- Time
- Post link
Why they haven't done Dial M For Murder is a mystery too.
Where were you in '77?
3D STAR WARS for the masses...has ARRIVED! — Page 22
- Time
- Post link
I would imagine all the studios are weighing the costs of remastering in the new format versus how many copies they think will sell. They could at least put some of these in theaters around Halloween to create interest and awareness.
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
twister111 said:
Emphasis mine
Mike O said:
I'm not dismissing digital. I've shit student films and such on it, it's quick and easy
Sorry it's just, what a typo to make!
(Now making sure my post is star wars related)
What makes you think I don't just have a low opinion of my student films :p? You can decide.
Harmy said:
Mike O said:
...and if this continues, I'll never have the opportunity to see Ran or Lawrence of Arabia on the big screen, a longtime dream of mine...
Why not? Lawrence has been digitally restored to at least 4K by Richard Harris, so a digital projection looking like a newly struck interpositive should be totally possible and the same goes for most important catalogue films, except for STAR WARS of course.
Maybe so. It's entirely possible I'm just a Luddite or I've been seeing it on the wrong equipment, but I don't care for the look of HD myself, I prefer film. But maybe Harris could make it look like it did on opening night in 1962 and the sun will shine from David Lean's grin up in heaven, I don't know, I'd just love to see proper film prints of many films in the cinema at some point if I have the chance.
His fault for having a smartphone tied to himself.
Otherwise I'd drop it, OK ;)!
SilverWook said:
Those waiting for 3D to die are in for a long wait. I heard some glassless 3D displays were shown off at the Consumer Electronics Show recently.
If the studios would remaster and release some of the classics like House of Wax or Creature from the Black Lagoon, I'd seriously consider investing in the gear to watch those at home.
Yes, I'm all to aware. Personally, I wish it'd die, but it looks like no such luck. Maybe something will come along that will actually impress me, but I doubt it. I'm still bummed Sony aren't making TVs anymore, I've always liked their stuff. But, anyway....
“What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one.”
Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death
- Time
- Post link
They outsource that now? Even broadcast gear? They were the gold standard in video monitors when I was in college.
Where were you in '77?
- Time
- Post link
Let me clarify; it was HDV, not actual HD film! obviously, my little private university couldn't afford real HD :P.
“What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one.”
Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
Mike O said:
His fault for having a smartphone tied to himself.
Otherwise I'd drop it, OK ;)!
Unignored!!! ;)
The franchises I get nerdy about are so obscure that not even most nerds know about them.
- Time
- Post link
Mike O said:
Maybe something will come along that will actually impress me, but I doubt it.
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey - Dec 2012, just before the Mayan apocalypse. :)
- Time
- Post link
But it's only Part 1 of The Hobbit
- Time
- Post link
I know. Jackson should've planned it better. Does he not watch Brad Meltzer's Decoded??
- Time
- Post link
As this is the last chance for Peter Jackson and company to make a Middle Earth movie, no way were they not going to squeeze two films out of it.
Where were you in '77?
- Time
- Post link
SilverWook said:
As this is the last chance for Peter Jackson and company to make a Middle Earth movie, no way were they not going to squeeze two films out of it.
But we're only going to get to see one before the end of the world... maybe they'll release both this December when they realize the Mayans were right. ;)
- Time
- Post link
I'm sorry if this has been answered, but it's sort of hard to do a search on this question due to the terminology.
Will Star Wars in 3d be available anywhere to watch in 2d?
I know that most cinemas have both 3d and 2d showings of 3d films these days. I would look forward to seeing Episodes I in 2d again, even with alterations. I could probably live with SE Empire too just because I've never seen any version of that film in cinemas and it seems to have the least offensive changes.
- Time
- Post link
According to the poster, there will be the 2D option.
Where were you in '77?
- Time
- Post link
look at Yoda in that poster... his face looks like he wants to say "here we go again....look at me, I'm on the poster and I'm already disappointed"
- Time
- Post link
Man, he looks tired of being in these movies, doesn't he?
- Time
- Post link
Leonardo said:
look at Yoda in that poster... his face looks like he wants to say "here we go again....look at me, I'm on the poster and I'm already disappointed"
Well, at least he doesn't look like angry to be cooler like in every other picture.
And in the time of greatest despair, there shall come a savior, and he shall be known as the Son of the Suns.
- Time
- Post link
r2d2 looks sad in that poster...
cant get over how terrible that poster is. all those characters combined have less screen time than natalie portman. cripes, the star wars radio drama had a better poster!!
if this poster was cobbled together based on marketing research then i guess even watto (the best native PT character) was not that popular.
