Sign In

BobaJett

User Group
Trusted Members
Join date
26-Jan-2016
Last activity
21-Feb-2018
Posts
253

Post History

Post
#1154756
Topic
Need an objective eye. Having trouble with this MKV file
Time

But hell, I tried xfering to a thumb drive to play on TV/BD player and you cant move a file larger than 4gb to a fat32 drive. So I formatted to NTFS, and my PS3/TV/AVRCR doesnt even detect that type. Outside of my PC, I have no way to watch it> I have a decently sized 21:9 display, but its not the same as my TV/projector. Im curious as to how it will look on that big of a display.

Post
#1154635
Topic
Need an objective eye. Having trouble with this MKV file
Time

I dont know whats up, but for some reason when I try to burn the ESB-Revisited MKV, I get audio fine, but no video once the disc is finished. Ive done several in the past, but this one is stumping me. I use tSMuxer first to create an .ISO, then imgBurn to burn the disc like Ive done for all other MKV files. Any ideas on whats happening or what I might be missing? Thanks!

Post
#1153451
Topic
The Force Awakens: 1.78:1 scenes in 2D?
Time

Well, im a day late and a dollar short on this thread, but I couldnt resist not giving my 2¢. My opinion of changing AR is 2 fold. First, I HATE IT!!! I spent my entire life working hard to get a kickass home cinema to emulate the magic I experienced as a child and now some damn director wants to screw that up. Yeh, Im sure I could invest $10,000 upgrading to accomodate my current setup, but why?? I get it, I see why they might do it. But as director of a film, you should be able to convey what youre imagining in one damn format. Thats why you have lots of different lenses for your cameras. Personally, I think IMAX is a bogus AR. Sure, it fills your vision up vertically, but not horizontally.IMAX is too square for me. It should be more 2.2:1, or maybe 1.85:1 than 1.43:1. In order for an IMAX to fully emerse me in a movie (my left and right filled up), I have to sit a bit too close. Hell, outside ofsitting near the front, you cant even see the bottom of the screen, so why have the sides all of the sudden become so sacred??
I did say two fold. I do understand why directors do it. Hell, I never even noticed the DK had changing AR for the longest. Once I did, it bugged the hell out of me. But that was a small screen. I guess in a large theatre, it succeeds in conveying the affect the director wanted, especially if youre not concious of it like I was. But I will still stand my comment that a director should be able to succeed in conveying a ceratain mood or effect without changing AR’s by the use of lenses. Just me.

Post
#1143257
Topic
Episode VIII : The Last Jedi - Discussion * <strong><em>SPOILER THREAD</em></strong> *
Time

Ok, I went in with no expectations except failure. That seemed to work for me. As the movie wore on, I kept saying to myself, “I like this, its not that bad.” Then, the ESB scenes, the ROTJ scenes kind of irked me a bit. Luke was an old, crochedy cynic. I liked Hamills performance. Overall, it wasnt bad. I wished we had a bit more of Luke scene, but I got why it was done that way. For some reason, the flow of the movie and the interactions between the characters almost seemed like it was a sitcom instead of an epic movie. I dont know if thats the right word to describe it, but it just seemed too contemporary.

Post
#1142329
Topic
Episode VIII : The Last Jedi - Discussion * <strong><em>SPOILER THREAD</em></strong> *
Time

I had to sstop reading, I didnt want to completely reveal the entire movie to myself. I see several of you saying you liked TFA better. WHY?? I will be seeing tomorrow afternoon, so Ill definitely post my opinions. One last question though, out of all these first impressions, is it the you of now? Or the 12 yr old you? Everytime one of these films approaches I try and emulate the excitement 10 or 13 yr old me had when ESB & ROTJ came out. Its tough, but I try.

Post
#1093762
Topic
Scofield version - SW theater recording
Time

This post brings back some memories from a long, long time ago. Ive got a cassette tape of myself and my best friend acting out the entire movie, special effects and all, from 1978/79ish! He was all of the Empire characters and I was relegated to being the rebels, Leia included. 😃 But Im fairly certain, somewhere in the depths of my garage is a cassette of a live theatre recording I took many years ago.

Post
#1076574
Topic
What Was Your Reaction (If You Ordered It In 1978) To The Infamous &quot;Early Bird Star Wars Toy Kit&quot;?
Time

I never got the EBS. Hell, I didnt even know it exsisted until after the fact. But I do remember my first figure, Chewbacca from Service Merchandise! I was only 8 yrs old, but boy was I excited and played with my lone figure until Christmas of 78’ when I got all the figures, a TIE Fighter, an X-Wing and Lukes landspeeder. To date, probably the best Christmas ever. From then on until Jedi, every Christmas was Star Wars heavy.

Post
#1064078
Topic
Rogue One * <em>Spoilers</em> * Thread
Time

canofhumdingers said:

Yeah it wasn’t so much that as it was, “when the heck did they have TIME to do it?” They were in a mad rush to find and retrieve the data file while K-2 was simultaneously helping them search and fending off wave after wave of troopers. At least for Luke and co. it happens in a moment of relative downtime when they aren’t actively running from troops.

