team_negative1 said:
Again, maybe its time to distribute the files to someone that can convert and release the project, that's less busy.
I'm sure there are plenty of volunteers.
Team Negative1
I've offered HDD->HDD copies from the start of this thing.
Lil Brutto said:
I requested an invitation earlier but no response. Hoping I can be one of the lucky ones and get an invite.
Same here.
msycamore said:
Yeah, I echo Spaced Ranger. Any updates regarding both laser and film print?
Film scan: Obtained. Will discuss with SilverWook and poita about what to do next.
Laserdisc preservation: In progress. My entire setup is being moved from my old computer room to our bedroom in order to use it as storage space. I'm taking the opportunity to integrate my new DPS-575 in and I suspect I'll be fully operational in the next few weeks.
My home life has been really, really busy lately. :o/
I'll upload the 2D combed one once I get everything setup.
team_negative1 said:
Do you need any assistance or another computer.
Team Negative1
I appreciate the offer, but I can handle it — no sweat!
My #1 problem right now is finding the time to get in front of the computer at home. My home life has been really, really busy lately.
ATMachine said:
So.... just out of curiosity, does anyone else suspect that Kylo Ren is going to be basically a film version of Darth Caedus?
Who?
Nocturnaloner said:
- Something happens with the chessboard.
YES YES YES!!!
Any luck, StarmanSkywalker?
HotRod said:
And it's still not on in the UK
[Premium Usenet Provider]+SABnzbd+SickBeard+Plex = bliss.
DrCrowTStarwars said:
Makes me long for the days of VHS when the studios couldn't pull this kind of garbage.
Read up on Macrovision and see how it impacted some pre-1984 VCRs.
Warbler said:
btw, what is team Blu?
http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Our-projects-released-thread/post/666009/#TopicPost666009
brash_stryker said:
Funcha said:
Why are you guys feeding the troll?! :)
That term gets thrown around way too often here. He's not a troll. Just a bit misinformed.
Agreed.
TV's Frink said:
AntcuFaalb said:
Meh, I like both of you. Can't we all just get along?
Hell no.
:o(
Meh, I like both of you. Can't we all just get along?
xxtelecine 7xx said:
Now I understand why some people can be grumpy around here.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Can you spell it out for me? ELI5
imperialscum said:
Also some DVD-BOY guy I haven't even seen yet.
He's on Team Blu.
}{eywood: You're making at least four different claims. I'll address each one individually here.
1. HD looks artificial
If this is true, then 35mm film must look artificial to you as well. 35mm film is capable (demonstrably!) of resolving to >4K. And yes, this is true for release prints as well.
Are you perhaps arguing that television technology has something to do with this artificial appearance instead? See #4.
2. Reality doesn't look as sharp as HD
If this is true, then you must need glasses. Please visit an Ophthalmologist ASAP.
I'm not kidding. Your eyes should be able to see much more than 480 or 576 lines. Your blurry vision might pose a significant danger to yourself or the people around you. Living life with SD eyes is uncivil and irresponsible.
3. People aren't modest enough in their choice of television size and technology
Why do you care? I have a 5ft. plasma in my living room (for Blu-rays) and a 2.5ft. CRT in my basement (for LDs), so am I rocking all this bling too or am I an exception to your observation?
4. Modern television sets make everything look like shit
They do? Are you sure you have the EE and DNR (and other BS features) turned off? Are you sure your set has a good black level? Are you sure you're using a good source; e.g., the Lawrence of Arabia blu-ray?
Come back after seeing Lawrence of Arabia on an ISF calibrated Pioneer Kuro set and let me know if you still hold this opinion.
xxtelecine 7xx said:
Down converting back to 1080p is a soft process.
This depends entirely on what kernel is used.
xxtelecine 7xx said:
There is a hell of a difference between 720p and 1080p on my 160" projection system at home. (Native 1080p HD projector)
Nice screen size! I'd love to calibrate a system like yours. Which probe do/did you use? Can you load the 3dLUT right into the projector or are you using an LUT box or video processor of some sort?
xxtelecine 7xx: What's your limit?
I have ~10TB of a losslessly-compressed 4K 35mm film scan sitting in my house right now.
Is this an acceptable release format for you?
You're all about quality, right? ... right?
"Quality is everything"
xxtelecine 7xx said:
People will wait days for a download of your edit but your concerned with processing time and encode time? (I am all about the quality here)
Have you ever worked with an algorithm that takes minutes of render time per frame?
I have.
Come back and try to make this same argument assuming a total render time of 4 minutes x 175,000 frames.
TServo2049 said:
One of the box sets is known as the "Pyramide" set because of the distinctive shape of the box. I think it's the 1994 one, the LDDB pic seems to show the sloped sides.
Ha, weird! o_O
TServo2049 said:
The 1994 one is the "pyramid" set, right? That uses the same pink-shifted transfer/print as the earlier French letterbox LDs, right?
That one is still interesting and deserves preservation IMO. Nobody has ever truly analyzed that version, what frames are there, and so on.
I don't recall it being call the "pyramid" set, but I wouldn't be surprised.
I'm pretty sure it uses the same transfer as the earlier French LBX LDs, but I'm not sure.
msycamore said:
The coffret trilogie did go through DVNR like the Faces set but I guess it's the best set the PAL-system can offer.
I'm pretty sure it's:
1994 No DVNR: http://www.lddb.com/laserdisc/31358/856235/Star-Wars:-Coffret-Trilogie:-Edition-Collector
1995 DVNR: http://www.lddb.com/laserdisc/35598/168035/Star-Wars:-Coffret-Trilogie
rockin said:
d_j would you consider doing a preservation for Stephen King's It? I'm certain there is 1080i HDTV file around somewhere.
Where?!?!?! O_O
CO said:
There is still a part of me that can't believe they would be this dumb to essentially do a remake of Episode IV, because fans like me won't even bother with Episodes 8 & 9.
I doubt that'd have a big impact on the profit or success of the new trilogy. For every fan like you there's at least one fan like me (asking for seconds at the nostalgia plate) and dozens of others who'd watch anything even remotely related to Star Wars.
bkev said:
Actually I think tentacle porn came about because of the US's post-WWII occupation of Japan. Our prudishness rubbed off on them, to the point where they passed laws saying pornographic material couldn't feature real penetration. Hence, well, tentacles. Hell, even today the tip is often blocked out -- even if just by a barely visible black bar.
Not that I know this from watching, or anything.
I think we're both right. The "creator" of tentacle porn was interviewed by Anthony Bourdain in the Parts Unknown: Tokyo episode and he pretty much said [what you said] + [what hairy_hen said].
Harmy said:
I'm sorry, is this the "discuss what you don't like about the original trilogy" thread?
I call it the "TESB:R Effect". Many people visit this forum for N (N is usually < 3) threads and then think that those N threads represent the entire forum.
TV's Frink loves reminding people that there are threads outside of the popular ones when the TESB:R Effect starts rearing its ugly head.