AuggieBenDoggie

Michael bay was a music video director, and he stole my childhood...lol....

doubleofive said:

Why do so many people around here feel that these movies are too centered? Zooming in and tilting the frame does not add anything. Our eyes have been drawn to the right area for years, we don't need what I consider to be "music video" effects to be "modern". What's next, shaky-cam effects and random slow motion?

Kersh knew what he was doing. Ady knows what he is doing, which is respecting Kersh's compositions.

It's because some of the people here making suggestions, never grew up watching these in the 70' and 80's and are so use to the in your face and moving around formula that Michael Bay and all of the other dip-shit directors use....

Ady is mainly concerned with the really obvious technical problems, and the continuity with the story, and visual elements. I highly doubt Ady is going to zoom in or tilt on any shot, just to make a scene look cool, or up to date.

@Ripplin, vignetting is when the camera aperture is undersized and causes a slight dark tint around the picture frame. The same thing happens when a projector bulb is out of focus. You can see that example in alot of old time black and white silent films like the Charlie Chaplin movies for example.

@Lemonstein, I don't think that there is any vignetting going on in that shot. Judging by Ady's color corrected shot of the same scene, it looks more like the lighting for the set doesn't cover the entire area very well. The set was not really all that big, and you can tell they tried to hide the end of the set with alot of fog and darker lighting. You can also barely make out some fake trees on the far side. I cant tell if they are painted or if they are physical props.

vaderios said:

Even ady sometimes fixed details that the average viewer cant even spot half of them. I can put the word contribute rather bug.. ;)

I dont have any idea yes, but thats why i illustrate ideas of how something can be done better or give something that ady hadnt thought with that way.

Perfection is my real motive...yeah ;) thats more like it!

No hard feelings captain :)

It's all cool Vaderios.

@DMaarten, Don't worry I know Ady will do great.

@Ripplin, it's all cool dude.

@Lemonstein, Varderios work is great, and I'm not knocking that one bit. It's just the constant badgering about pointless detail thats gets annoying. Nothing to get mad at all.

The case with the matte. I just see it differently thats all. In the 4 seconds that shot lasts, there hardly any time to study much of anything in the matte unless you pause the video. A complete change is practically a waste of time for such a short shot. Thats the only point I'm really debating. Enhancing the existing matte really is the best solution.

You have absolutely no idea how ady is going to enhance it, and Ady hasn't revealed anything more but saying original matte will be enhanced to match the set. My example was just a crude example to show more of the matte.

It seems that your the one thats really having the problem. You bug Ady constantly about changing pointless detail. Now don't get me wrong, there are a few of your suggestions that are really great, and those are the ones I don't respond to.

I really hope notoriety is not the real motive behind your ideas.

vaderios said:

I agree with ady there. A half change matte will match the rest of the shots. what i did there long time ago. it was quick and i remember some members comment the overall brightness. It was quick i didnt got into that so dont bother to judge it again ;)

Ady has already said he's not completely changing the matte like in your example. He is just going to brighten up matte to match the live action set.  I still like the original Matte better, and even more so when he enhances it.

Yeah, it is pretty dark, but it still doesn't really bother me. I can easily live with a dark or lighter matte. I knew you would never 'COMPLETELY' change the Matte as vaderios suggests. I got the impression ( from your face book quote ) that you were going to be focused on the X-wing itself.

vaderios said:

005 confirmed that the matte will change. At least what i understood. I agree with the water that should fall from the ship.

The matte is so poor and bad executed that only a new one can give the (un)natural feel of dagobah.

Ady changed mattes and mattes that were less worse than that what makes you think that he will keep that shitty one in the final enhancement edit of his? Makes no sense defending something that is not worth of quality and visual interest just for the sake of nostalgia/originality.

Well, Ady has neither confirmed or denied changing the Matte. He just said the shot where the X-wing flys towards luke is unfinished. The shot is only 4 to 5 sec long, and you don't get a very good look at it because the X-wing is already blocking most of the Matte when it appears, and it pretty much stays blocked the closer the ship gets to shore.

