Asaki

Stinky-Dinkins said:

Shows what you know. When the team decides to name the team solely after the member that doesn't want to be implicated, it makes it almost impossible to figure out who the man behind the curtain is.

This is exactly why we're using the pseudonym "Team Stinky-Dinkins" when we release our preservation of Song of the South, using original negatives "borrowed" from the Disney ranch.

Team Frink

In a cruel twist of irony, receiving blood transfusions convinced me that I need to start donating...and then I found out that because of the circumstance in which I required said transfusions, I am ineligible to donate =|

I don't know about the 97 SE, but regarding the original, as was said before, the GOUT isn't quite as bad as the other two films.

The Technidisc/JSC (or are they the same thing?) are really good also, although do suffer from some rainbowing.

Puggo's release should be awesome, and in the future, we should have two different 35mm preservations B)

I was talking about G.I. Joe =) M.A.S.S. Device is the very first miniseries, season 1, if you can get any shots from that.

That MotU shot looks about how I remember my (pre-Mill Creek) Dungeons & Dragons set looking on an analogue TV. Lots of flicker.

removed

I feel like I've seen this somewhere before.

suntech said:

May be what was there to be seen but could not  due to the limits of the technology at the time.

Just like all of the CGI in Star Wars; it was always there, you just couldn't see it :)

ww12345 said:

...it's not that hard once you have one or two under your belt. :)

 Well, sure, but not everyone can afford 35mm capture equipment :)

jedimasterobiwan said:

mallrats

chasing amy

jay and silent bob strike back

Have you tried checking for HDTV captures?

djchaseb said:

Is this actually on the source or is it something wrong with the way I'm displaying it through my PS3 / HDTV?  It's very distracting at times!

 A little of both, maybe?

I don't remember noticing any jaggies on the few episodes of the Mill Creek MotU that we watched, and it was probably on the XBox with XBMC (so I have to manually choose my own de-interlace settings).

I have the Hasbo DVD Battles release of M.A.S.S. Device (taken from the actual broadcast master) if you need any comparison shots taken.

:D

BTW, is his name really pronounced "Moth-er"?

poita said:

So many people keep telling me various neg1 identities, so I figure it isn't actually much in the way of a secret...

Obviously, even the identities of -1 members cannot be true as they are all a part of TV's Frink's multiple personality disorder. The SEs are safely in the hands of Walt Disney forever; possession of any other version is punishable by death. This entire forum is just a sick dream in Frink's feverish imagination.

It's time to wake up. Rise and shine.

poita said:

...don't currently have enough drives to scan them due to a damn clump of drives failing.

 Are they under warranty?

Slightly off-topic, but regarding the sabre colors in the training scene, I took these screen captures from the Technidisc preservation: http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Lukes-saber-appears-to-be-green-in-the-making-of-Star-wars-documentary/post/543602/#TopicPost543602

It's mostly blue, although the entire movie fluctuates in color, giving some shots a lot more yellow than others, causing his sabre to turn more greenish.

team_negative1 said:

We don't forsee much of a demand for a Grindhouse or other alternate ones, since this is the least requested movie of the trilogy, and possibly the least favorite.

Because of this, it is also the most neglected film, as far as preservations go.

Although, on the other hand, it's also the only film from the 2006 GOUT that isn't completely drowning in ugly DVNR.

Well now I can see why those two guys were so upset that the reel change markers aren't being erased...seeing it at the end of this preview was like a Storm Trooper pulling me over and saying "Sorry buddy, joy ride's over." ;)

kylechu said:

Personally, I think it looked amazing on the Tantive, but the stuff on Tatooine looked a bit rough.

It's supposed to look that way, note discussion on "pantyhose" and "soft focus".

So is the cleaned up Grindhouse going to be the official ESB release, or is that a separate project?

I've always loved the way Universal does it. They'll start off with their current logo (if it isn't a modern movie), and then right after it will show the original logo (or logos, for their anniversary stuff).

I think it's a pretty cool compromise.

CatBus said:

...I've read that 70mm blow-up prints often do have slightly more detail than 35mm prints.  Not sure how the math behind this observation pencils out...

Wouldn't it be similar to the concept of "the BluRay is sharper because it was scanned from the original negatives"?

It can't be a coincidence :o

team_negative1 said:

There will be a second release of Empire Strikes Back, with improvements before the final one to hold people over.

Not to complain, but I thought the Grindhouse was more than enough to hold us all over @_@

team_negative1 said:

Just to clarify, if you are a member AMPS, or were on AMPSDeux (Reddit) feel free to send your email for a notification of the preview.

Thanks.

Team Negative1

I am on the Reddit thing, but I thought the preview was for members who were on the blog (which was prior to AMPS). Or are you guys just offering a bonus extension?

fmalover said:

...the movies from the Brosnan era look terrible, Goldeneye in particular. My question is why?

It's a mystery. First, we get some weird kind of "they must have accidentally used the fullscreen master" cropped slipup, and then they "fix" it by releasing something that looks worse than DVD quality.

althor1138 said:

Yeah. I was going to say you could just take it off the blu-ray and make it fit the laserdisc footage. You could just downscale it, blur it, and noise it up a little bit.

IIRC, that's what the other preservation did. Sorry, can't remember who was behind that one, but I just downloaded it like a month ago, so it can't be too far down the forum...

The McDonald's promo is actually the censored version where they cut out all of the sex scenes and profanity.

Jetrell Fo said:

I noticed that team_negative1 is now watermarking screen caps ..... has something transpired to make this necessary?

 They were watermarking them back on the blog (and probably before) with a great big "SAVING STAR WARS" logo, and then stopped for a while.

There's a workprint of Total Recall!?!? :o

The Shade said:

One thing I noticed for the first time when Luke & Han enter the throne room is looking on the extreme sides and seeing the obviously fake looking "extras".

Maybe some things are better left hidden? :D

Well you're looking at preview images on a (presumably) bright computer screen. When you've got the actual movie in your hands, and you're watching it on a TV or projected, you don't want the image that bright at all.

Red Dwarf said:

Yes the blu came from a better source, but on the other hand the 35mm print would have been projected onto a massive cinema screen without complaints.

"I just saw the brand new movie, Star Wars, last night. While the movie itself was excellent, I couldn't help but be distracted by the fact that it was obviously shot on film, and with soft lenses. Hopefully George Lucas will switch to digital video for the inevitable sequel."

DavidMerrick said:

Well now we're getting into that murky, almost philosophical territory of what the movie's ideal presentation is supposed to be: what's on the negative or what's visible to an audience via a 35mm or 70mm blowup print.

I don't think this is "murky" at all. Whether it's film, or photography, or music, or any other sort of artform, most professionals know how their work will react to different mediums, and will compensate for this in advance.

You wouldn't plan for your movie to look great on a negative, and then release it on 35mm and say "oh well, it is what it is".