[MOVIES] Star Wars & The Empire Strikes Back (original theatrical releases) 1080p AC3 x265 12bit hMCi plus OSTs and novelizations

Himechi | 202 points | Dec 24 2017 02:15:57

[MOVIES] Star Wars & The Empire Strikes Back (original theatrical releases) 1080p AC3 x265 12bit hMCi plus OSTs and novelizations | Megalinks MegaDB [MOVIES] Star Wars & The Empire Strikes Back (original theatrical releases) 1080p AC3 x265 12bit hMCi plus OSTs and novelizations

NUKED BY DMCA - LINK DEAD | Megalinks MegaDB NUKED BY DMCA - LINK DEAD

http://links.snahp.it/169.childhood.unruined

Password is the name of this subreddit.

The linked Mega folder includes both films, a complete soundtrack for each film and an epub of The Star Wars Trilogy collection of novelizations. You can pick and choose what you want. The soundtracks are complete complete; 3 CDs for each movie.

The first Team Negative 1 project was Star Wars (Episode IV) using original 35mm theatrical reels that were purchased on eBay. The film reels were supposed to be destroyed after a movie stopped showing so it was an extraordinary find. They scanned the film in 4k using their own improvised rig and then did a manual, frame-by-frame clean-up of the movie. This rip is my recode of the 10GB x264 8-bit torrent, which is version 1.6.

Also note:

getting the movie to look like an “official” release isn’t the goal. Instead of making Star Wars look better than it ever has, Team Negative1 has made an effort to preserve to look inherent to a theatrical print from the late-’70s. The idea is to let fans see what audiences would have seen in 1977, which means something a little softer, a little grainier, and even a little more washed out colour-wise than any official Blu-ray release would likely be.

Team Negtive 1's second release was The Empire Strikes Back. This rip is from the 21GB blu-ray iso torrent.

The “Renegade Grindhouse” version of ESB (sometimes called “Grindhouse version 1”) refers to Team Negative 1’s original 35mm version, released in January 2015. TN1 intended to clean it up in order to release a “Sanitized” edition, a bit like their Silver Screen edition of Star Wars. Sadly they disbanded before finishing the project, and as far as I know it is no longer being worked on.

Work-in-Progress thread on the originaltrilogy.com forums
Release announcement on Reddit
The Team Negative 1 reddit account is still active and posting. And defending their work because the internet can't have nice things.

-the stats- | Megalinks MegaDB -the stats-

Star Wars | Megalinks MegaDB Star Wars
4.55GB
Overall bitrate is 5380kb/s, ripped at RF22 on Medium
Audio is 2-channel AC3 @ 224kb/s (they included 2 tracks, I don't know why but I left them in)
English subtitles
Chapter markers

The Empire Strikes Back | Megalinks MegaDB The Empire Strikes Back
5.13GB
Overall bitrate is 5886kb/s (I've lost the activity log but the encoding was likely somewhere between 19 and 22 on Slow)
Audio is 2-channel AC3 @ 448kb/s
Chapter markers

The soundtracks are 320kb/s mp3.

[edit] I have corrected details about the Star Wars source file.

[-] jfy | 10 points | Dec 24 2017 06:38:47

A little confused. How is this different from the despecialized editions?

[-] Himechi | 13 points | Dec 24 2017 06:55:35

The despecialized editions are reconstructions using pieces from various sources all sewn together. A Frankenmovie. That's why you see a version number on them.

The TN1 releases are scans of original reels of the original movies that were shown in theaters and that a few someones squirreled away for the past 35 years. Nothing has been altered or modified except for dirt and scratch removal. No special editions. Fans classify these films as a part of GOUT. George's Original Unaltered Trilogy. GOUT is the holy grail of Star Wars fandom.

[-] jfy | 5 points | Dec 24 2017 06:59:10

Ok... So why make a Frankenmovie when the original reels can be scanned?

