CatBus

JulioBro said:

CatBus said:

Each player can choose a different way to display subtitle options. If you watch your MKV using VLC, you will likely see the names, as you expect – so the MKV is likely fine. The problem is likely that the Blu-ray player doesn’t read enough information from the MKV to display anything but numbers to choose.

Blu-ray players generally have very basic MKV support. If you try burning a Blu-ray disc, it may do a better job identifying subtitle languages, if they are tagged with the right language codes. Or you could connect your computer to the TV and use VLC, if that works better.

True enough, I could choose the subtitles on my computer.

I used Burnova to produce the blu-ray files, but the subtitles weren’t added.
It doesn’t accept the sups either.

Any app that just converts with all?

tsmuxer and tsmuxergui should be able to create playable Blu-ray files from an MKV, and supports SUP files.

https://www.videohelp.com/software/tsMuxeR

I’d recommend the nightly builds over the latest release.

dogesatiric said:

I wasn’t asking for predictions from people here I was just curious if he himself ever talked about it lol

Keep in mind, the “over one year off” prediction I referenced was made by Harmy himself for one of his earlier releases 😉

To the degree that anyone other than Harmy can be trusted to speak on this matter…

Harmy’s definitely done preliminary work on 3.0 for the other two films. That’s not anything near equivalent to saying substantial work is completed on either of the other two, or that they’re on some sort of parallel track, or anything like that. Some of that work was done in 1080p, before he’d decided to switch to 4K for the 3.0 series, so some of that work would need to be redone, probably from scratch. IMO Jedi 3.0 was prioritized simply because it was already closest to the finish line – the cost/benefit ratio simply favored that one. I suspect the same logic will be used to determine the next candidate film*

Historically, Despecialized has been a “release when it’s done” project, not a “release early and often” project. Not that there isn’t a cottage industry around guessing release dates, and even Harmy joins in the guessing from time to time. But the guesses, broadly speaking, are almost always not only wrong, but so badly wrong as to be totally misleading, and considerably less helpful than simply admitting nobody knows. Like, predicted release dates being off by a year, or more. So veterans often hesitate to repeat their mistakes by guessing new release dates. Also, I think it’s widely understood that Harmy has a lot less free time than he once did, which necessarily drags out his timelines more than ever.

* My money’s on Empire, but re-read what I just wrote about predictions

dogesatiric said:

has there been any talk of a timetable for when ANH and ESB 3.0 are coming?

Talk, sure. Answers, not so much 😉

We have top men working on it. Top men.

JulioBro said:

Ummm…downloaded Hammy’s SW in MKV and plays perfectly; fantastic presentation through my blu-ray player!
I tried adding the subtitles with the MKV indications, but I must be doing something wrong.

I added the movie and the .sup files to MKVToolNix, started Multiplexing and finished.
Played the file, which plays fine, and the blu-ray player movie info shows there are subtitles to choose, but doesn’t choose them.

They appear in numbers…1, 2, 3, etc., instead of the names for each.

Any suggestions or where may ask for help with this?

Each player can choose a different way to display subtitle options. If you watch your MKV using VLC, you will likely see the names, as you expect – so the MKV is likely fine. The problem is likely that the Blu-ray player doesn’t read enough information from the MKV to display anything but numbers to choose.

Blu-ray players generally have very basic MKV support. If you try burning a Blu-ray disc, it may do a better job identifying subtitle languages, if they are tagged with the right language codes. Or you could connect your computer to the TV and use VLC, if that works better.

SRT format has no layout or orientation data in it, so vertical subtitles are possible, but would depend entirely on the playback software. I don’t know of any software that does this, and I don’t see any way that it would be able to distinguish between the subtitles for onscreen text and dialogue. i.e. even if the software could do this, all subtitles would be vertical, or none.

PGS subtitles are another matter entirely, and I looked into this many times over the years. Back when I started this project, using EasySUP, vertical text wasn’t possible with that software. Later, using Pango, vertical text either wasn’t possible, or wasn’t possible on Windows (I forget exactly what the limitation was). Now that I’m using HTML, vertical text is easily doable using CSS writing-mode: vertical-rl. I thought I was about to be able to do something cool.

But now that it was possible, another problem revealed itself. Unlike the pan-and-scan versions of Star Wars above, 2.39:1 presentations simply don’t have very much vertical space to work with, if you want your subtitles to be CIH-safe (i.e. to display only within the video frame). Sure, if you knew that you would be projecting it on a huge theater screen, you could reduce the font to a tiny size and make it fit – but for something that would be legible on a standard TV screen – no, you just couldn’t make it fit.

So, in a nutshell, yes, it’s possible, but no, I no longer have any plans to do it. You’d have to extend the subtitles into the black bars, which would get cut off on some projection systems, or shrink the text so small that it would only work on a huge projection screen. Since my PGS subtitles are designed for playback on an unknown variety of systems, I can’t risk changes that would break things for anyone. However, if you want to do this yourself, it’s technically possible, if you want to make your own PGS subtitles and don’t mind writing the code to make it happen.

Martinbrianpanglernyman said:

Mr. Belbucus…i have written you a private message

Belbucus hasn’t been active here in many, many years. If you have a question, it’s better to ask in the forum where someone is much more likely to see your message.

PM sent.