It’s not a big deal, just a funny little observation.

Heres my take, I think they did it to lighten their load because they knew they were about to be climbing and felt more comfortable in their lighter weight outfits.

My only two gripes, which have been addressed by others here in the forum, were the lack of stormtrooper continuity and Vader’s actor. In the OT, stormtroopers had to be roughly 6’-6’2" and weigh around 180-200. In R1, they were a hodge podge of body types and heights. Hell, there were even some fat troopers. Not a big deal, but an attention to detail SNAFU none the less. But the biggie to me was the actor who played Vader sucked! His gait was wrong, his hip swivel was not a Vader trait, his body type was not Vaderesque. More attention shoulve been paid to who wore the Vader suit. This guy had skinny legs, hyper extended knees, narrow shoulders (maybe it was the shoulder armor), flat chest etc etc. His battle scene movements werent too bad though. Spenccer Wilding, although a big guy like Prowse, had a more slender swimmers build than Prowse. Prowse had a more square body type which gave the appearance of more girth throughout. Oddly enough, Hayden Christianson did a better job in the Vader suit that this guy.

This post has been edited.

Post
#1058462
Topic
The Force Awakens: 1.78:1 scenes in 2D?
Time

My dumbass is just now getting it! Duh! I wasnt thinking. Thank you for the correction, again. But, again, I am of the opinion still that it would be better if they released a scope disc for folks with anamorphic projectors. As is, like you said, a BD is 1920x816, similar to a 35mm Flat film print. A scope BD would be 1920x1080 and when unsqueezed, you’d have a better projected image than the BD we get now.

Post
#1056851
Topic
The Force Awakens: 1.78:1 scenes in 2D?
Time

Fang Zei said:

Slight correction: you’re mixing up the vertical resolution of 2k with the horizontal of hd. Scope is 2048x856 for 2k cinema and 1920:817 for hdtv.

For 35mm film, traditional 2x anamorphic cinemascope is something like 1880x1550 for 2k.

I thought 2k was 2048x1080. 16x9 HDTV is 1920x1080 and a scope film brings that down to 1920x860ish. If BD would come with an anamorphic scope disc (1920x1080), then you project with an anamorphic lense, youd have a 1920x1080 image which is better than the afor mentioned 1920x860ish image. Granted, to the average joe, theyre probably not gonna notice the difference. But for most folks here, the goal is to get as close as possible to the cinema experience in the home. The thing I dont understand is that 2k and 1080p are nearly the same, but considered different.

Post
#1056838
Topic
The Force Awakens: 1.78:1 scenes in 2D?
Time

Colson said:

BobaJett said:

Thanks for the replies yall. Thats what I thought, but I wasnt quite sure. Basically a non-anamporphic disc will display in a 4:3 AR and when you stretch it all out to look right, youre basically enlarging the pixals which in turn degredates the image. To be honest, despite owning the GOUT, I dont think Ive ever watched it on my 16x9 TV. I wish the powers that be would offer scope copies along with the Bluray. That way youd get the full resolution instead of the 1920x860 or whatever it is.

The Blu-rays do have the proper aspect ratio and resolution, despite their myriad other issues.

No, they don’t. At 1.78:1 they do, but a scope blue ray is roughly 1920x856 or so. When you watch that with a projector, you get a slightly less than ideal image compared to an anamorphic scope theatre experience.

Post
#1056680
Topic
The theatrical colors of the Star Wars trilogy
Time

Ive never seen such clarity like these two frames. But, I really cant see a difference, other than yours is being more contrasty. Granted Im color-blind, but I asked my GF to tell me the difference and she had trouble seeing a difference as well. Perhaps its my monitor, but what am I looking for? At least so I can tell her and see if she sees it. Super cool none the less.

Post
#1053927
Topic
The Force Awakens: 1.78:1 scenes in 2D?
Time

Thanks for the replies yall. Thats what I thought, but I wasnt quite sure. Basically a non-anamporphic disc will display in a 4:3 AR and when you stretch it all out to look right, youre basically enlarging the pixals which in turn degredates the image. To be honest, despite owning the GOUT, I dont think Ive ever watched it on my 16x9 TV. I wish the powers that be would offer scope copies along with the Bluray. That way youd get the full resolution instead of the 1920x860 or whatever it is.

Post
#1053602
Topic
The Force Awakens: 1.78:1 scenes in 2D?
Time

Can someone answer a question for me that I cant seem to find an answer to, even on Google. I feel stupid asking it becasue I should know it already. Im a bit confused when it comes to the term “non-anamorphic.” I often hear that the GOUT version is non-anamorphic, yet it looks no different than any other widescreen offering of SW.

Post
#1053236
Topic
The Force Awakens: 1.78:1 scenes in 2D?
Time

AllAboutThatSpace said:

Very jealous you saw Jedi in curved 70mm! But anamorphic IMAX wouldn’t be possible unfortunately, either in terms of designing the lenses, building the cinemas or getting projection bulbs bright enough.