[-] Himechi | 12 points | Dec 24 2017 07:12:15

Scarcity. Lucas seemed to want to make the original films fade from existence once the special editions got rolling. The original movies were released on laserdisc in 1993 and every release of the originals since then, on vhs and DVD, has been a copy of those laserdiscs. No remastering. The quality has been poor. People haven't been able to work with the originals in HD because there hasn't been a source and even available SD sources were crummy. People are spending hundreds of hours crafting and revising Despecialized versions because there is no other route to seeing the original films in their original form in HD.

[edit]Also, Lucasfilm announced at some point that GOUT could never be released in HD because the originals had not been properly preserved and were in too poor a condition to restore. More than a few people thought that was horse****.
[edit 2] https://www.today.com/popculture/lucas-talks-star-wars-trilogy-returns-wbna6011380#.VYLOHRNVikp

The special edition, that’s the one I wanted out there. The other movie, it’s on VHS, if anybody wants it. ... I’m not going to spend the, we’re talking millions of dollars here, the money and the time to refurbish that, because to me, it doesn’t really exist anymore. It’s like this is the movie I wanted it to be, and I’m sorry you saw half a completed film and fell in love with it. But I want it to be the way I want it to be. I’m the one who has to take responsibility for it. I’m the one who has to have everybody throw rocks at me all the time, so at least if they’re going to throw rocks at me, they’re going to throw rocks at me for something I love rather than something I think is not very good, or at least something I think is not finished.

[-] jfy | 7 points | Dec 24 2017 10:36:33

Ok, but it looks like GOUT has been around since at least 2013, and versions of the despecialized editions are still coming out. Why keep working on them when the original scans are around?

[-] Himechi | 4 points | Dec 24 2017 13:20:36

You'd have to ask them. I'd imagine that it's at least a little like any personal project that's had some success: you keep at it because you get some satisfaction from it and maybe other people do, too. And as many posts here show, the TN1 scans don't seem to be well known.

[-] morkman100 | 4 points | Dec 24 2017 17:47:09

Probably because some people have different goals. Some want an authentic version even if poorer quality. Some want top quality even at the expensive of changing the experience of the original film.

[-] GoslingIchi | 1 points | Dec 26 2017 09:51:48

TN1 also used sources they weren't authorized to use, like Mike Verta's cantina restored parts. So it's kinda considered in bad taste to use the TN1 version.

[-] jfy | 3 points | Dec 26 2017 11:59:44

I thought it was all a scan from one reel?

[-] GoslingIchi | 6 points | Dec 26 2017 12:18:26

Nope. I'm sure you my mean source, since a reel only holds about 10 minutes of film.

And as someone that saw it in the theaters every other week, the prints were nowhere near that bad, so it's not an "original" experience.

There's quite a discussion about it at original trilogy. The discussion does not paint TN1 in a good light. They used more than one source for files, some without the permission. I think Verta was helping one of the guys, showing him how to do stuff, and one of the other TN1 guys just jacked the files Verta lent the guy here was training. Or something like that. It's been a while since it came out.

[-] Himechi | 1 points | Dec 28 2017 00:01:37

I phrased it that way to avoid having the description get bogged down in details. The interview I linked is similarly misleading when it refers to a single 'Spanish' reel as the source. I just wanted to get the basics down and make the paragraph short.

[-] ctc_upload | 9 points | Dec 24 2017 02:28:03

Very nice! Why is it 12-bit, considering that the source file was 8-bit?

[-] Himechi | 5 points | Dec 24 2017 04:00:19

The intention is to preserve quality at a smaller file size. That and doing a cpu encode instead of nvenc/QSV should leave us with an excellent-looking rip despite the 75% reduction in file size from the originals.

[-] Mr_Cobain | 2 points | Dec 26 2017 20:10:16

If you encode 8-bit source as 12-bit, it still has 8-bit information in it no matter what. Correct me if I'm wrong but, what you say doesn't make sense to me in the slightest way. The only effect is that almost no one (including myself) can playback 12bit H265.

In addition to that, you end up wasting 4bit for nothing. How does that preserve quality at a smaller file size? Isn't that the opposite?

[-] Himechi | 2 points | Dec 26 2017 23:15:21

If you encode 8-bit source as 12-bit, it still has 8-bit information in it no matter what. Correct me if I'm wrong but, what you say doesn't make sense to me in the slightest way.

