Tai-Chi Master: HKV (R2FR) vs R0HK vs Scholar (R3Taiwan)

tom2681 · Post by **tom2681** » 10 May 2006, 21:21

Tai-Chi Master.

Universe:
1:30:35 NTSC.

HK Vidéo:
1:29:02 PAL.

R3HK:

R2FR:

R0Taiwan:

R3HK:

R2FR:

R0Taiwan:

R3HK:

R2FR:

R0Taiwan:

@Hungfist:
Time to distribute those custom subs.

Remastered, my ass !

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 11 May 2006, 08:47

The French disc is clearly better. The Universe is crap, way too dark IMO.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 11 May 2006, 12:48

Tom: Is this the Re-release (I refuse to call it Remastered) or Original Universe Tai Chi Master DVD? Any chance of adding the other one?

Tom2681 wrote:Tai-Chi Master.
@Hungfist:
Time to distribute those custom subs.
Remastered, my ass !

I'll upload them to my webspace tonight if Hung doesn't do it first. I'll wait to add instructions that link you provided until then so it's all in one post.

The subs with those instructions work a treat. They forget one step: To tell you to change the tagname for the subs from the default English to Chinese. I forgot to do this and didn't notice until I burnt the DVD I couldn't be bothered to re-author the DVD again just for that one VERY minor error (it says English when I turn the subs on).

Also oddly despite choosing to have them ON by default they're not.

I now have a glorious Tai Chi Master DVD with English subs, anamophic and Cantonese Mono.

grim_tales wrote:The Universe is crap, way too dark IMO.

If that was all that is wrong with it I wouldn't be that bothered with it. The 5.1 remix is atrocious.

tom2681 · Post by **tom2681** » 11 May 2006, 13:02

Is this the Re-release (I refuse to call it Remastered)

It is the so-called "remastered" edition.
The original is brighter, but also softer (it's not even watchable AFAIK).

I'll upload them to my webspace tonight if Hung doesn't do it first.

I'm not sure that HungFist actually wants to "release" his subs.
He'd rather give them to those who want it (one by one).
He doesn't want his subs to fall into the wrong hands.

HungFist · Post by **HungFist** » 11 May 2006, 13:38

Tom2681 wrote: I'm not sure that HungFist actually wants to "release" his subs.
He'd rather give them to those who want it (one by one).
He doesn't want his subs to fall into the wrong hands.

Right. I did Jailhouse 41 subs, and soon after found my subs from places I didn't post them to... probably being used by internet bootleggers... no offence Tom). I don't want that to happen again.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 11 May 2006, 15:16

Isn't it best to let everyone have them? If you don't want them posted publically I won't upload them here, no worries. I've not uploaded them anywhere.

Instructions can be found here:

http://www.videohelp.com/forum/archive/t219535.html

HungFist · Post by **HungFist** » 11 May 2006, 15:27

bradavon wrote:Isn't it best to let everyone have them?

No, because then everyone would be downloading internet rips and no one would buy the official dvd. I'm not working hard to make subs for people who couldn't care less about buying the actual dvd.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 11 May 2006, 16:08

French is much better, natch. Though a touch too bright perhaps?

chenlung · Post by **chenlung** » 26 Jul 2006, 01:44

I don't agree, Universe one is MILES better!

tom2681 · Post by **tom2681** » 26 Jul 2006, 14:17

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 26 Jul 2006, 14:44

chenlung wrote:I don't agree, Universe one is MILES better!

Really???

I know that the French image isn't that great, and any upcoming Weinstein remaster will I'm sure blow it away, but it's still much superior to the blurry, dull Universe, no?

chenlung · Post by **chenlung** » 26 Jul 2006, 14:45

I was kidding, as Tom2681 kinda knew

!

I'd have to be really stupid to attempt watching that murky shit (remix AND video)

!

chenlung · Post by **chenlung** » 29 Oct 2006, 04:04

BTW, why has the Universe image been blown up in resolution (and then masked into 16:9 ratio)? That's not really fair and it loses quality (not that it has any lol). I won't be blowing my images up in resolution.

Unaltered captures from the R3 Scholar Taiwanese DVD:

http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/3905/scholar1zq6.jpg
http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/3773/scholar2ec2.jpg
http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/3112/scholar3on9.jpg

Feel free to crop the black bar away should you add them but I honestly do not see why these images have to 'match' the others, just leave them as 'nature' created them. Just like a flower, you don't it it just because it doesn't match the others. Otherwise, there is no comparison.

tom2681 · Post by **tom2681** » 29 Oct 2006, 14:37

I won't be blowing my images up in resolution.

