Asaki

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".

Man, I remember when we used to think the X0 Project looked super awesome... @_@

Time flies.

towne32 said:

You don't. I don't think we all assume that the final is going to be blue and blurry. We know you're not going to release the final version until it looks right.

You'd be surprised how many newbies come here to complain about issues that get explained on every other page.

poita said:

As for it replacing Puggo's version in any way, that is just nonsense. It is just a scan of a Super8 release, and not a very good scan...

Just my $0.02, I haven't watched the Super 8 yet, but from the stills it looks to be in a lot better shape, colorwise, than the film that Puggo scanned, especially since reel 2 of PG is so faded. (obviously I'm speaking of the original colors, not the "for people who don't like yellow" colors)

BTW, any ETA on the re-scan?

ilovewaterslides said:

I've noticed on the Super 8 topic and on your last corrected 35mm scans that you also have some bluish clips. Is it a strange coincidence or do you maybe have a badly calibrated monitor?

 I don't think they're finished color correcting yet. The original raw stills they released were very blue, shots since then have varied.

Hmm, looking at the Super 8 thread, though, I do see what you mean. Strange.

TServo2049 said:

The only picture that is missing is info on all four sides that the viewer was never intended to see. (This was an issue when Star Trek: The Next Generation was scanned in HD for Blu-ray - there were shots that exposed equipment on the periphery, which was outside the "safe area" and never meant to be seen...

There's an episode of Quantum Leap where access to the overscan zone exposes nip slip :o

The same clip is shown in the series opener though and they are not visible.

Feallan said:

Wazzles said:

AntcuFaalb said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

Molly said:

I was very fortunate, I suppose, to have seen SotS as a kid in '87. :P

I managed to find a copy online to watch a couple months ago. The quality wasn't HD or anything, but it was serviceable. I honestly found it a beautiful movie; those who call it racist are either overtly-sensitive members of the PC police or haven't even seen the movie in the first place.

Damn straight. We don't need no stinkin' SJWs!

 epic

 brave

delicious

I'm ashamed for all of us. Don't worry about it, you're all off the hook now. Boob it up, guys.

_,,,^..^,,,_ said:

Yep, 97 Jabba is awful - not that 04 is so much better...

Hence, why I described it as "10% less ugly" ;) Still ugly.

Most impressive. I wonder how it looks in motion.

I'm not sure about the artificial film grain, though. My eyes see the sharp grain and the lower resolution picture at the same time and it doesn't feel very natural to me. Maybe if the whole thing were at SD resolution (or whatever res the original files were in) it would look better?

Zyrother said:

...is the 97 SE considered better than the 2004 SE because the color timing in the 97 SE are way better and more natural?

Yes. Definitely yes.

97 also has a lot less revisionism than the 04s (no Prequels yet). However, 97 does have a bit of motion blur going on, and some of the CGI in the 04 looks maybe 10% less ugly. Jabba in Ep IV is a good example.

I thought the BD looked fine.

Mad Max 2, however... >:( I refuse to buy it if they refuse to fix it! Yuck. I will stick with my old flipper disc, thankyouverymuch.

Spaced Ranger said:

"This means that you'll no longer be able to watch 1080p videos in YouTube's HTML5 player if you use Firefox or Safari."

 Nothing like taking a couple steps backwards...thanks a lot, Google >:(

There were some LD preservations a couple years ago, I'm not sure what ever happened with those, I didn't follow them for very long (not super interested in the SEs).

VHS preservations? Might as well just buy the real thing for a couple bucks and dust off your VCR =)

Atlantia's censorship isn't all that bad, but Miss Miami doesn't even look like a chest anymore. Totally weird.

Bobocop said:

I kind of miss seeing the cigarette burns in movies nowadays. I know it's completely out of nostalgia, but at the same time their presence will be a reminder that what you're watching is totally authentic.

 For the most part, I miss that our "second run" theatre doesn't run film anymore, but on a positive note, since they switched over, I haven't seen one movie where the projectionist had the screen out-of-focus.

Apparently reel change markers are a huge dealbreaker for this guy.

Two days after release, "The Proper Restoration: Die Rebel Scum Cig Burns" fan edit is goes online and he poos himself.

Beber said:

Why don't these guys work together since they obviously have skills?

They have been known to assist each other in various minor ways, but the details are left intentionally vague.

Obviously Mike can't go all out on a collaboration with them, his career would be in serious jeopardy.

hairy_hen said:

They were probably commissioned to do work for the planned 3D theatrical screenings, and then when that project fell through, the work was scrapped before completion.  They could well have had it up on their website just to show that it was something they had done, but weren't expecting people to latch on to it as an indicator about a new release.

That's certainly a possibility.

I'm sure Mike spends more time working on one scene than they spent working on the entire film @_@

Remember, 2004 was a rush job with a strict time limit (what was it? Like 24 days?). The BluRays, it seems like they only bothered to grease the squeakiest wheels.

When Lucas hands you lemons, make...slightly higher resolution lemons...

Tobar is rabot spelled backwards.

Curious...

You_Too said:

That means they had no color data at all for that shot.

I'm sure that's not the only shot...they had a very strict deadline to meet >_<