I think you're maybe misunderstanding the intent. I'm not trying to improve the quality. That's impossible. I'm trying to preserve the existing image within a much smaller file. This forum post explains it.

8-bit requires more grain to cover up (ie. hide/camoflauge) banding due to the lack of a larger color spectrum being utilized. That additional grain results in more bitrate needed which results in a larger file size. So lets do the math. 8-bit = more grain, more bitrate, and bigger filesize to prevent the banding caused during compression in comparison to 10-bit video. This means 10-bit is capable of being compressed further, cleaned up more, etc... without as much banding caused as a result. Which is why 10-bit can be smaller file size, yet higher quality than an 8-bit counterpart if done correctly and properly dithered to 10-bit/12-bit/16-bit.

The only effect is that almost no one (including myself) can playback 12bit H265.

Based on feedback so far and my own experience, the only people who can't view it are using either set-top devices, mobile devices or older versions of VLC player. It's unfortunate that not eveyone can watch these rips, but it's also not like I'm keeping the originals locked in a safe. Anyone so inclined (and able) can get the torrents and post their own rips of these films and make them more widely compatible.

In addition to that, you end up wasting 4bit for nothing.

You lost me there.

[-] Mr_Cobain | 1 points | Dec 26 2017 23:59:28

higher quality than an 8-bit counterpart if done correctly and properly dithered to 10-bit/12-bit/16-bit

I totally lost you there. From an 8 bit source you have to artificially blow up that 8bit to 16bit (just an example for the sake of argument, easier to do the math) thru dithering. That results in double the (uncompressed) data. That opens indeed the possibility to use higher compression on that 16bit data resulting in lower bitrate, but not lower than a 8bit encode. The result (final file size at comparable quality) will be roughly the same, if not bigger. In other words you blow the data up first, to then use higher compression. Thats a naive fallacy.

The purpose of higher bit depth is to store more information, not less. If your display device and source material is 10bit, its totally worth it to encode/archive in 10bit, which of course results in a higher bitrate, not lower. Higher bit depth (16bit and up) only makes sense in editing, but not content delivery formats like h265 (that is just my personal opinion).

BTW, I use the latest vlc (mac OS) and it doesn't work. Don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining, I appreciate your work, but what that guy said in the linked forum post makes no sense to me. And speaking of compatibility, 10bit is common on many modern devices/players, but not 12bit and up.

[-] Himechi | 1 points | Dec 27 2017 02:10:48

I totally lost you there. From an 8 bit source you have to artificially blow up that 8bit to 16bit (just an example for the sake of argument, easier to do the math) thru dithering. That results in double the (uncompressed) data. That opens indeed the possibility to use higher compression on that 16bit data resulting in lower bitrate, but not lower than a 8bit encode. The result (final file size at comparable quality) will be roughly the same, if not bigger. In other words you blow the data up first, to then use higher compression. Thats a naive fallacy.

I still have no idea what you're saying. Try ELI5.

If your display device and source material is 10bit, its totally worth it to encode/archive in 10bit

I don't see what the display device has to do with it. A lousy 8bit rip is going to look lousy on an 8bit or 10bit display. A good 8bit rip might look good on a 10bit display. A good 10bit rip will always look good on both displays. Ditto 12bit. Are you saying that encoding above 8bit is bad because the result looks too good for the display?

which of course results in a higher bitrate, not lower.

What? It's up to the encoder to choose a bitrate appropriate to their goals. How does choosing 10bit equate to a higher bitrate than 8bit?

Higher bit depth (16bit and up) only makes sense in editing, but not content delivery formats like h265 (that is just my personal opinion).

What little I've read says that higher bit depth pays off when performing colour grading. Anyway, I'm not worried about viewers' displays, although 10bit displays will become common with 4k tvs so there's a little bit of futureproofing there.

[-] Mr_Cobain | 1 points | Dec 27 2017 10:48:24

Are you saying that encoding above 8bit is bad because the result looks too good for the display?

Of course not. If you really think that, you totally got me wrong.

How does choosing 10bit equate to a higher bitrate than 8bit?

