AntcuFaalb

skyjedi2005 said:

Would people have paid tons of cash in 1997 to see non restored not cgi versions of the films.  Would just as many people have bought the dvd's and blu rays if they were simply the theatrical films untouched?

Why not? People kept on buying and re-buying each home video re-release prior to 1997.

They even convinced people to come back and buy 'em again "one last time".

So here's my question since I wasn't alive in the 1970s: Were variety shows supposed to be "watched" like movies?

I've always thought that they were designed to be something more like background noise for social gatherings; e.g., turn the TV on, throw a couple of burgers on the grill, invite a few friends over, watch a few minutes, eat a little bit, watch a few minutes more, etc.

If what I say is true, then it might explain why so many variety shows were so bad, including the SWHS.

I'm glad you're home, poita! Get well soon!

drngr said:

I'm always angry when I watch my parents' little 13" HDTV because of how good the SD video quality is. The 3D comb filter is just ridiculously effective, not only with LD but also with super-noisy analog cable signals (and the noise filter turned off). The only rainbows I saw last time I was there were on a black-and-white striped shirt, and they went away as soon as the character stopped moving.

They got this thing on sale for under $75, meanwhile there are $500 capture cards still made with 2D-only filters.

It might be possible to rip the board out and use it standalone if we can figure out how to convert LVDS.

monks19 said:

Any other HDTV Disney that are worth mentionning (aside of Aladdin & Who framed Roger Rabbit) ? Maybe we shoud start a list with a short explanation for them ? Could be helpfull

The Sword in the Stone (1963)

SilverWook said:

The LD soundtrack would be dicey, if my experience with Grease is any indication. Neither film got a digital sound remaster, and they were released very early in the format without CX noise reduction. What I got off the LD sounded very mediocre.

There's a 1986-released Japanese LD which probably has a better-sounding analog track.

ChainsawAsh?

Leonardo said:

Yes.

I think I'll just upload the individual vob files on my GoogleDrive tomorrow. It should be the same thing, right?

Yep, that'll probably work. Thanks!!!

Leonardo said:

Transfer complete. Hardware used: Panasonic NV FS200 HQ, SAMSUNG DVDR119.

One problem, though. IMGBurn won't rip the image. If I try to do a straight dump, it says the disc has multiple sessions. It tells me to use the "build image" mode and select the folder. I do just that, and the program fails while reading the first vob file.

Will try again later.

Did you "finalize" the DVD on the recorder?

timdiggerm said:

darklordoftech said:

AntcuFaalb said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

^That's what I ask myself in regards to almost every comic book movie that's been released lately. I'd rather see Batman face a schizophrenic child killer who lives in a rat-infested apartment building than some international terrorist organization who wants to bring the First World to its knees.

Agreed.

 Also agreed. 

 And agreed again.

Agreed.

DuracellEnergizer said:

^That's what I ask myself in regards to almost every comic book movie that's been released lately. I'd rather see Batman face a schizophrenic child killer who lives in a rat-infested apartment building than some international terrorist organization who wants to bring the First World to its knees.

Agreed.

monks19 said:

About Snow White's true colors, any other way go get access to the film's original color charts ? Were those informations ever published ?

Probably not, unfortunately.

Our best bet is a low-fade print.

Reegar said:

AntcuFaalb said:

Reegar said:

You're missing next to nothing.

I beg to differ. I, objectively, think they're better than any of the three LotR films.

 ROTJ is your favorite OT film. Of course the Hobbit trilogy would appeal to you more over LOTR.

I don't want to argue, but please tell me what you're implying and be as explicit as possible.

Reegar said:

You're missing next to nothing.

I beg to differ. I, objectively, think they're better than any of the three LotR films.

Sluggo?

Ziggy?

Happy Holidays, Team Blu! Thanks for all of the wonderful 2013 releases. I'm looking forward to many more.

Stay safe. Stay warm. Enjoy!

DF Shadow said:

I only wish I could shrink myself and run through it like Sonic.

Been there; done that.

It's not all it's cracked-up to be.

So does anyone think this won't happen?

I mean, we've been fucked-over so many times over the years that I still don't know what to expect from the Disney acquisition of LFL.

CO said:

Very strange people over at TFN, but I would love to talk to them personally and see if they are just circling the wagons for Lucas or they actually believe the BS they say.

I think you'd find that most people are much less extreme IRL.

Fang Zei said:

I stopped posting there the moment everyone lept to Lucasfilm's defense after they announced they were putting 1993-quality transfers on frickin' dvd.

Did anyone there make ridiculous arguments like "It's 1970s film quality! You can't ask for any better!"?

ImperialFighter said:

Strangely, these latest dvd releases don't even bother to flag up the fact that they are the 'up-to-date' versions on the UK packaging in any way.

That's Disney/LFL's attempt to muddy the issue, I suppose.

Jetrell Fo said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

I'd eat Soylent Green even knowing that it's made out of people.

A little protein in the diet never hurt anyone .....  :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prion

doubleofive said:

Soylent isn't a mixture of OTC vitamin mixtures. It's a custom blend. Ars Technica did a series on it:

http://arstechnica.com/series/ars-does-soylent/

That was the beta version, v1.0 actually addresses the chalky and such. I think it's an interesting concept.

IMO it's more useful for starving people than SiValley hipsters.

darklordoftech said:

On TFN they can't seem to grasp the concept of a villain who's not a Sith.

lol

darth_ender said:

We have two different opinions.  You can neither prove nor disprove either one.

Exactly!!! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic#Types_of_agnosticism

Wikipedia said:

Strong agnosticism (also called "hard", "closed", "strict", or "permanent agnosticism")

The view that the question of the existence or nonexistence of a deity or deities, and the nature of ultimate reality is unknowable by reason of our natural inability to verify any experience with anything but another subjective experience. A strong agnostic would say, "I cannot know whether a deity exists or not, and neither can you."

I'm sorry... shameless plug.

Forgive me? ^_^