- Time
- Post link
- Time
- Post link
You are the one using terms like that.
That's a bit extremist of you don't you think?
"BUT ANAMORPHIC ENHANCEMENT ALTERS THE MOVIES!!!" — Page 2
This topic has been locked by a moderator.
You are the one using terms like that.
That's a bit extremist of you don't you think?
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: Raul2106This "substandard product" as some of you refer to it is financing the restoration of your anamorphic remastered vision of perfection!
Very, very possible!
- Time
- Post link
"Miss you, I will, Original Trilogy..."
"Your midichlorians are weak, Old man." -Darth Vader 2007 super deluxe extra special dipped in chocolate sauce edition.
http://prequelsstink.ytmnd.com/
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
I don't think they are doing it to "protect" Lucas, or to insinuate he is some kind of God.
Why would someone spring for a rich fat guy in the bushes, and blindly, deaf to rational arguments, fight a guerilla war with those who do not confirm his original vision? Sounds very much like a religious nut to me.
You are the one using terms like that.
Oh, here comes the titty twisting again.
That's a bit extremist of you don't you think?
I don't think they are doing it to "protect" Lucas, or to insinuate he is some kind of God.
Why would someone spring for a rich fat guy in the bushes, and blindly, deaf to rational arguments, fight a guerilla war with those who do not confirm his original vision? Sounds very much like a religious nut to me.
You are the one using terms like that.
Oh, here comes the titty twisting again.
That's a bit extremist of you don't you think?
Nope. Fighting for better quality conforms to the natural habit of the human race to improve itself. People working against that have an agenda, and in the Star Wars fanbase, it is most often the unconditional love and protection for their creator.
You see, on all other movies, a usual forum conversation goes like this:
Person A: This release is non-anamorphic and uses an old Laserdisc transfer. Although I would really like to have this movie, I won´t buy it, because it is not worth the money.
Person B: You are right! DVD is a high quality video format, and it is a shame this coming out in 2006.
Person C: Even the first DVD releases in 1998 were mostly anamorphic! I did not start to support this format a long time ago with my money just to see now a blatant decrease in quality.
Person D: I agree, we should not buy it. Time will pass, and a better release will surely come out, as it has always been with bad quality releases.
On Star Wars however, it goes like this:
Person A: This OOT release is non-anamorphic and uses an old Laserdisc transfer. Although I would really like to have the OOT, I won´t buy it, because it is not worth the Money.
Person B: You are right! DVD is a high quality video format, and it is a shame this coming out from Luscasfilm. George surely knows how to milk his fans dry.
Person C (religios nut): You whiney bastards! First you want these movies, then you just can complain. You guys make me sick!
Person D (another religious nut): Yeah, man! You requested the originals, so you got the originals! Making them Aniamorfic is just changing them anyway, and all this grain and dirt belongs to these movies, too! If you don´t buy them now, THEY WON´T COME OUT EVER AGAIN!!! Not that I would care, because I love the new versions soo much better! HAHAHA!
Person A & B: *sigh*
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: Wesyeed
good grief, that PT lover Go-mer-whatever from TFN posts here too?
Yep. good grief, that PT lover Go-mer-whatever from TFN posts here too?
- Time
- Post link
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: marioxb
Look. I know what anamorphic is. I have anamorphic DVDs. I also have non-anamorphic DVDs. I was (kinda) kidding when I said it would alter the movies. I mean it (kinda) does. But anyway, my main point is that anamorphic/ non-anamorphic will NEVER be a deciding factor to me. If I had to choose from the get go, I'd probably buy anamorphic. If a newer release of any movie was released and the ONLY difference was that is was anamorphic while the previous release was simply letterboxed widescreen or whatever, I would NOT upgrade. If the special features were better, I probably would. Anamorphic/ non-anamorpic, to me= the same thing. I watch anamorpic movies on my widescreen TV with the DVD player set to 4x3 letterbox. I like the top and bottom black bars. I watch all movies in full mode w/o side bars and that makes me very happy. I also like seeing subtitles in the black not touching the movie. That's just what I like. I never said anamorphic was bad (well kinda as a joke), just that it never will matter for me. Even if my precious prequels and SEs were non-anamorphic, as long as they were widescreen, it doesnt matter to me.