Because it is more data. The bitrate is the amount of data that has to be read from the encoded file/source, which is after compression took place. As I said you can of course choose a higher compression rate to compensate, but again, that would be a naive fallacy, if your goal is a smaller file size compared to an 8bit encode.

I don't see what the display device has to do with it.

A 10bit encode has an advantage on a 10bit display only, and only if the source (sensor, film, digital file) delivered 10bit (or more) information. If your display is 8bit, your 10bit data has to be converted to 8bit before it can be sent to the display (or the display controller does it).

Again, I'm talking about content delivery, not editing/grading.

I'm not a video production expert, but I'm in computer science and I studied media formats, encoding and quantization techniques extensively. I don't know everything, so I'm open to learn more about the smaller-file-size-thru-higher-bit-depth-paradoxon. But for now, it doesn't make sense to me.

[-] Himechi | 1 points | Dec 28 2017 00:18:37

I'm a dilettante and am not up to the conversation you want to have. I can report on my choices and their results but I don't have the expertise to defend them with any depth. I do know that I am mostly satisfied with the work I've done so far and the negative feedback tends to hinge on compatibility issues rather than the actual viewing experience. I take that as encouragement that I'm generally moving in the right direction and my encoding variables continue to evolve. The issues you've raised here feels a bit to me like arguing over what fabric is used in a t-shirt. I mostly don't care. The shirt fits, it looks good and it is comfy.

If you want to pick more knowledgeable brains, try the handbrake forums. Staxrip's home page in on Github and they don't appear to have their own forum.

[-] [deleted] | 1 points | Dec 29 2017 00:09:21

VLC 4.0 can play this. Nightly builds for MacOS . https://nightlies.videolan.org/build/macosx-intel/ Problem is if you have Linux. Then you must build VLC from source with --enable-x265 (Debian 9 https://pastebin.com/F1Ns2Rui ) .. That is experimental VLC. But works fine for me.

[-] Mr_Cobain | 1 points | Dec 29 2017 00:22:30

No problem. I just saw something that breaks compatibility for no technical reason (at least none I know of). Thats why I asked.

I already found a Ep. IV Silver Screen in h265/8bit. I just couldn't find Ep. V in h265/8bit (or 10bit) yet. So I'm a little sad. :(

[-] [deleted] | 1 points | Dec 29 2017 00:32:24

x265 is a very demanding codec. But on a pc that is i3 (or higher ) and has a minimum of 4 gigs of RAM should work. 8bit, 10bit and 12bit ...

[-] [deleted] | 2 points | Dec 29 2017 00:48:43

Also , try to disable “Hardware-accelerated decoding” in VLC Try different video output modes. And change file caching to 2000 ms

[-] Mr_Cobain | 1 points | Dec 29 2017 01:01:36

10bit is well supported by current players, but not 12bit. That was the whole point of this discussion.

BTW, I can playback 1080p h265 8bit and 10bit in VLC on a 3 GHz Clovertown Xeon X5365 (which is basically a core 2 quad) just fine.

[-] SpitfireDesigns | 9 points | Dec 24 2017 04:05:52

I have heard a lot about the despecialized versions but somehow never heard anything about these. I loaded up Star Wars side by side with my blu ray rip and the blu ray looks super over saturated and is missing some details because of it, absolutely love this! If anyone is able to upload Empire to zippyshare I would be super grateful (Mega is being a pain in the ass since it's over 5gb's, won't even let me start the dl in JDownloader).

[-] tiiiiimmmm | 9 points | Dec 24 2017 04:11:11

Have you tried Megadownloader? I've had more luck with that starting 5GB+ files.

[-] Himechi | 7 points | Dec 24 2017 04:09:00

Can you use MegaSync? It should download until it hits the cap, pause and then resume after your ip changes or the cap times out.

[-] flyingpinkpotato | 2 points | Dec 24 2017 07:04:03

or vpn 😏

[-] SpitfireDesigns | 2 points | Dec 24 2017 21:55:40

MegaSync worked for me, thanks! This post sent me down a like five hour rabbit hole of looking into fan restoration projects, hopefully someone posts 4k77 and the Dreamaster version of Empire when those get finished. Thanks again for the post.

