logo Sign In

4K restoration on Star Wars — Page 48

Author
Time

So, at what point in this argument of semantics do we get to debate what the definition of the word "is" is?

Author
Time

I'm just waiting for the conversation to shift to how zeppelins and penny-farthing bicycles aren't outdated modes of transportation... by today's standards, of course.

“It’s a lot of fun… it’s a lot of fun to watch Star Wars.” – Bill Moyers

Author
Time
 (Edited)

CatBus said:

Oh goody. Well, the majority of the TV's still in service worldwide are 4:3 CRT SDTV's, so we can stop even talking about all this crazy newfangled HDTV crap, then.  I can minimize huge shifts in markets and consumer demand with irrelevant statistics, too!

"Too"? No. In order for "too" to apply, I also would have had to have done it. I originally replied to someone who said that 2006 was "well after everyone already adopted 16:9 TVs", which is obviously false, and not only that, but not even close to being correct. I also said, in that same post, that it was beside the point.

Then you came along with some novel, nonstandard interpretation of my standard English-language text, along with a misunderstanding of the word "current", and this bizarre combination resulted in you calling for people to challenge an idea that hadn't been put forth by me or anyone else. In the process you attempted to downplay the number of 4:3 SDTVs in U.S. households in 2006 with the word "some" (when "the vast majority" or simply "most" is far more appropriate), so I clarified the word "some" for you.

What I didn't do is draw any conclusions from any of it (no need for conclusions when the point is correction or clarification of facts, rather than an essay or editorial). The conclusions that you think I have drawn exist only in your imagination, not in my text.

Yeah, because non-anamorphic disks failing to scale decently on the new TV's people were buying in droves isn't objective. At least you didn't ask if I was on the rag. Buh bye, Mr. Objective.

It isn't the DVD's fault if people display it on the wrong type of TV. 4:3 DVDs are designed for 4:3 TVs, obviously. Pixel aspect ratio has nothing whatsoever to do with video quality, just as much of what you've typed has nothing to do with any of my posts.

Author
Time

canofhumdingers said:

So, at what point in this argument of semantics do we get to debate what the definition of the word "is" is?

I'm pretty sure actual debate has left the building. Now it's just a matter of talking nonsense longer than anyone can put up with replying to, declaring yourself some sort of winner, and going away. Well, we can hope.

Project Threepio (Star Wars OOT subtitles)

Author
Time

I vote that we discuss the lightsaber compositing for a few more pages

Author
Time
 (Edited)

corellian77 said:

I'm just waiting for the conversation to shift to how zeppelins and penny-farthing bicycles aren't outdated modes of transportation... by today's standards, of course.

 

;)

Forum Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time
 (Edited)

I slept on it and am now bored with the conversation, because it keeps going in circles and I hate repeating myself... :-D

Author
Time
 (Edited)

MaximRecoil said:

CatBus said:

Oh goody. Well, the majority of the TV's still in service worldwide are 4:3 CRT SDTV's, so we can stop even talking about all this crazy newfangled HDTV crap, then.  I can minimize huge shifts in markets and consumer demand with irrelevant statistics, too!

"Too"? No. In order for "too" to apply, I also would have had to have done it. I originally replied to someone who said that 2006 was "well after everyone already adopted 16:9 TVs", which is obviously false, and not only that, but not even close to being correct. I also said, in that same post, that it was beside the point.

Then you came along with some novel, nonstandard interpretation of my standard English-language text, along with a misunderstanding of the word "current", and this bizarre combination resulted in you calling for people to challenge an idea that hadn't been put forth by me or anyone else. In the process you attempted to downplay the number of 4:3 SDTVs in U.S. households in 2006 with the word "some" (when "the vast majority" or simply "most" is far more appropriate), so I clarified the word "some" for you.

What I didn't do is draw any conclusions from any of it (no need for conclusions when the point is correction or clarification of facts, rather than an essay or editorial). The conclusions that you think I have drawn exist only in your imagination, not in my text.

Yeah, because non-anamorphic disks failing to scale decently on the new TV's people were buying in droves isn't objective. At least you didn't ask if I was on the rag. Buh bye, Mr. Objective.

It isn't the DVD's fault if people display it on the wrong type of TV. 4:3 DVDs are designed for 4:3 TVs, obviously. Pixel aspect ratio has nothing whatsoever to do with video quality, just as much of what you've typed has nothing to do with any of my posts.