Look. I know what anamorphic is. I have anamorphic DVDs. I also have non-anamorphic DVDs. I was (kinda) kidding when I said it would alter the movies. I mean it (kinda) does. But anyway, my main point is that anamorphic/ non-anamorphic will NEVER be a deciding factor to me. If I had to choose from the get go, I'd probably buy anamorphic. If a newer release of any movie was released and the ONLY difference was that is was anamorphic while the previous release was simply letterboxed widescreen or whatever, I would NOT upgrade. If the special features were better, I probably would. Anamorphic/ non-anamorpic, to me= the same thing. I watch anamorpic movies on my widescreen TV with the DVD player set to 4x3 letterbox. I like the top and bottom black bars. I watch all movies in full mode w/o side bars and that makes me very happy. I also like seeing subtitles in the black not touching the movie. That's just what I like. I never said anamorphic was bad (well kinda as a joke), just that it never will matter for me. Even if my precious prequels and SEs were non-anamorphic, as long as they were widescreen, it doesnt matter to me.
Must.......resist........
I love everybody. Lets all smoke some reefer and chill. Hug and kisses for everybody.
- Time
- Post link
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: marioxb
The main reason for me to have them on DVD (and I do know what anamorphic does, I just dont care and never have), is because I want to watch everything on the same format. VHS can wear out, DVDs cant.
The main reason for me to have them on DVD (and I do know what anamorphic does, I just dont care and never have), is because I want to watch everything on the same format. VHS can wear out, DVDs cant.
Bulls*it. I'm sorry, but whatever line you've been fed is a complete lie. All DVD's will degrade in condition and be essentially useless after a period of a few years, depending on how much you play them. They can be affected by temperature, "DVD rot" or storage conditions. They're like CD's. So yes, DVD's CAN wear out.
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: marioxb
Look. I know what anamorphic is. I have anamorphic DVDs. I also have non-anamorphic DVDs. I was (kinda) kidding when I said it would alter the movies.
Ok, the "Just kidding!" defense.
I mean it (kinda) does.
........OR NOT??? Please elaborate!
But anyway, my main point is that anamorphic/ non-anamorphic will NEVER be a deciding factor to me.
If I had to choose from the get go, I'd probably buy anamorphic. If a newer release of any movie was released and the ONLY difference was that is was anamorphic while the previous release was simply letterboxed widescreen or whatever, I would NOT upgrade.
There very few non-anamorphic DVD´s of non 4:3 movies around. Expecially since 2001...
If the special features were better, I probably would. Anamorphic/ non-anamorpic, to me= the same thing. I watch anamorpic movies on my widescreen TV with the DVD player set to 4x3 letterbox. I like the top and bottom black bars.
Ok, that´s it! Sorry, but you are definately a nutcase! You are in the end, sacrificing A LOT OF resolution to watch your movies IN THE WRONG ASPECT RATIO!!!
If you set your DVD Player to 4:3 and watch, let´s say, a 1.85:1 movie on a 16:9 TV, you end up with something like 2.00:1 -> 2.20:1 apect ratio!
And besides, 2.35:1 movies, like *drum roll* STAR WARS, have still black bars when watched on a 16:9 TV anamorphically! 16:9 = 1.78:1
I watch all movies in full mode w/o side bars and that makes me very happy.
With lots of TOTALLY UNNECCESSARY resolution loss. Oh the pain, THE PAIN!!!!!!
I also like seeing subtitles in the black not touching the movie.
...or being pressed out completely off the frame....
I never said anamorphic was bad (well kinda as a joke), just that it never will matter for me.
Obviously, it does indeed matter to you, since you DEACTIVATE IT ON PURPOSE! HOW SICK IS THAT???
Even if my precious prequels and SEs were non-anamorphic, as long as they were widescreen, it doesnt matter to me.
Look. I know what anamorphic is. I have anamorphic DVDs. I also have non-anamorphic DVDs. I was (kinda) kidding when I said it would alter the movies.
Ok, the "Just kidding!" defense.
I mean it (kinda) does.
........OR NOT??? Please elaborate!
But anyway, my main point is that anamorphic/ non-anamorphic will NEVER be a deciding factor to me.
If I had to choose from the get go, I'd probably buy anamorphic. If a newer release of any movie was released and the ONLY difference was that is was anamorphic while the previous release was simply letterboxed widescreen or whatever, I would NOT upgrade.