My view is the matte should not be changed because it still looks fine in my opinion. But if Ady wants to change it, more power to him, it's his edit.... 

vaderios said:

Nope, I still dont find the reason originality a good reason to keep something since ady is replacing most of the static original whatever mattes. The original mattes were ok but not in ourdays standars :)

I don't think it's a matte thats being changed, I think it's the actual X-wing thats being worked on. If you look at the shot, you can tell the X-wing has been composited, and the shadow that follows it doesn't look right either. There should also still be water dripping from the ship as it moves towards the shore, but it all stops the moment the X-wing flys over head. Water doesn't drain out that fast.

vaderios said:

I still find the shuttle a bit CG rendered and its way to gray IMO even the light/gray balances are matching with the SD.

The color is fine, and it doesn't look too CG. I think what could be the problem ( if there was ) is that frame rate for that CG insert might be at PAL speed. If its not, then it might be the lighting that could be just a tad bit different. But why complain about a shot that looks really great already?

Ady Just curious, but did you use AE for the creation of that Shuttle insert or did somebody else render that shot with Lightwave or 3DSMax?

vaderios said:

Interesting.. you haven't changed the matte as I suggested back then with more organic one and less painted one...

Well, I guess it's pretty obvious that he preferred the original matte, and I'm glad he stuck with it. The original matte has always looked great IMO.

I hate how you tube re-compresses the video. Ady how about a Rapidshare link to a better quality clip?

But anyway, yoda's mouth enhancements look really genuine and not distracting at all. The shuttle replacement looks great also. Did you use the audio from the original Tie Shuttle or did you use the sound from one of the imperial shuttle's used in Jedi?

@((((TV's Frink))))  It's still has a 2011 release date. Check Ady's last post.

asterisk8 said:

Why? Why do we need to draw the viewers eye up to a meaningless area of the bridge and away from what's important?

Ziz said:

Not to mention the fact that adding that lighting effect would mean it would need to be added to every shot of the bridge, not only in this film but in ROTJ:R as well.  Too much work to solve a problem that didn't exist in the first place.

I agree, and I'm sure Ady would feel the same way.

The 1993 masters where color timed. They where THX certified, and the main problem with those is the Digital Video Noise Reduction Lucasfilm used at the time.  The pre THX Laser disc versions are closer to the theatrical as far as color is concerned IMO.

The GOUT is not a good example of what the OT really looked like in the cinemas. It's derived from a 720 X 480 non anamorphic master made in 1993 for the now extinct Laser Disc format, and suffers from 8 bit color depth.

Monroville said:

Guys (specifically ABD): the whole point to making suggestions is "to make suggestions".

There is no rule that says you cant make suggestions, and there is certainly no rule that says I cant respond to them.

You could always make a video mock-up for your suggestions, it works a whole lot better than a still does in some cases. Your a very talented guy. Show ady what you can do, and he could very well ask you to do some work on ROTJ:Revisited.

Yeah, Ady is really level headed person. He makes pretty reasonable decisions.

I'm in favor for any change if it fixes any major continuity or technical problem. I'm not in favor of change just for the sake of something new if in fact it does not serve the plot at all. If it does then thats great, otherwise,  just popping in eye candy for the sake of it does not impress me.  Thats not what Revisited should be about.

I said some, not 'ALL' .  Lights are not a problem. Flying Asteroids are not a problem. Blasting asteroids could pose a problem. Escort ships turning away, major problem. There is not enough time in that scene to make that idea work with the established shot. The executor barely clears the asteroid field before it cuts to vader entering the holo chamber to talk to the emperor. Now, how much time are you going to have to show any escort ship pull off and return to the asteroid field before the scene cuts to Vader?

You would have to make a brand new shot to make that happen, and thats totally unnecessary Just to please the "We just gotta change it because it's REVISITED".

I really hope you 2 realize that there is not much screen time in those shots to make some of those changes you want worth while.

I hope ady leaves it as original as it can be. Revisited doesn't necessarily mean change for the sake of change.

@asterisk8        I'm sorry you don't agree.

Lemonstein said:

Wow, shoot me for saying it, but can't people wait till Ady releases the finished movie before they start dissecting it. It's a bit unfair to start picking at it when you're not viewing it as a whole.

I'm a little bit confused on this Ady.  Your using the Clive Revill Emporer voice over Ian McDiarmid?

Can you post a clip of the scene?

@Lemonstein

Just thought I would throw this in here, but at the end of ESB, Irvin Kershner says it's a galaxy we see through the bay window on the medical frigate in the Audio commentary of the 2004 dvd, and the Falcon does in fact fly away from it, and not towards it.