This thread:

 

What’s the internal temperature of a TaunTaun? Luke warm.

Author
Time

I some ways I regret ignoring this thread past the first week or so but in most respects I'm glad.

VIZ TOP TIPS! - PARENTS. Impress your children by showing them a floppy disk and telling them it’s a 3D model of a save icon.

Author
Time

MaximRecoil said:

It isn't the DVD's fault if people display it on the wrong type of TV. 

Uh, touché?

Author
Time

TV's Frink said:

But extremely entertaining!

Not really, no.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

And the Worst "Argument" on the Internet award goes too......

i mean......it's sort of kind of the stupidest thing I've ever seen.

Author
Time

I think it's now obvious that George Lucas isn't just a member here, he's actually posting in this thread.

Author
Time

MaximRecoil said:

It isn't the DVD's fault if people display it on the wrong type of TV. 4:3 DVDs are designed for 4:3 TVs, obviously. Pixel aspect ratio has nothing whatsoever to do with video quality, just as much of what you've typed has nothing to do with any of my posts.

OK... but weren't the widescreen discs for the '04 SE anamorphic? There is literally no reason to have made the GOUT non-anamporphic other than to insult the fans who asked for it.

Anyone else who spends any amount of time on TFN may recognize this as the infamous "you're getting what you deserve" mantra.

TV's Frink said:

I think it's now obvious that George Lucas isn't just a member here, he's actually posting in this thread.

I would be very nonplussed if it came to light there was at least one LFL plant on these forums.

Dboman said:

I don't care about spelling! I just want to find a mirror!

Author
Time

This thread is amazing. If we could get some sort of conversation going on about T.V. brackets and callibrating T.V.'s, i reckon it could win the internet.

“Ow! It`s hot in here, the butter in my pocket is melting!”

Author
Time

Desree said:

This thread is amazing. If we could get some sort of conversation going on about T.V. brackets and callibrating T.V.'s, i reckon it could win the internet.

 Well, I think everyone already knows tv bracket is UK's top brand for tv brackets.

Dboman said:

I don't care about spelling! I just want to find a mirror!

Author
Time

Baronlando said:

MaximRecoil said:

It isn't the DVD's fault if people display it on the wrong type of TV. 

Uh, touché?

Yeah, much as I thought the argument was tedious and rambling, I do kinda want to issue some kind of award for that particular statement.  Talking nonsense is easy, but it takes a certain chutzpah to take it that far.

Project Threepio (Star Wars OOT subtitles)

Author
Time

CatBus said:

Baronlando said:

MaximRecoil said:

It isn't the DVD's fault if people display it on the wrong type of TV. 

Uh, touché?

Yeah, much as I thought the argument was tedious and rambling, I do kinda want to issue some kind of award for that particular statement.  Talking nonsense is easy, but it takes a certain chutzpah to take it that far.

I can just imagine him approaching and hugging his GOUT DVDs like Robin Williams in Good Will Hunting.

"It's not your fault!"

"It's not your fault!"

"It's not your fault!"

A picture is worth a thousand words. Post 102 is worth more.

I’m late to the party, but I think this is the best song. Enjoy!

—Teams Jetrell Fo 1, Jetrell Fo 2, and Jetrell Fo 3

Author
Time

Desree said:

This thread is amazing. If we could get some sort of conversation going on about T.V. brackets and callibrating T.V.'s, i reckon it could win the internet.

 But there would still be the neglected issues of the subconscious perception of ultrasonics and the signal degradation in non-adamantium-shielded HDMI cable.

Author
Time

WedgeCyan said:

Desree said:

This thread is amazing. If we could get some sort of conversation going on about T.V. brackets and callibrating T.V.'s, i reckon it could win the internet.

 Well, I think everyone already knows tv bracket is UK's top brand for tv brackets.

 +1 for proper underlining.

Author
Time

WedgeCyan said:

OK... but weren't the widescreen discs for the '04 SE anamorphic? There is literally no reason to have made the GOUT non-anamporphic other than to insult the fans who asked for it.

Yes, there is a reason, and it has already been pointed out. In short, the masters they used were essentially glorified 4:3 DVDs to begin with. To go from a 4:3 DVD source to a 16:9 DVD, you have to upscale the vertical resolution of the picture area. Upscaling the master when authoring a DVD isn't normally done by professionals unless they absolutely have to.

