Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
They don't, they can rent the SE.
Go-Mer, auraloffalwaffle was refuting BeeJay's claim that "the OOT we love is still there and going strong." What does that have to do with the SE? You really DON'T read posts to which you reply, do you?
The LaserDisc quality is not piss-poor quality, like a lot of people try to say. Of course it doesn't rank up with truly restored digital viewing, as it would have if they used the original negatives as the baseline for the September release.
By the same token, the old LaserDisc releases were rather crisp, don't you think?
They don't, they can rent the SE.
Go-Mer, auraloffalwaffle was refuting BeeJay's claim that "the OOT we love is still there and going strong." What does that have to do with the SE? You really DON'T read posts to which you reply, do you?
Originally posted by: BeeJay
Originally posted by: auraloffalwaffle
To BeeJay:
So, you think it's perfectly acceptable that a cinema would have to resort to using a dvd projector and to show a 13 year old master of a film of which far superior 35mm prints are available?
Originally posted by: auraloffalwaffle
To BeeJay:
So, you think it's perfectly acceptable that a cinema would have to resort to using a dvd projector and to show a 13 year old master of a film of which far superior 35mm prints are available?
The LaserDisc quality is not piss-poor quality, like a lot of people try to say. Of course it doesn't rank up with truly restored digital viewing, as it would have if they used the original negatives as the baseline for the September release.
By the same token, the old LaserDisc releases were rather crisp, don't you think?
Aural is talking about the availability of the OOT for projection in a cinema, not debating the quality of the OUT DVDs. So, yes, it would be piss-poor to project the 2006 OUT DVD onto a cinema screen. Gomer, where did you find this guy?