There very few non-anamorphic DVD´s of non 4:3 movies around. Expecially since 2001...
If the special features were better, I probably would. Anamorphic/ non-anamorpic, to me= the same thing. I watch anamorpic movies on my widescreen TV with the DVD player set to 4x3 letterbox. I like the top and bottom black bars.
Ok, that´s it! Sorry, but you are definately a nutcase! You are in the end, sacrificing A LOT OF resolution to watch your movies IN THE WRONG ASPECT RATIO!!!
If you set your DVD Player to 4:3 and watch, let´s say, a 1.85:1 movie on a 16:9 TV, you end up with something like 2.00:1 -> 2.20:1 apect ratio!
And besides, 2.35:1 movies, like *drum roll* STAR WARS, have still black bars when watched on a 16:9 TV anamorphically! 16:9 = 1.78:1
I watch all movies in full mode w/o side bars and that makes me very happy.
With lots of TOTALLY UNNECCESSARY resolution loss. Oh the pain, THE PAIN!!!!!!
I also like seeing subtitles in the black not touching the movie.
...or being pressed out completely off the frame....
I never said anamorphic was bad (well kinda as a joke), just that it never will matter for me.
Obviously, it does indeed matter to you, since you DEACTIVATE IT ON PURPOSE! HOW SICK IS THAT???
Even if my precious prequels and SEs were non-anamorphic, as long as they were widescreen, it doesnt matter to me.
Why bothering about aspect ratios?
I guess that puts a lot into perspective now....
- Time
- Post link
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: Raul2106
When the anamorphic digital remasters of the OOT come out people are going to find something else to complain about.
Yes, like your nose.
It doesn't matter we will find out next year. As a first time DVD release for the OOT this isn't bad. Next year will be the big one.
When the anamorphic digital remasters of the OOT come out people are going to find something else to complain about.
Yes, like your nose.
It doesn't matter we will find out next year. As a first time DVD release for the OOT this isn't bad. Next year will be the big one.
This wouldn´t have been bad for a "first time" DVD release in 1998. And even back then, it would have been criticised, since comparable science fiction films like "Bladerunner" have already been released anamorphically by Warner Bros on DVD in 1997, quickly surpassed by the original Alien DVD in 1999, which already contained a gorgeous, remastered and anamorphic picture transfer.
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: Raul2106
If we go by the logic that all DVDs become useless after a 5-6 year viewing period that makes double dipping perfectly acceptable. As well as spending large sums of money on boxsets a complete waste. I guess that means many of my Criterion discs will be done soon... *sigh*
If we go by the logic that all DVDs become useless after a 5-6 year viewing period that makes double dipping perfectly acceptable. As well as spending large sums of money on boxsets a complete waste. I guess that means many of my Criterion discs will be done soon... *sigh*
I meant to say a few years, and for that I apologize. Regardless, DVD's will not last 50 to 100 years like industry reports suggest. You can read a bit about DVD shelf life and problems here if you want. That's why I don't own a very large DVD collection. Hell, a lot of my discs have already become plagued with playback problems.
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
Still people who don't understand what Anamorphic means are not extremists, if anything they are lazy.
You guys have had Lucas all figured out for years now, and yet we still buy every version he puts out.
I hope you guys are right about Lucas just trying to get us to buy all the versions, because it would really suck if this was the last chance ("no really this time I -really- mean it"), and we missed it -again-.
Still people who don't understand what Anamorphic means are not extremists, if anything they are lazy.
You guys have had Lucas all figured out for years now, and yet we still buy every version he puts out.
I hope you guys are right about Lucas just trying to get us to buy all the versions, because it would really suck if this was the last chance ("no really this time I -really- mean it"), and we missed it -again-.
It's sorta like the sheep that cried wolf. What if it actually WAS the truth this time around?
I'm actually thying hard NOT to buy this release, hoping for an anamorphic widescreen restored version that I feel is worth the € 19,95 a movie they're charging for this re-release of the 2004 SE. And back then they told us this would be the only version of the Star Wars Original Trilogy that would ever see the light of day. Now we know this was a lie. But do we dare to call their bluff?
I decided to follow a different route. Our local library also rents movies. They have the 2004 SE on DVD.