The SE DVDs came from far superior masters (probably 4K scans) rather than 720x480 4:3 D1 tape, so they had way more resolution than they needed to properly make 16:9 DVDs. Unfortunately, these far superior masters were scanned from negatives which had been vandalized by George Lucas and co. in 1997, and then they vandalized the masters even more (additional retcons, bad colors, washed-out lightsabers, way too much grain removal, etc.) in 2004 before using them to author the SE DVDs. These masters obviously couldn't be used to make Star Wars trilogy DVDs, because they were glorified fan edits, rather than the real Star Wars trilogy.

Anyone else who spends any amount of time on TFN may recognize this as the infamous "you're getting what you deserve" mantra.

Only people who don't read so well, given that I haven't said, suggested, nor even hinted at any such thing.

If I owned Lucasfilm, there would be no "GOUT", nor would the underlying abbreviation "OUT" even exist, because there would be no need for it. The work done in '97 would have strictly been a restoration and scanning process. 16:9 DVDs would have been released soon thereafter. When Blu-ray came along there would have been a new release, following a new 4K scan (scanning equipment has improved since '97). Both releases would have been available in boxsets and individual discs. Film grain would have been left intact in both cases.

AntcuFaalb said:

I can just imagine him approaching and hugging his GOUT DVDs like Robin Williams in Good Will Hunting.

"It's not your fault!"

"It's not your fault!"

"It's not your fault!"

Your imagination is wildly disconnected from reality, or from anything which logically follows from reality. Assigning the fault to a DVD because it doesn't work ideally on a TV it wasn't designed for, is absurd. It is not the DVD's fault, it is not the DVD player's fault, and it is not the TV's fault. The fault obviously lies with the person who is trying to fit a square peg into a round hole, so to speak.

By the way, I'm using the word "fault" literally; I'm not anthropomorphizing the GOUT. Saying that it is not the DVD's fault is exactly the same thing as saying that the source of the problem (i.e., the fault) is not the DVD.

Similar things happen when people connect old video game consoles to 16:9 digital TVs, and it is equally absurd to blame the video game console for the results being less than ideal.

Author
Time

Obviously it's not the DVD's fault. It's George's fault for ordering the creation of one of the shittiest looking DVD transfers of all time. And it's your fault for wasting our time with this nonsense that, while hilarious, is probably killing our brain cells.

Author
Time

I was getting ready to type up an answer to that but the whole post is just so unbelievably illogical (as well as misinformed), that the idea of trying to refute it just makes me a little nauseous.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

MaximRecoil said:

Your imagination is wildly disconnected from reality, or from anything which logically follows from reality.

I was clearly joking around.

I get that you're all fired up about this, but you've reached an annoying level of pedantry in an effort to support your argument. This level of pedantry does nothing to convince the people with whom you're arguing that your argument has merit and only serves to drive them away. As I'm sure you know, clearing the room of your opponents isn't the same as winning an argument against them.

If you're so sure that your opinion on this matter is the correct one, then walk away and let this thread return to on-topic discussion. There's a lot of wrong information on the WWW and your crusade to remove one item from that set is nothing more than a drop in the bucket.

A picture is worth a thousand words. Post 102 is worth more.

I’m late to the party, but I think this is the best song. Enjoy!

—Teams Jetrell Fo 1, Jetrell Fo 2, and Jetrell Fo 3

Author
Time
 (Edited)

DominicCobb said:

Obviously it's not the DVD's fault. It's George's fault for ordering the creation of one of the shittiest looking DVD transfers of all time.

4:3 DVDs from D1 masters were common in the '90s and early '00s, and they looked about the same as the GOUT.

And it's your fault for wasting our time with this nonsense that, while hilarious, is probably killing our brain cells.

 And people like you are the source of frivolous lawsuits, i.e., people who can't understand where the fault logically lies in a given situation. In reality, if anyone's time is wasted here, it is their own fault, given that everyone is here voluntarily. And since you have yet to establish that anything I've typed is "nonsense", that mere assertion can be legitimately dismissed out of hand.

Harmy said:

I was getting ready to type up an answer to that but the whole post is just so unbelievably illogical (as well as misinformed), that the idea of trying to refute it just makes me a little nauseous.

I bolded your unsupported assertions, and they are worth exactly what I paid for them.