ww12345

Haha - much better! :)

Weird... Hahaha

May want to edit your post, mate... :)

skoal said:

I'm signing off from this forum because Jay gave me a warning for behavior for personally attacking someone here, which is not cool because there is no personal attack in t his post.

http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/RoboCop-Theatrical-Version-Preservation/post/759231/#TopicPost759231

Note, if someone isn't personally attacking someone, you shouldn't claim they are. It just makes you look stoopid!

 WTF?

'kay, thanks. I'm going to go post in "The Good, the Bad, and The Ugly" thread to tell them my thoughts on you leaving. That OK?

Tee H Ex. :)

Never seen it though, so I could be totally saying it wrong. Haha

Yeah, I guess even the other "in Mos Eisley" parts kind of look like that.

I wonder if they processed all the stuff at the same time? If so, could their color developing bath have been too hot? I know I intentionally boil (not literally) my B/W negs to increase grain, and I know that has an effect on color film too - I wonder if they rushed development of stuff run through the optical printer? Mike, are the shots you're talking about at Elstree run through the compositor/optical printer at all?

Huh. I wonder if their cameras were shielded back then? Do you know what model they were using for Tunisia and possibly Elstree? (not that it really matters, just curious). Yeah, I know what you mean though about the diffusion. 

Off topic, did Gil piss GL off enough to have to put the filters back on? I'm always baffled by GL decision to use filters/diffusion. You can add it in post if you want (albeit with a slightly different look), so to me it's kind of silly to do it in camera and jack up your negatives...

Mike, do you suppose the reason the Tunisia stuff has that much noise is from static electricity due to the sand? I know that if they had any kind of dust storms it could have affected the camera magazines. Also, that could be why those shots are so rough - depending on how careful they were with those cameras when loading/unloading and swapping mags there's a lot of room for contamination. Just kind of thinking out loud here...

Nice!

However, should "swordn" in the last image be "sworn"? :)

Wow is right! Amazing in every sense of the word. Really shows the artistry and the creative photography that went into this movie. Also, gives some interesting creative camera advice for those of us who still shoot film... :)

Whoa, I never knew that was supposed to be a circular building!

mverta said:

ww12345 said:

So regarding the camera work on that dive, in your opinion does that make for a more realistic shot than say the one used in the new teaser trailer for VII? I agree - I think it's kind of like CGI in general, that if it's not used to do something that "could" happen that your brain sort of discounts it as fake without you even knowing it...

 

When I'm doing VFX work, I'm careful about the aggregate amount of non-real in a frame, which is more important than any one single element.  For example, the entire idea of a spaceship flying and shooting lasers is "non-real" essentially, so I consider it important to have a lot of things in the camera motion and lighting and physics which are based in reality to help compensate for that.  Too much and the entire thing becomes unreal, and cool as it may look, our brains absolutely disconnect from the experience.  This is part of why our films today are insanely cool looking, and totally forgettable; it's why they need a new Avengers movie every year or whatever, whereas we're still trading in on Star Wars almost 40 years later.  Your average frame of a sci-fi/action movie today is almost entirely artificial, from the CG environments and unbounded cameras to the impossible physics, and having every element color graded separately so they no longer interact with each other.  The result is almost painterly and surreal, and usually fantastic looking, but also so utterly non-real that we're unavoidably detached from it.  The human brain is the greatest bullshit detector in the universe when it comes to visual comparative analysis. We can't always tell what's wrong with an image, but after a lifetime of experiental, comparative data to weigh it against, we can feel it.  And when that feeling is disconnected, you're not "in" the film, you're watching the film, and when you're not "in" the film, it doesn't stay with you.  

 Good points. Think about all of the great "sci-fi" movies of the past: 2001, SW, Time Machine, etc. They all had an element of realism that allowed our brains to figure out what's real and what's not. I agree too, about the "bullshit detector" in our brains - I was watching a few movie trailers with my brother and he put on one of the new superhero film trailers. The combination of the subject matter, the camera angles, and the physics-defying all added up to make a film I couldn't deny was all fake. Contrast that with Star Wars, where the ships were foreign, but physics still worked the way it should and the camera moved pretty conventionally and my brain has come to accept that as close to reality. Anyway, I guess what I'm trying to say is I wish more VFX artists took your view and tried to make the images seem real, rather than showing what the newest, coolest computer could do.

So regarding the camera work on that dive, in your opinion does that make for a more realistic shot than say the one used in the new teaser trailer for VII? I agree - I think it's kind of like CGI in general, that if it's not used to do something that "could" happen that your brain sort of discounts it as fake without you even knowing it...

You know how the plans to destroy the Death Star are given by R2 to the Rebel command at the end of IV? I'm predicting the same thing for VII, except Ric Olie will be the one providing the info, a la "The entire station is like one big city, and it can be destroyed by that little port there..."

Who flies WWII planes around for fun? Han Solo, that's who...

Ok to say who sent us?

Hmmm... Anyone else with the same problem?

Might I suggest checking out the Star Wars Legacy thread?

Tutorials would be awesome, Mike!

Yeah, I know they did a 4k transfer, but I wonder if they're doing any restoration work or if it was just a safety scan...

:)

I'm thinking Darth Lucas was saying that this was no excuse for Disney - they should do the film justice and do a proper preservation. I don't think the bile was directed at anyone on this site... At least, I think...

That's what I thought.

Oh, true. Good catch. I just assumed a DL disc would be the AVHCD...

It only plays in BD players, if I'm not mistaken...

I believe that's correct.