[-] ramusgrove | 6 points | Dec 24 2017 10:18:29

These aren't working for me? Tried playing on VLC and just getting green screen, also tried on my 2016 smart TV and not working. Any suggestions?

EDIT: But thanks for recoding these, can't wait to watch them!

[-] nintrader | 5 points | Dec 24 2017 14:02:23

I had the same issue, but found that it plays just fine in KODI.

[-] 95teetee | 4 points | Dec 24 2017 15:16:06

I tried casting the last 'despecialized version' that was posted in x265 to my TV and had no audio. I never even thought of using Kodi (it's an android TV so I've put it on there). I'll have to try it- thanks for the tip.

[-] fluffyguffy | 1 points | Dec 27 2017 16:39:42

Same here, works like a charm

[-] ZeeroOneThree | 3 points | Dec 24 2017 16:38:56

Try using madVR on Media Player Classic (Options>Playback>Output>madVR)

[-] Himechi | 2 points | Dec 24 2017 13:22:43

This seems to happen to some people with 12bit and VLC. I don't know of a reliable fix. Make sure your player is up to date. If it is, try a fresh install. If that doesn't work, try Media Player Classic (works for me.)

[-] ramusgrove | 3 points | Dec 24 2017 13:30:16

Some guy commented before and said to get the nightly version of VLC (never heard of it before) but it works! Thanks /u/Himechi

[-] ArtistEngineer | 2 points | Dec 24 2017 22:57:13

Broken for me as well.

All my other movies work fine in VLC, this one doesn't.

[-] [deleted] | 5 points | Dec 25 2017 08:59:45

[deleted]

[-] Himechi | 1 points | Dec 26 2017 01:38:57

There are a few solutions elsewhere in the replies here to get VLC to play it. Most TVs do not like x265, to say nothing of x265 12bit. I would suggest connecting a pc or laptop directly to the TV to watch it.

[-] rinkusart | 4 points | Dec 24 2017 11:41:01

I downloaded the original movie and the video is green. I hear sound but no image.

[-] Himechi | 3 points | Dec 24 2017 13:22:50

[edit] /u/ramusgrove says it works with VLC's Nightly build.

[-] Joonmoy | 3 points | Dec 24 2017 23:35:15

Might this be related to the change in Windows 10 that makes it send monitors content in the bit depth the monitors say they support? Because apparently many monitors get it wrong and ask for too many bits, leading to graphical errors. If this is the problem, you can change the output color depth to 8 bit in the Nvidia control panel (if you have an Nvidia graphics card). It worked for me when Project Cars 2 turned green.

[-] LoonDawg80 | 4 points | Dec 24 2017 14:34:38

This is great, thanks for the upload. I glanced at the links, but I'm heading out the door for some family Christmas stuff, any idea of when Jedi will be getting this process done?

[-] Himechi | 3 points | Dec 24 2017 14:42:48

They have a thread where they report working on Jedi. I'm going through it now to see how they titled their release or posted any links.

[edit] I finally got through the thread and it looks like TN1 broke up before they finished working on Jedi and nothing was released. Harmy seems to have released a Grindhouse version of Jedi using TN1 scans.

[-] Himechi | 2 points | Dec 31 2017 21:58:08

I've downloaded the 20GB Harmy release of Jedi and should be posting a recode of it in the next couple of days.

[-] blacksirius187 | 3 points | Dec 24 2017 09:54:27

Thank you for this awesome Christmas gift!

[-] Boob_Preski | 3 points | Dec 24 2017 16:45:58

Thankyou sir. Can we have zippyshare mirror please?

[-] JerryD2T | 2 points | Dec 24 2017 12:05:02

Great share mate! Merry Christmas!

[-] mteg | 2 points | Dec 24 2017 16:37:48

Thanks a lot for the upload!

I understand the rationale for ~5BG movies, but would it be possible to know where interested parties could get the originals files (or to post a ~RF16 version)?

[-] Himechi | 2 points | Dec 24 2017 16:43:58

I would look for people posting large rips and remuxes and messaging them to ask if they would post it. My bandwidth is too low to upload it in a reasonable amount of time.

