This user has been banned.
If I read that right, you're simply replacing the 2004 Anakin shots with the ones from the GKAR set, correct?
If so, good. :-)
I agree about Radiohead's earlier stuff. The Bends was their best album, OK Computer was #2. The rest are above average to "meh."
I like Radiohead, and Animal Collective is okay. Never heard of Neutral Milk Hotel.
What's that make me? Half-hipster?
... or he's affiliated with Lucasfilm, and doesn't want to get in trouble with them for supplying original copyrighted material to someone who's altering their films.
Well, that sucks. :-(
IMAX and 70mm are technically the same thing. IMAX is just 70mm film run horizontally instead of vertically, which gives it a larger frame.
And I agree that digital looks lifeless compared to film. I don't care that most films go through a 4K DI before being printed back to film, I still want to see it on film. I've yet to see a digital projection that didn't leave me feeling cold after it was over.
I wouldn't use that, as it contains music not present in any previous version of the film, which wouldn't be in keeping with this being a theatrical restoration.
Plus, if the NTSC is synched to the NTSC GOUT, you can just use one of the PCM audio tracks synched to the GOUT from laserdisc transfers.
So I wanted to re-download this, as I never burned it to disc last time, and the Demonoid torrent seems to no longer exist.
Does anyone have a torrent link to this, preferably with the fixed audio? PM me if you do, I'd greatly appreciate it.
Zombie84:
I was simply saying that a 70mm blow-up release print of Star Wars would have more detail than a 35mm release print, simply due to its larger size being able to capture more of the detail from the internegative than the 35mm print would.
As I don't have any real experience with 70mm, I could be wrong about that.
Oh, and about 120Hz or 240Hz or whatever displays - I hate them. I was at Best Buy yesterday, and they were showing Avatar in Blu-Ray with the 240Hz setting turned on. Every movement looked rubbery and fake. And there were people there commenting on how great it looked. I just hung my head and walked away.
Warb, I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one.
Yeah, but so did every other movie. That doesn't mean anything. The gunbarrel sequence, to me, isn't an integral part of Bond.
Besides, they're in both Casino and Quantum, just in different places.
And Diamonds proceeded pretty much as if OHMSS didn't happen. Bond was after Blofeld because he's always been after Blofeld. It didn't feel personal at all, and it should have been.
And FYEO's opening is far too campy to take seriously. That didn't feel personal either. Blofeld randomly shows up, and Bond has to survive by killing him.
I just took a look again, fullscreen and 720p this time.
Not a bad idea with the shake, but I think it's just a little too much. Other than that, they look very good.
See, that's the thing. I read (some of) the books (the first 3 or 4, I believe), so the only early Bond films that feel like Bond to me are Dr. No (to a certain degree), From Russia with Love, and On Her Majesty's Secret Service. I like Goldfinger, but that's where the campiness and over-reliance on ridiculous sci-fi gadgetry began.
The Living Daylights still has some of the campiness of the Moore era (as it was originally written for Moore), but overall it captures what Fleming's Bond was meant to be better than any Bond film that came before. Hell, the sequence with the cello sniper at the beginning is almost identical to Fleming's The Living Daylights short story.
Licence to Kill, to me, is the film we should have gotten after On Her Majesty's Secret Service, but with Bond going after Blofeld to avenge his wife's death. The death of Leiter's wife, to me, brought Bond back to his wife's death, and his rampage of revenge is (to Bond) the catharsis he never got against Blofeld.
Instead, we got Diamonds Are Forever, certainly the worst of Connery's tenure.
Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace do a decent job of capturing Bond as he should be, but he's almost too dark and broody. I see a lot of potential in the series now, with Quantum being the new SPECTRE, but Bond needs to take a cue from Dalton in The Living Daylights and lighten up just a scohch. (I say that word all the time, yet just realized I have NO idea how to spell it. Scoh-CH, with the "oh" being pronounced like the word "oh.")
And I don't have a problem with the tweaking of the Bond "formula" (gunbarrel sequence, etc). It's the current series trying to distance itself from the campy excesses of past eras.
However, I do agree that Quantum felt a bit too much like the Bourne movies and not enough like a Bond movie. Making a Bond movie without adapting any Fleming material is always a risky move - I hope they can do better with the next one.
Just looked at the sub clip you posted, and it looks MUCH better! I'd be perfectly happy if that's how they look in the final release.
And I've started downloading the workprint, but it's slow going on my shoddy jury-rigged Internet. I'm going to my parents' tonight, and they have proper Internet, so I should be able to get it in its entirety by Monday, so I can watch it next week.
What you see in a theater on opening day, the first (or second, or third) time a print is run, is probably somewhere between 2K-4K quality.
Today, though, any film print will have been made from a 2K or 4K DI anyway, so it doesn't really matter. If you're only concerned about the most detail, see it digitally with a 4K projector.
I, however, prefer seeing something that was shot on film projected on film, for aesthetic reasons, regardless of whether or not the 4K digital theater across the hall has more detail or not. If it was shot digitally, it should be seen digitally.
Basically, I want to see it as close to the way it was shot as possible. Which is why I don't see films in IMAX unless, like The Dark Knight, at least part of the film was shot on IMAX.