I know the guy who is responsible for maintaining and enhancing their catalogue prety well and I've urged them to consider the purchase of this new release, because "it has the original theatrical version on a second disc". And I added that it is "their duty to make these historic original theatrical versions available to the public".
I sure hope he will actually add them to the catalogue. I for one will rent them and make a copy for home use (I'm allowed to, I have the original on VHS too).
In the mean time I'll be searhing the web for DVD-Rips of all discs two of the newly released set...
Victor Peters
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
Originally posted by: Wesyeed
good grief, that PT lover Go-mer-whatever from TFN posts here too?
Yep. good grief, that PT lover Go-mer-whatever from TFN posts here too?
why? It's as if every star wars forum I join, I find you at. And I can't believe... I've known of you and your pt-loving for an unbelievable 7 years of my life. Damn.
Who are you?
Lucas?
"Miss you, I will, Original Trilogy..."
"Your midichlorians are weak, Old man." -Darth Vader 2007 super deluxe extra special dipped in chocolate sauce edition.
http://prequelsstink.ytmnd.com/
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: marioxb
Look. I know what anamorphic is. I have anamorphic DVDs. I also have non-anamorphic DVDs. I was (kinda) kidding when I said it would alter the movies. I mean it (kinda) does.
Look. I know what anamorphic is. I have anamorphic DVDs. I also have non-anamorphic DVDs. I was (kinda) kidding when I said it would alter the movies. I mean it (kinda) does.
It kinda doesn't. Given an anamorphic and a non-anamorphic scan of the same film, the anamorphic one will be closer to the original. Why? Its higher resolution can capture more detail. The process of digitization and conversion to 480p 4:2:0 MPEG-2 will inevitably lose some detail from the film source, but non-anamorphic will lose more.
Neither process, however, affects the shape of the frame or the subjects therein. These are the "alterations" that most people are concerned about. Differences between the film master and the digital version are referred to as artifacts, and can occur with either anamorphic or non-anamorphic content. To say that one encoding method or the other "alters" a movie is a red herring.
(Finally, as has been pointed out already, the films were shot and projected anamorphically. Someone had to alter your movies at the telecine stage to make them fit within that 4:3 frame without distortion. This doesn't really matter, it's just interesting.)
Now I want you to say, "Thank you for educating me, Scruffy. I will not disappoint you again." Once that is done, go, and sin no more.
Scruffy's gonna die the way he lived.
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: Laserschwert
The bottle would look bigger it it was presented anamorphically...
Originally posted by: Cable-X1
I'm thinking that we all need a nice big bottle of Jack to wash away all this nonsense.
I'm thinking that we all need a nice big bottle of Jack to wash away all this nonsense.
The bottle would look bigger it it was presented anamorphically...
Yeah baby!!! YEAH!!!
- Time
- Post link
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: Raul2106 It is a "duty" to make the discs available to the public that most people here speak so venomously against simply because they are not anamorphic...
You got it a little bit wrong, Paul.
The non-anamorphicness of this release is just the side effect of something much worse: the transfer was made with old equipment, and thus is not only non-anamorphic but lacks detail and sharpness. Ah, and those NTSC aliasing artifacts look very fancy, too, on the PAL release.
FLASH! ----> AHAAAA!!
- Time
- Post link
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
So wouldn't it be the library's duty to take a stand against such an inferior release and show Lucas that library's aren't going to accept a sub standard release, even in the name of preservation?
So wouldn't it be the library's duty to take a stand against such an inferior release and show Lucas that library's aren't going to accept a sub standard release, even in the name of preservation?
Well, the library would contribute a great deal to our fight by making these inferior versions available, so that everyone can see how bad they look.
HAIL MING!
- Time
- Post link
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: Raul2106
Exactly... if it's not good enough for you to buy. Why the hell should the library?
Since when do libraries care to take DVD´s into their program judged by quality? This could also be done with books....
Especially with the anamorphic versions coming out next year.
Interesting. Source?
I think this years release should have included a $10.00 voucher towards the coming upgrade.
Exactly... if it's not good enough for you to buy. Why the hell should the library?
Since when do libraries care to take DVD´s into their program judged by quality? This could also be done with books....
Especially with the anamorphic versions coming out next year.
Interesting. Source?
I think this years release should have included a $10.00 voucher towards the coming upgrade.
Dream on!
BRING ME THE BORE WORMS!
- Time
- Post link
