rob hodge said:
hey, could anyone possibly re-seed a copy of the ROTJ DVD5 SD despecialized edition to myspleen? i'm trying to run down a copy of it.
I don't see a DVD5 version of it on MySpleen. Was it deleted?
Thanks, Andrea and althor1138!
I started an interesting discussion about this over at LDDB: http://forum.lddb.com/viewtopic.php?p=30003#p30003
Enjoy!
Are GOUT's colors different from what's found in the 1995 THX "Faces" set?
Laserschwert said:
Harmy said:
That, plus there isn't that much more resolution on the 1080p BD to begin with
Right, because the Lowry restoration wasn't actually supposed to be used for an HD release (but lazy Lucasfilm did it anyway).
Oh, they're not only lazy, they're evil. They're evilazy.
They deliberately don't give a shit.
Can someone please upload the TooT DLL? I can't find it anywhere!
You_Too said:
Actually, I found an old quote from Mike Verta where he confirms my suspicions:
There is an incredible amount of grain in the transfers, which is not part of the masters they come from (I've seen them). To be honest, it's not so much grain, as it looks like dirt - the film stocks used for those movies are not that grainy. In any case, this, and a ton of other evidence, has led people like me to strongly suspect they've been deliberately grained up, or in other ways made sure to look like an inferior release next to the 2004's.
Releasing them non-anamorphically, as dirty, grainy prints but stil better than fan-preservations, kills the bootleg market, and makes some cash, while still not encroaching on the sales of the "superior" 2004 DVD's. Lucasfilm has been running a smear campaign on their own release of the OT on starwars.com making sure people know how shitty the originals look compared to the 2004's. Marketing-wise, it's brilliant.
Wow :-(
He's right. It was a brilliant move. LFL = evil.
Can someone check the 1993 DC or 1995 THX LDs to see if the grain approximately matches GOUT?
You_Too said:
AntcuFaalb said:
Another weird question: Why is GOUT so grainy if LFL used a DVNR-1000? Wouldn't the frame-blending kill most of the grain?
That's exactly why I suspect the grain is fake, added after the DVNR in an attempt to cover it up.
Possibly. Question: Are you thinking it was added in 1993 or in 2006?
Another weird question: Why is GOUT so grainy if LFL used a DVNR-1000? Wouldn't the frame-blending kill most of the grain?
georgec said:
Burn that Lowry "master". Burn it and send it to hell.
I couldn't have said this better. Well done.
Do you still have BLAK0018 available?
If so, what source(s) did you use for your transfer of From Star Wars to Jedi?
Welcome back!
This confusion may be due to the fact that NTSC is ~60 fields per second, resulting in ~30 frames per second.
Thanks, Andrea!!!
Warbler said:
which 'He who shall not be named' are we talking about?
I assume they mean FatherSkywalker.
darth_ender said:
As far as I know. He doesn't appear to be posting anymore. I've read some of his old stuff, and it was hilarious!
Links, please!
EIN502 said:
Is this still on MySpleen? I have not seen it in the StarWars area and I looked through that a number of times.
Thank you for your time and hard work. Looking forward to some immersive listening.
No, but it's on Usenet (a.b.starwars).
Wolfman said:
SilverWook said:
Holy Crap! Only a few months before the 30th anniversary of Return of the Jedi!
I just came across a photo of little 'ol me as a fresh faced 17 year old, standing outside Brighton Odeon showing Return Of The Jedi !!!
......and a 12 year old me in 1978 wearing a Star Wars t-shirt.
You should see the size of them flares man!
Post it! Post it!
none said:
Recent update to the 'Black Angel' story:
http://www.wired.com/underwire/2012/12/20-12-pl_blackangel/
Christian is still debating how to share Black Angel with fans.
This is excellent news!
I hope we'll get a proper preservation of Return of the Ewok in the near-future as well.
Interested. PM sent!
Akwat Kbrana said:
Apparently, they are all Bingowings.
Actually, they're all pat man clones.
g-force said:
AntcuFaalb said:
_,,,^..^,,,_ said:
I'm testing new denoise filter - soon I'll post some screenshot comparisons.
Denoisers often do more harm than good, especially if they're temporal.
The best is the poorly-named MDeGrain1/2/3 IMO, but you still run the risk of artifacts if it's applied globally.
I think it's well named (or at least better than most functions). Motion-compensated degrain and the temporal radius afterwards. Why don't you think so, AntcuFaalb?
But I agree, artifacts are guaranteed. IF you have to denoise, best is to median with the original a couple different denoisers that don't produce the same artifacts.
I don't know what I was thinking at the time. Silly me! ^_^
I might just miss MVDeGrain1/2/3.
TV's Frink said:
lol, what idea?
Perhaps the part after the "and" in the OP's title?
_,,,^..^,,,_ said:
I'm testing new denoise filter - soon I'll post some screenshot comparisons.
Denoisers often do more harm than good, especially if they're temporal.
The best is the poorly-named MDeGrain1/2/3 IMO, but you still run the risk of artifacts if it's applied globally.