PM sent.

captainplanet said:

I would love a link for the sup files. Thank you so much for your amazing work!

You’re welcome! PM sent.

michaelsft said:

CatBus said:
I use tsMuxerGUI to make the folder structure, and ImgBurn to make the ISO. Using that, I can get the video and one lossless 5.1 track at 43.4GB. Add three more 384K stereo/192K mono lossy tracks and you’re at 44.5GB. You can fit a few more 192K stereo/96K mono lossy tracks and subtitles after that and get in under the wire, just barely.

Thanks very much for your reply! I just tried your method with only 1 ac3 audio track (190mb) and I still get a BDMV folder at 44.54GB - I wonder if it’s because I’m on a mac?

Hard to say. There could be tsMuxerGUI version differences (I’m running a dev version because of some issues with the latest release), and I do want to specify that I create the ISO via ImgBurn instead of letting tsMuxerGUI do it. But regardless, it is a pretty tight fit.

michaelsft said:

CatBus said:

Verified, I burned this to a BD-50 and played it back in a hardware player. It’s glorious.

Also, burning discs beyond BD-50 capacity is probably asking for trouble. Stick to BD-50 and avoid worries.

Hi CatBus, quick question, how did you manage to burn this without re-encoding it? Did you just use small audio files and avoid the DTS tracks? 46.57GB is (as far as I can tell) the limit for burning an iso and I can get a bunch of files that under this limit but when I use tsmuxer or any other authoring software to create an iso it adds like 3GB extra onto the file size. What authoring software do you use?

I use tsMuxerGUI to make the folder structure, and ImgBurn to make the ISO. Using that, I can get the video and one lossless 5.1 track at 43.4GB. Add three more 384K stereo/192K mono lossy tracks and you’re at 44.5GB. You can fit a few more 192K stereo/96K mono lossy tracks and subtitles after that and get in under the wire, just barely.

One caveat is that I’ve been doing this a long time, so I pretty much never use the audio that comes with any preservation. I already have my own preferred audio tracks, and really just use the demuxed video from any new release with them. So if, for example, the lossless audio in the release is 24-bit or has an unusually large lossy core, you might have trouble fitting it – mine’s 16-bit DTS-MA with a 1536K (default) core. Similarly, my Dolby Digital files are 384K for English, and 192K for dubs (stereo; half of that for mono). If the audio tracks are maxing out bitrates, you may have trouble matching what I see.

Keep in mind I’m also experimenting with menus, and just forget that nonsense. With menus, you can’t even get a single lossless track in, even with very conservative authoring options. So if you want a disc with menus, you’re going to need to use the 1080p encode (should be OK), or re-encode the 2160p encode (may also be OK, but makes me sad), or go with probably a single lossy track (I couldn’t live with this).

IMO everything would be a lot easier all-around if the 2160p encode was something more like 35GB, but the goal of the release was to sacrifice as little quality as possible, while still allowing barebones BD compatibility. It does that.

alpuche70 said:

Can I get a link please?

I only have .srt subtitles but I want the .sup files or PGS

Thanks in advance!

PM sent.

Iske said:

Can I get a link too? Thanks!

PM sent.

PM sent.

PM sent.

PM sent.

Mac-Bain said:

SnooPac said:

I think the initial confusion is that you mean rotj 2.5* (not 2.7) is still listed.

And I think that’s a valid question (which might have a good answer/justification):
Why is rotj 2.5 still listed when rotj 3.1 is released (and presumably supercedes it)?

Exactly my point. I wonder if it’s because ROTJ 2.5 is made like all the others DEED (by adding different sources together), whereas 3.0 and 3.1 are from a 1983 source, and demand a different set of skills.

No, ROTJ 2.5 also used 1983 film scans mixed with the Blu-rays. 3.x uses 1983 films scans mixed with the UHDs. It’s the same general process, just with better-quality sources in 4K. I suspect 2.5 wasn’t removed when 3.0 came out because 3.0 had a major error, and 2.5 was the fallback. Then by the time 3.1 came out, failing to remove it was an oversight.

In anticipation of the official ROTJ DeEd 3.1 4K release, I created some UHD artwork.

UHD (4K) Blu-ray: https://drive.google.com/file/d/130M9JMoRdT6oYjM3Dvm22sNgpkifrJuK/view?usp=drive_link
HD (1080p) Blu-ray: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1glb8XnVxqJstm_FOE11EsGmeCgS6HBQ4/view?usp=sharing
DVD: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rcddg4WCtAqhiOhyaLPqw_1UCww4d050/view?usp=sharing

The only difference between 4K and 1080p cover art is the logos (Blu-ray vs Ultra HD Blu-ray)

They’re designed to be in the style of the 1990 VHS releases (Star Wars, Empire, and Jedi), but there are a few places where I modernized things a bit. These owe a lot to the work of ChainsawAsh and EyeShotFirst. There’s nothing preservation-specific about these covers, so they’d work just as well for Despecialized, 4Kxx, D+xx, or anything else you like.

Disc art is also included, in a matching style (including distinct designs for the 1981 version of Star Wars and the 70mm version of Empire).

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.

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.

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!

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.

Weird. Maybe we discovered some previously unknown variation between the European UHD and the North American one. At this point, Harmy could shed the most light on this. I have no clue.

Could be a crop difference, I suppose. Does the title appear on the same frame?