Yeh, It was a cool theatre here in town. When I got older it was one of my first jobs. I loved working there. The memories remind of the kid in “Last Action Hero”, although the theatre wasnt that ornate, but it still was a cool theatre. In the lobby, there was a wall of fame lined with pictures of movie stars that had visited there from 1940-1980ish along with two marble slabs that were signed by each star. Walt Disney signed it and drew Mickey and Donald next to his signature. Even Anthony Daniels signed it! The lady that worked the box office had been working there since the 50’s and was in nearly every picture in the background of the stars. It was very cool. Even after 30+ yrs working there, she only made minimum wage ($3.35 hr in 87’).
Yeh, I was more or lessing venting because of how theatres have takien a nosedive when it comes to design and advertising. The hardware is top notch, but they fall short on viewing medium. To add to your comment, I guess a 700mm IMAX anamorphic would be so wide at that size youd be hard pressed to see the whole screen. IMAX is great for documentaries or nature flicks, but Im old school and prefer the scope screens when it comes to movies. The least they could do is maintain CIH, thats what bugs me the most. This is the theatre I saw Jedi in.

This post has been edited.

Post
#1052984
Topic
The Force Awakens: 1.78:1 scenes in 2D?
Time

Dek Rollins said:

My problem with IMAX scenes is that the AR shift wouldn’t have to happen if they just did the whole thing in IMAX. Either use IMAX or don’t use IMAX.

Yall may disagree withme and call me an idiot, but even a movie in all IMAX format would suck IMO. The problem with cinemas today is the evolution of going from CIH to CIW. In the old days, and still in some cinemas today, but not many, You had a screen that was typically a Cinemascope AR (2.39:1) with curtains on each side and at the bottom. The bottom curtain was for that rare Super Panavision (2.75:1 AR). If the movie happened to be filmed in Panavision (2.20:1 AR), the curtains would draw in a bit to accomadate the AR. Or, if it was a Flat (1.85:1) they would draw in a bit more. Despite all of that, the height of the screen stayed the same. Now, more often than not, the width is the same but the height changes, which greatly redduces the experience and IMO is false advertisement. Example, I went to see “Logan” the other night. The ticket said “IMAX” and yes, it was in the IMAX theatre. But it wasnt IMAX. It was a 2.35:1 image projected on the IMAX screen.
As far as your question DEK, I say why not film the entire movie in 2.39:1 on 70mm Anamorphic IMAX? The human eyes naturally scan left to right, not up and down. If you had an IMAX size 2:39:1 screen, imagine how immersed youd be. I remember watching ROTJ in 70MM in an old classic theatre on opening day. The screen was originally a Cinerama (curved) screen that was renovated prior to Jedi, but they still kept some of the curve which made it even more immersive. Ill never forget it. I feel changing AR’s are directors being lazy. You can still convey size and height by changin the focal length of the lense or changing where you take the shot. I hate changing aspect ratio and I dont care for IMAX. Its nothing more than a glorified version of our TVs at home, actually not even as wide as our tvs at home. Thats completely counter to what our brains do naturally.

This post has been edited.

Post
#1048103
Topic
When you were introduced to Star Wars for the first time
Time

(1977) As we all know, when SW was originally released, it was only in a few select cities. Once it was obvious everyone loved it, they went into nationwide release. At age 7, I was already a huge sc-fi fan and I remember my parents showing me the ad in the paper for SW showings and telling me it was this new “greatest” sc-fi flick that was getting great reviews. I couldnt wait to see it. We went and saw it on opening weekend in my city, 6/17/77. The moment the Tantive IV came across the screen, I was totally enthralled. At that time, there had been nothing remotely like SW. (Maybe one could argue 2001) SW completely and totally reshaped how movies were made, how they sounded and when they were released.Ive argued this in other threads before, but depending on when you saw SW for the first time can greatly affect how you receive it as a film. After that original showing, I was obsessed with SW. I couldnt get enough. After SW, I saw each installment on opening day/weekend.

Here is one article on how SW changed how movies sounded and how theatres adapted: (How do I post a link where you click "here?"
http://www.tested.com/starwars/460476-star-wars-and-explosion-dolby-stereo/

This post has been edited.

Post
#1033466
Topic
The Star Wars Holiday Special 1978
Time

I watched it the day it aired as an 8 yr old. Then, it was very, very cool. Well, the SW stuff was cool. Even then I couldve done without the singing and Jefferson Starship. But I remember being so excited while watching it. The Boba Fett cartoon was by far the coolest part of it. Fast forward to 10 years or so ago when I got a copy online and burned to DVD. Almost impossible to watch as an adult.

Post
#1033460
Topic
Are the Prequels Even Worth Watching Once?
Time

I tried watching portions of Sith the other night and it was hard. Aside from Mannequin Skywalkers abysmal acting, the script/dialogue made the other decent actor look crappy as well.

One idea I thought of was to edit (greatly) the really cool scenes (preferably no dialogue) into one movie that quickly tells the back story of pertinent details leading up to R1 and then ANH. As bad as they were, there are some scenes that I still enjoy today.

To the top