part 2 of the RAR is corrupted, when trying to extract the 3.1 UHD MKV? I’ve tried redownloading part 2, and still get the error.

The multipart downloads also include a .SFV file that contains the checksums of each individual multipart RAR. If you use a checksum verification program to open this .SFV file, it will verify if part 2 (or any other part) is truly corrupted or not.

If all parts pass checksum verification, you may be getting this “corrupted” error when something else is wrong, such as using the wrong extraction password. This depends on what extractor program you’re using and on what system.

The English tracks are theatrically synced, not sure about all the dubs but for dubs, falling out if sync by one or two frames shouldn’t really matter.

Harmy said:

The English tracks are theatrically synced, not sure about all the dubs but for dubs, falling out if sync by one or two frames shouldn’t really matter.

The dubs are also theatrically synced.

HanDuet said:

CHEWBAKAspelledwrong said:

has anyone else encountered an error that part 2 of the RAR is corrupted, when trying to extract the 3.1 UHD MKV? I’ve tried redownloading part 2, and still get the error.

The multipart downloads also include a .SFV file that contains the checksums of each individual multipart RAR. If you use a checksum verification program to open this .SFV file, it will verify if part 2 (or any other part) is truly corrupted or not.

If all parts pass checksum verification, you may be getting this “corrupted” error when something else is wrong, such as using the wrong extraction password. This depends on what extractor program you’re using and on what system.

I fixed it by downloading the latest version of Unarchiver… rather embarrassing.

Holy shit, it’s been a while since I last checked in this 3.1 UHD version looks amazing. It’ll just burn to a regular 50gb BD-R right, haven’t bothered looking into burning UHD.

Stinky-Dinkins said:

Holy shit, it’s been a while since I last checked in this 3.1 UHD version looks amazing. It’ll just burn to a regular 50gb BD-R right, haven’t bothered looking into burning UHD.

50GB BD-R will work, but you’ll probably want to scale back the audio tracks, or you’ll risk going over the total bitrate limit for 4K Blu-ray players. I did just one lossless track and several lossy, and that was fine. You could probably be less conservative.

Also, good to see you again!

Since UHD BD standard expects a larger disc, I think you should be fine with whatever you can fit on a BD50.

For my curiosity, are you guys burning 4K-UHD spec onto a BD-50, or are these data discs?

PSimpso said:

50GB BD-R will work, but you’ll probably want to scale back the audio tracks, or you’ll risk going over the total bitrate limit for 4K Blu-ray players. I did just one lossless track and several lossy, and that was fine. You could probably be less conservative.

I assumed that only the active audio track contributed to the total bitrate limit. Am I wrong about that?

IIRC, the player reads all muxed tracks simultaneously, then decides which ones to play. So you can go over the limit even when the tracks you’re actually using don’t go over that limit.

CHEWBAKAspelledwrong said:

For my curiosity, are you guys burning 4K-UHD spec onto a BD-50, or are these data discs?

Just a BD-50. Bigger than that I hear is trouble, so I’ve never tried.

So this masterpiece yesterday evening and today I woke up with a smile on my face. I try to fathom the work and effort put in to this, but it is so overwhelming. I am so grateful to Harmy and all of his “crew” for this incredible achievement.

(just for the fun of it I was watching the whole “special thanks” in the closing credits to see how many nicknames from this forum I could spot - and was quite stumbled and confused when I saw my own real name in the list. After a few seconds of wondering what the heck was going on, I figured out it was my Patreon-subscription that was the cause! Those were some really confusing seconds!)

Mac-Bain said:
Why do you keep ROTJ 2.7 now that 3.1 is out? Is it because 2.7 was the last “classically made” despecialize and 3.1 is from a scan? Thanks and keep up the great work!

The previous DEED releases for Return of the Jedi were ROTJ v3.0 and ROTJ v2.5, neither of which are being actively listed. You might be thinking of Star Wars v2.7, which is the current and color-corrected version of SW v2.5.

My preference may still be 4K83 2.0 in the end due to the DNR’d Disney source, but I can’t deny what an amazing release this is. 3.0/3.1 is a huge improvement over 2.5 and will be my go-to if I want to watch a cleaner version of ROTJ.

Thanks for everything, Harmy.

ThatPixarGuy said:

My preference may still be 4K83 2.0 in the end due to the DNR’d Disney source, but I can’t deny what an amazing release this is. 3.0/3.1 is a huge improvement over 2.5 and will be my go-to if I want to watch a cleaner version of ROTJ.

Thanks for everything, Harmy.

While I share opposition to DNR, we need to remember why it’s a problem… because it kills detail. The DNR’d and regrained O-neg has more detail than the non-DNR’d print.