But if you want to capture Star Wars the way it was seen in theaters in 1977, it's likely to be somewhere between 2K and 4K quality. Unless you saw it in 70mm, in which case it was probably above 4K quality.
bkev said:
Unfortunately, AMC has phased out real film projectors. Luckily, I would guess the other chains have not just yet.
What?!
NNNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
That just made me very sad, as all the theaters in my area are AMC's. :-(
What Warb said.
I think I had him on ignore a while back and took him off. Now he's back on. I'm done dealing with his shit.
Warbler said:
ChainsawAsh said:
Best Bonds:
- Timothy Dalton
- Daniel Craig
- Sean Connery
- Pierce Brosnan (too bad he only had one good one)
- George Lazenby
- Roger Moore
I'm sorry, but you Sean Connery is only your 3rd favorite Bond?
here is my list:
1. Sean Connery
2. Roger Moore
3. Pierce Brosnan
4. George Lazenby
5. Daniel Craig
6. Timothy Dalton
Yep. He started out good enough, but devolved into a smug deliverer of one-liners by Thunderball. By his last two, he seems like a parody of himself. He has all the necessary charm, but I don't feel like he's a killer. And just because he was the first doesn't mean he was the best.
Moore was too campy and not suave enough from the get-go. Plus he was too old, and none of his movies were very good. I couldn't imagine him killing anyone.
Brosnan was good, but had too many terrible movies to work with. He did what he could. He focused too much on making Bond funny again, though, which was a step backwards after Dalton.
Lazenby did his best to bring Bond back to how he was in Dr. No and From Russia with Love, which I really respect. He's better than Connery was in Thunderball, You Only Live Twice, and Diamonds Are Forever. Yeah, I said it.
Daniel Craig does a good job portraying Bond's darker side, which I feel is very necessary. He has charm, but could kill you on a whim. He feels dangerous. Definitely a huge step in the right direction after the excesses of Brosnan's years.
And Dalton ... oh my, Dalton. How sad that he only got to do two Bond films. He's the perfect Bond. Exactly how I imagined him when I read the books. Craig comes close, but with Dalton, it's like he doesn't even have to try. He just instantly is Bond. It's a good thing both of his films are pretty damn good.
1080p is nowhere close to the level of detail a 35mm camera negative has. Hell, I'd go so far as to say that an original camera-negative 35mm frame has at least 8K worth of detail, probably more.
Now release prints, those have somewhere between 2K-4K worth of detail (probably nudging closer to the 2K side).
Even 16mm has more detail than 1080p (though not nearly as dramatic as 35mm).
So yeah, Cameron's full of shit.
So you don't think I'm full of shit, too:
I worked on a grad film last year. The director was contemplating shooting 16mm, 35mm, 1080p/24, or RED 4K. So we did tests for each.
The 16mm and 35mm were scanned in at 4K and 2K (we hadn't decided what to do about the DI at that point, so we did both).
For the 16mm test, you couldn't tell the difference between 2K and 4K. They looked pretty much the same.
For the 35mm, the 4K was the clear winner. You could pick up much more detail than you could in the 2K scan. This was my vote (film on 35mm, do a 4K DI).
Then we compared the 35mm 4K, 2K, the 1080p/24, and the RED 4K.
The 35mm 4K blew them all out of the water. The 35mm 2K looked better than the 1080p, but not as crisp as the RED 4K. The RED footage looked very good, but it didn't have the "feel" of film that I love so much. But as I said, it did look better than the 35mm 2K, as the RED footage was shot at 4K.
While my vote was still 35mm scanned at 4K, the director decided to go with the RED. He did a second comparison between RED 4K and RED 2K. The RED 2K looked a little better than the 1080p, but not as good as either 35mm scan.
Against my protests, the director decided it "looked good enough," and went with the RED 2K, simply because the post-production process would be simpler and cheaper.
What was the point of that rant?
Oh, yeah. There is a point to 4K. It looks better. And even when you downscale it to 1080p, you can tell.
The only thing Cameron has right is that release prints, after they're run for a while, do have less detail than a 1080p digital "print" would, as digital files don't degrade with use like film does. If you release your film digitally, it will always look the same, no matter what. That, in my opinion, is the most convincing argument for digital.
New addition!
I am currently ignoring:
Leper Messiah TR
Vaderisnothayden
and the new addition:
vbangle
I'm currently being ignored by:
GhostAlpha26
Leper Messiah TR
Jedi Temple34
I felt this deserved a list separate from my main one.
Bond films (this one IS in order, from my favorite to my least favorite):
Note that, in all honesty, I don't remember Thunderball, You Only Live Twice, or any of Roger Moore's films very well. I plan to watch all of them and amend their positions on the list in the near future. I should also probably rewatch Tomorrow Never Dies and The World is Not Enough, but nothing can ever make me watch Die Another Day ever again.
Oh, and my top 5 shift around quite a bit, but that's where they are right now (Licence to Kill being the most recent one I re-watched).
Best Bonds:
I don't forsee that list changing at all, unless Craig blows me the fuck away in his next one.
vbangle said:
The last three posts is all too typical of the bullshit that is clogging up OT.com threads now a days. You all are nothing but ass clowns that think you're being clever.
Hey look, you're the first new addition to my "ignore" list in a VERY long time!
Feel free to reciprocate.
...bitch.
*ducks under the frying pan that has been thrown across the room*