IMO, this was far and away the best PT poster - only thing I can think of to improve it wouldm be have anakin and padme illustrated.
this was the image i had in mind when lucas first said the PT was going to be about anakin and his relationships, especially with padme. some people say the poster hasn't dated well cuz it looks like a twilight poster, but I think it nails what was supposed to make the PT compelling.
Even today, everytime I see it, I would like to get it. its too bad the love story itself was treated as a complete pathetic farce. :(
and if it was intended to be stupid and garbage, then why not have the poster reflect that?
[sigh]
- Time
- Post link
I also liked that poster before AOTC came. Among other things I was disappointed that Anakin didn't have a red blade in the movie.
And in the time of greatest despair, there shall come a savior, and he shall be known as the Son of the Suns.
- Time
- Post link
That poster never worked with me, the lightsaber is at too weird an angle, you can tell they just added it because they thought he needed one. How could you hold it and have it show up like that?
Star Wars Revisited Wordpress
Star Wars Visual Comparisons WordPress
- Time
- Post link
That's true but he did have an unfortunate injury caused by a wobbly neon sign (off screen).
- Time
- Post link
doubleofive said:
That poster never worked with me, the lightsaber is at too weird an angle, you can tell they just added it because they thought he needed one. How could you hold it and have it show up like that?
lol, aw man...now that you mentioned it...
hmm....maybe he held it like how the marines hold a cavalry sword [shrug] - but that would have been out of character for a jedi.
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
This one raised my hopes :
even if it doesn't make sense in the context of the film.
- Time
- Post link
Bingowings said:
This one raised my hopes :
even if it doesn't make sense in the context of the film.
hmm.. it really doesn't, does it?
- Time
- Post link
Snippet from an interview with John Knoll in the latest issue of Insider:
When you start a conversion, do you start from the beginning or the middle or the end?
We worked in an odd order, because with Episode I, we were also doing a restoration. One of the first questions that my Associate VFX Supervisor, Dorne Huebler, and I realized, was that if we were going to take this movie and cut it up into 2,000 separate pieces, we had an opportunity to upgrade what those 2,000 separate pieces are. It seemed like we had a perfect opportunity to go back and create a cleaner, sharper, and purer version of the movie.
In fact, the window was closing on that; these archive tapes don't last forever and they haven't been meticulously catalogued and archived because no one thought that was really the master of the film, so it wasn't clear that we were going to be able to find all of them.
Where did you find them?
They were in a variety of places. It was some work to find them and we found about 98 percent of them. So we went back to the original material, and if you look, you're actually seeing about eight percent more movie than in the original release. In the original, there was a bit of cropping, so you lost a little bit of information. We have slightly more of an image now.
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
^ They didn't print enough of the interview to understand the specifics. My guess is when he refers to the eight percent more, I think he's talking about the DVD not the theatrical release. (which he's saying is original... original as in home video original.) On the first part and the selective upgrading of 2,000 shots, this I think refers to how for the BD they selectively recropped (or returned to the theatrical cropping) because they were now dealing with the eight percent more frame. The 'cleaner, sharper, purer' could allude to the overall filters they apply to unify the shots... From everything else i've read so far, I don't get the sense that they at any time went back in and upgrade digital effects, for the BD/3D of TPM.
Let's hope Cinefex does a story, as that might delve into this at an appropriate level, to understand what they've done.
*EDIT*
Reading more of the article, when they talk about the 3D creation:
The process is, one 'eye' is the movie as you've already seen it and we're creating a synthetic left eye or right eye. You shift everything over, so if you imagine a stereo pair, the other eye is shifted over a little bit horizontally. How does the image change when you move over horizontally? Everything in the image shifts a little bit horizontally, proportional to its depth. So if you take depth information and use that to kind of shift everything over a little big, you've kind of simulating what a view from a second eye looks like. For all the objects that have depth discontinuities on them [something that's in the foreground over something that's in the background], now that everything has shifted over a little bit, you can see around it to a part of the image that wasn't there, so you have to reconstruct that part of the background that wasn't there. That's a process called in-fill and it's the most labor-intensive part of the whole thing.
*EDIT 2*
So did you have to re-animate any of that stuff?
No, mainly because it's old enough now that we use different compositing systems and shot directory back-ups. We keep them for a certain amount of time but after a decade elapses, nobody really bothers keeping hardware to read that stuff or old systems that can run the software that was used back then.