STAR WARS: EP IV 2004 REVISITED ADYWAN *1080p HD VERSION NOW IN PRODUCTION — Page 257

So do you have multiple usernames Adywan? What was the point of that change, let me guess, in the shot prior to the Star Destroyers, you can't see them at all, but in the next shot you can? In that case, I think I can live with that change.

Janskeet said:

I liked the formation of the Star Destroyers in the original shot better, they fit the music better.

I'm curious what you mean by that. Is it because the end of the trumpet part is ascending and the destroyers are pointing up?

Yeah, something like that. I'm not good at explaining things visually with text, but the ships just looked more menacing in the original shot. Something about the angle of the heading up towards the screen, instead of across the screen gives a more menacing effect and the music as well really worked with the shot. KI'll post some comparason shots when I get a hang of this video software.

Do you mean this?

(from doubleofive's incredible SW Revisited Visual Companion)

I get what you're saying, in the sense that the ships are coming at the camera. I prefer the Revisited shot because it feels as if they are pointing at the Millennium Falcon, which was moving off to the right in the previous shot.

Thanks for doing that. I thought the point of that change was to fix the continuity error of the star destoyers not visable in the previous shot of the millenium falcon flying by. Though Adywan probably could've added them that way too so I still prefer the original shot. The star destroyers look pointed too far to the right from wherethe falco nwas, and it took a turn to the left apon seeing the star destroyer. Maybe reverse that shot Adywan and the direction of the two star destroyers will look more correct?

Hey Adywan, did ADigitalMan do as extensive of edits as you did to the movies? You must have really good skills with photoshop and a good computer to render all those shots.

Adywan, I read back in one of your '06 posts that you had a hard drive failure and lost work. That sucks. Your probably way ahead of me on this, but you should have multiple hard drives set up in a raid array (raid 1) to mirror your work on two seperate drives, it is designed to automatically switch to the other drive if one drive fails. So you get that backup insurance. If you still have that drive that failed, the data on the platters is still probably good, just the mechanisms that read the data have just broke. If you take it to a repare place, the can probably replace the broken parts in the drives and recovver your data on the platters.

Adywan, how did you extened the camera panning of the entrance of the docking bay 94 scene? Did you use deleted footage or did you create the picture for the extened camera panning of the shot? You can see it here

Adywan, do your new HD ersions have better picture quality than you revisits? Obviously they do or you wouldn't have them separate. But to this day the best source of SW is the '04 DVDs right, all thius HD stuff isn't SW in True HD. It's artificial HD, because there is n way to truely get better picture quality from DVDs right?

adywan said:

There was a couple of reasons i changed that shot. if you look at the left hand stardestroyer in the original its filmed at a different angle than the other one and towards the end of the shot it looks odd. also the way its filmed they look like they would collide later on as they head toward each other. plus when we see the falcon escape there are no stardestroyers in sight yet they are coming from the same place. so they now look like they are coming from the opposite side of the planet.

 

Adywan - It's strange how a static screenshot of the original can make it seem okay.  However, the actual 'movement' of this shot, as outlined by you, is right on the nail.  This is one of your changes that I really preferred over the original effect here.  I always disliked it, and thought it could have been done better.  To me, your version looks far better overall, so lucky for me then!  

All I want is a booth around those poor superlaser technicians!

adywan said:

Janskeet said:

Adywan, do your new HD ersions have better picture quality than you revisits? Obviously they do or you wouldn't have them separate. But to this day the best source of SW is the '04 DVDs right, all thius HD stuff isn't SW in True HD. It's artificial HD, because there is n way to truely get better picture quality from DVDs right?

Janskeet you really should read up on what HD is and that my HD versions are from a high quality HD broadcast in true 1080p HD and therefore NOT artificial HD at all. These have nothing to do with my revisited edit at all so any questions about the differences in picture quality between the two is irrelevant because they are 2 totally different movies so that is why there are 2 separate threads.

The best source is not the 2004 DVD's at all. You really need to read the thread before posting . you seem to be just posting for the hell of it sometimes and doing this will only get you put on peoples ignore list. I noticed you just made a new thread about where my HD thread has gone when its only a few posts below this one.

 

Edit: i guess you beat me too it negative1. lol

 Actually, this is inaccurate.  There is no such thing as a 1080p broadcast.

doubleofive said:

digitalfreaknyc said:

adywan said:

Janskeet said:

Adywan, do your new HD ersions have better picture quality than you revisits? Obviously they do or you wouldn't have them separate. But to this day the best source of SW is the '04 DVDs right, all thius HD stuff isn't SW in True HD. It's artificial HD, because there is n way to truely get better picture quality from DVDs right?

Janskeet you really should read up on what HD is and that my HD versions are from a high quality HD broadcast in true 1080p HD and therefore NOT artificial HD at all. These have nothing to do with my revisited edit at all so any questions about the differences in picture quality between the two is irrelevant because they are 2 totally different movies so that is why there are 2 separate threads.

The best source is not the 2004 DVD's at all. You really need to read the thread before posting . you seem to be just posting for the hell of it sometimes and doing this will only get you put on peoples ignore list. I noticed you just made a new thread about where my HD thread has gone when its only a few posts below this one.

 

Edit: i guess you beat me too it negative1. lol

 

 Actually, this is inaccurate.  There is no such thing as a 1080p broadcast.

Not in America.  That's why Adywan uses the German HDTV broadcast.

So he slowed it down to be 24fps?  That would introduce a host of other artifacts. 

negative1 said:

 Actually, this is inaccurate.  There is no such thing as a 1080p broadcast.

Not in America.  That's why Adywan uses the German HDTV broadcast.

So he slowed it down to be 24fps?  That would introduce a host of other artifacts. 

 

man, you guys sure quote a lot, why don't we go over to original thread

here , and discuss it:

http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/THE-STAR-WARS-SAGA-1080P-AVCHD-for-PS3-Blu-Ray-players-to-fit-on-a-DVD-9/topic/9536/

 

from the first post :

Disc 4:- A NEW HOPE - (basic colour correction)

Details:- 1080p True 24fps

AC3 5.1 English Dolby Digital Audio
Ac3 2.0 Directors commentary (selectable with the audio button on your remote)
aC3 2.0 Alternate commentary (selectable with the audio button on your remote)
Chapters
No menus
Greedo doesn't shoot

 

and yes, there are more soundtrack options added..

-------------------------------------------

there are 2 samples posted, download them, and see for yourself how

awesome they are !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

later

-1

 

Man...I still can't believe you have those film prints and know so little about film. 

If they're the german broadcasts, they're in PAL.  PAL is sped up at 25fps.  If you slow something down from 25-24...that will introduce other artifacts that maybe YOU cannot see but others will. The question is whether they were sourced from NTSC or PAL broadcasts.