Nope, you've done even worse:
You've downsized it to 640x480.

1. I agree with you about the resolution thing.
If I had been allowed, I would have resized all caps to 1024x576 to ensure that there is no loss of detail. Unfortunately I was overruled.

2. You can't compare two shots of different sizes (or different aspect ratios) because the bigger one will always look better.

3. We (they)'ve agreed on 720x and correct aspect ratio.
720x480 -> 720x540 (4/3)
720x576 -> 720x404 (16/9)

4. Stop complaining about this in every thread. I know we shouldn't downsize, but there's nothing I can do about it. The people have spoken. The people are stupid.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 29 Oct 2006, 16:33

If I can manage 720x480 -> 720x540 (4/3) 720x576 -> 720x404 (16/9) so can everyone else.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 29 Oct 2006, 19:18

tom2681 wrote:Nope, you've done even worse:
You've downsized it to 640x480.

Yeah that does look weird.

tom2681 wrote:2. You can't compare two shots of different sizes (or different aspect ratios) because the bigger one will always look better.

Not always but otherwise exactly.

chenlung wrote:and then masked into 16:9 ratio

Agreed here, if it's non-anamorphic show it as such but then many people will be zooming so it could help to give an idea how it would look.

tom2681 wrote:3. We (they)'ve agreed on 720x and correct aspect ratio.
720x480 -> 720x540 (4/3)
720x576 -> 720x404 (16/9)

IMO we don't have to use this resolution but:

1. Whatever resolution we choose we STICK to it for 4x3 and 16x9 respectively no messing around because "you" feel like it
2. I seem to remember members using resolutions far greater than 1024x576. To the point where you could only see half the image without scrolling.

This makes it a NIGHTMARE to be able to compare which is better. Which lets face it is the ENTIRE POINT!

Sure you may lose quality by resizing but then it affects all the images equally so they'll all end up looking the same anyway but at the end of the day I don't have a problem upping the resolution but lets keep it under 1000.

1024x576 is too high, by the time you post it and the left of the Bullets is taken into account you'll be scrolling left and right like no one business.

p.s - Like I keep saying if it really bothers you USE LINKS! Why is no one listening?

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 29 Oct 2006, 19:21

Besides 1024x576 will mean you have to enlarge the capture. They natively capture at 720x480 or 720x576.

All I do is resize the height to 404 (or 405) so it's not like any resizing should be happening anyway. This is purely to allow for a non-distorted image.

If it's non-anamorphic then unresized should be 720x540. This is purely to allow for a non-distorted image.

Every time I've done it that is what the default resolution has been, to enlarge it will give an inaccurate view of the image.

chenlung · Post by **chenlung** » 29 Oct 2006, 20:55

I've changed my captures back to 720 because I understood

.

I can't help the 640x480 as WinDVD captured it that way. Unless anyone can tell me why?

tom2681 · Post by **tom2681** » 29 Oct 2006, 21:04

@Brad:
Resizing all caps to 720x404 causes a 76 vertical pixel loss in NTSC and a 172 vertical pixel loss in PAL.
That's the only problem I have with it.

BiscLimpkit · Post by **BiscLimpkit** » 29 Oct 2006, 21:08

omg... I'm going to through my universe disc away....

tom2681 · Post by **tom2681** » 29 Oct 2006, 21:12

Biscman wrote:omg... I'm going to through my universe disc away....

Yeah... but there's no better english-subtitled version yet.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 29 Oct 2006, 21:59

It's such a shame the same can't be said for Fong Sai-Yuk or Fong Sai-Yk 2, not even HK Video have released those.

tom2681 wrote:@Brad:
Resizing all caps to 720x404 causes a 76 vertical pixel loss in NTSC and a 172 vertical pixel loss in PAL.
That's the only problem I have with it.

Fair enough but IMO a distorted image is way worse.

Why are they distorted btw? They're not this way when watching the DVD.

tom2681 · Post by **tom2681** » 29 Oct 2006, 22:11

Fair enough but IMO a distorted image is way worse.

I never implied we should distort the caps.

Why are they distorted btw?

What do you mean "distorted" ?
What caps are you referring to ?

chenlung · Post by **chenlung** » 01 Nov 2006, 12:49

BTW, Universe is R0, Scholar is R3.

Bullets 'n' Babes

Tai-Chi Master: HKV (R2FR) vs R0HK vs Scholar (R3Taiwan)

Tai-Chi Master: HKV (R2FR) vs R0HK vs Scholar (R3Taiwan)

Re: Tai-Chi Master: HK Vidéo (R2FR) vs Universe (R3HK)