[-] mteg | 2 points | Dec 24 2017 21:08:48

Thanks, that's what I guessed. Is there a torrent else? Even if it takes weeks they're movies I'd like to keep.

[-] Himechi | 2 points | Dec 24 2017 21:27:32

Drop by skytorrents.in (it's a clean site) and search for jedi grindhouse, empire grindhouse and star wars silverscreen.

[-] mteg | 1 points | Dec 25 2017 10:54:26

Thanks a lot, didn't manage to find the original release for ESB but I know the search word to use now.

[-] Jon_J_ | 2 points | Dec 24 2017 18:16:08

How do these stand compared to the despecialized versions?

[-] Vepanion | 2 points | Dec 27 2017 20:21:18

Is there any 5.1 or other surround sound version? 2 channel is kinda unwatchable for me.

[-] Himechi | 1 points | Dec 28 2017 00:04:52

I don't know. You'd have to search. I'd start with fan forums and see if maybe someone created and posted a surround mix from a digital release.

[-] Vepanion | 1 points | Dec 28 2017 00:26:50

ok, but it might still be difficult to sync it even if I find one

[-] Himechi | 1 points | Dec 28 2017 00:52:48

Then reply here or in the Discussion sticky and ask for help. We'll try to get you set up.

[-] Immortallix | 2 points | Dec 31 2017 02:11:41

To my knowledge empire wasn't Episode V until the prequels were announced yeah? How come this one says episode v in the crawl?

[-] callmevelvet_thunder | 1 points | Jan 04 2018 01:54:05

Empire was Episode V from the day it was released. You're probably thinking of A New Hope, which was simply "Star Wars" until (there's some disagreement on the date, but generally agreed upon as) the 1981 re-release, when it became "Star Wars - Episode IV: A New Hope"

[-] Immortallix | 2 points | Jan 04 2018 02:23:54

Interesting, so Lucas planned to do prequels back then? I imagine that seeing "Episode V" in a series that only had 2 movies at that point must have confused audiences

[-] Sammimack | 2 points | Jan 01 2018 13:00:38

Which version of Team Negative One's Star Wars is this? Version 1.0 or the Blu-Ray version (1.6)?

[-] Himechi | 1 points | Jan 01 2018 15:50:32

I don't know. What is the difference between those two?

[-] Sammimack | 2 points | Jan 01 2018 15:58:53

I think it's mainly colour correction and grain removal. I've tried to download that version (1.6) in the past, however it's an extremely tedious process when working with .m2ts files (or for me at least). [This page here] (http://www.thestarwarstrilogy.com/starwars/post/2016/06/13/Star-Wars-Silver-Screen-Edition-Bluray) should hopefully explain some stuff.

[-] Himechi | 2 points | Jan 01 2018 16:43:23

I had a look at the rip and compared it to the first screenshot in that article, of C3PO and R2 in the corridor. The rip does not have the orange mark, so I guess that means it's 1.6. However, while the article says "new audio tracks" this rip only has two; one DTS and one AC3. So there's still room for confusion about just what the source is.

On a side note, I have two 35mm Star Wars files. The first is 21.8GB and has a 45 second leader with a custom TN1 logo and a greeting to the viewer. Its file is named Star Wars A New Hope 30mm (1977).mkv and it does have the orange mark. The second file is 10.4GB and is titled Star Wars IV - Silverscreen Edition 1080p.mkv and it does not have the TN1 leader. This is the file I used to encode. Both files have only two audio tracks, DTS and AC3.

So, to clarify, I encoded version 1.6 but I do have version 1.0 here as well.

[edit] I managed to find the original link for the Silversceen release in my browser history. Ahashare rest in peace.

[-] Sammimack | 2 points | Jan 01 2018 16:51:48

Good, I just wanted to sort it out. Oh, thanks for the link, by the way.

[-] Himechi | 2 points | Jan 01 2018 16:53:37

I just posted that as an interesting tidbit. Ahashare went down suddenly last January at the beginning of a nearly-silent slaughter of torrent indexing sites.

[edit] You can see the original ahashare page here on the wayback machine.