Sign In

BobaJett

User Group
Members
Join date
26-Jan-2016
Last activity
15-Oct-2018
Posts
215

Post History

Post
#1222632
Topic
4k77 released
Time

NeverarGreat said:

BobaJett said:

From what I can view of my fragmented download, the one thing that really caught me off guard were the Tatooine scenes. Was everything really that yellow in the theatres? If so, I guess Ive been conditioned by all the home releases that give it a more natural look instead of the extreme yellow cast over everything.

The home releases were definitely graded to be more muted in their grading, for example Tatooine was quite yellow and the cantina was quite red in the Tech prints compared to later releases.

IN other words, closer to what we wouldve seen in the theatres back in the 70’s or early 80’s re-releases?

How wide of a release were the technicolor screenings? Im assuming they were uncommon and in bigger cities like LA or NYC. Until recently, I was always under the impression I saw it on opening day 5/25/77. But in fact, I actually didnt see it until 6/17/77, opening day for my hometown. That explains how my parents already knew that it was a good movie due to positive reviews from other cities where it was released 2 weeks earlier. I recall them telling me about it and showing me the cinema section from the newspaper with several reviews.

Post
#1222545
Topic
4k77 released
Time

dahmage said:

BobaJett said:

Wow, this looks great, from what I can view. Im having an issue with the .MKV file. When I try an demux it, I get an error code of -2. When I try and play it in VLC player, it jumps around in the film. In other players I get digital artifacts. My DL shows 100% and the folder shows a 38gb file, but 36gb on the disc. Am I missing part of the DL despite showing 100%? Sorry to break the flow of the thread, but Ive never encountered this before.

Not sure where you got it from, but I suggest doing a hash check, reference data here: https://pastebin.com/raw/ypJGN4HZ

Actually, it was your torrent. I think what happened was I was missing about 2gb and most of the movie would play, but had lots of little missing pieces and that was causing the issue. Im re-loading it right now and hopefully Ill get it all. I think the first time was because I was out of space on my main drive. I had to move some files around to free up some space. What I did see was very different and quite nice to look at at. Im color blind, but I could tell it was different. The opening scene with the rebels awaiting the stormtrooper assault had a very warm, natural look to it. I cant describe it any other way.

Post
#1222503
Topic
4k77 released
Time

From what I can view of my fragmented download, the one thing that really caught me off guard were the Tatooine scenes. Was everything really that yellow in the theatres? If so, I guess Ive been conditioned by all the home releases that give it a more natural look instead of the extreme yellow cast over everything.

Post
#1222463
Topic
4k77 released
Time

Wow, this looks great, from what I can view. Im having an issue with the .MKV file. When I try an demux it, I get an error code of -2. When I try and play it in VLC player, it jumps around in the film. In other players I get digital artifacts. My DL shows 100% and the folder shows a 38gb file, but 36gb on the disc. Am I missing part of the DL despite showing 100%? Sorry to break the flow of the thread, but Ive never encountered this before.

Post
#1154756
Topic
Need an objective eye. Having trouble with this MKV file
Time

But hell, I tried xfering to a thumb drive to play on TV/BD player and you cant move a file larger than 4gb to a fat32 drive. So I formatted to NTFS, and my PS3/TV/AVRCR doesnt even detect that type. Outside of my PC, I have no way to watch it> I have a decently sized 21:9 display, but its not the same as my TV/projector. Im curious as to how it will look on that big of a display.

Post
#1154672
Topic
Need an objective eye. Having trouble with this MKV file
Time

Ya know, thats what I was thinking. So should I burn it to a double sided DVD? Thanks though!. I knew I was missing something, but I burn so seldom that I forget the process. To be honest, I really dont know how to burn a file of this type. Its too big for a DVD, wont work on BD, so Im guessing a duel DVD.

Post
#1154635
Topic
Need an objective eye. Having trouble with this MKV file
Time

I dont know whats up, but for some reason when I try to burn the ESB-Revisited MKV, I get audio fine, but no video once the disc is finished. Ive done several in the past, but this one is stumping me. I use tSMuxer first to create an .ISO, then imgBurn to burn the disc like Ive done for all other MKV files. Any ideas on whats happening or what I might be missing? Thanks!

Post
#1153451
Topic
The Force Awakens: 1.78:1 scenes in 2D?
Time

Well, im a day late and a dollar short on this thread, but I couldnt resist not giving my 2¢. My opinion of changing AR is 2 fold. First, I HATE IT!!! I spent my entire life working hard to get a kickass home cinema to emulate the magic I experienced as a child and now some damn director wants to screw that up. Yeh, Im sure I could invest $10,000 upgrading to accomodate my current setup, but why?? I get it, I see why they might do it. But as director of a film, you should be able to convey what youre imagining in one damn format. Thats why you have lots of different lenses for your cameras. Personally, I think IMAX is a bogus AR. Sure, it fills your vision up vertically, but not horizontally.IMAX is too square for me. It should be more 2.2:1, or maybe 1.85:1 than 1.43:1. In order for an IMAX to fully emerse me in a movie (my left and right filled up), I have to sit a bit too close. Hell, outside ofsitting near the front, you cant even see the bottom of the screen, so why have the sides all of the sudden become so sacred??
I did say two fold. I do understand why directors do it. Hell, I never even noticed the DK had changing AR for the longest. Once I did, it bugged the hell out of me. But that was a small screen. I guess in a large theatre, it succeeds in conveying the affect the director wanted, especially if youre not concious of it like I was. But I will still stand my comment that a director should be able to succeed in conveying a ceratain mood or effect without changing AR’s by the use of lenses. Just me.

Post
#1143257
Topic
Episode VIII : The Last Jedi - Discussion * <strong><em>SPOILER THREAD</em></strong> *
Time

Ok, I went in with no expectations except failure. That seemed to work for me. As the movie wore on, I kept saying to myself, “I like this, its not that bad.” Then, the ESB scenes, the ROTJ scenes kind of irked me a bit. Luke was an old, crochedy cynic. I liked Hamills performance. Overall, it wasnt bad. I wished we had a bit more of Luke scene, but I got why it was done that way. For some reason, the flow of the movie and the interactions between the characters almost seemed like it was a sitcom instead of an epic movie. I dont know if thats the right word to describe it, but it just seemed too contemporary.

Post
#1143254
Topic
Episode VIII : The Last Jedi - Discussion * <strong><em>SPOILER THREAD</em></strong> *
Time

SilverWook said:

I advise everybody to just relax, go see the movie, and decide for yourselves. Your own opinion is what should matter to you, not that of me or anyone else here.

And did I see a Hardware Wars reference, or was I dreaming?

Absoulutely!!! I thought the same damn thing. Glad someone else noticed that.

Post
#1142329
Topic
Episode VIII : The Last Jedi - Discussion * <strong><em>SPOILER THREAD</em></strong> *
Time

I had to sstop reading, I didnt want to completely reveal the entire movie to myself. I see several of you saying you liked TFA better. WHY?? I will be seeing tomorrow afternoon, so Ill definitely post my opinions. One last question though, out of all these first impressions, is it the you of now? Or the 12 yr old you? Everytime one of these films approaches I try and emulate the excitement 10 or 13 yr old me had when ESB & ROTJ came out. Its tough, but I try.

Post
#1093762
Topic
Scofield version - SW theater recording
Time

This post brings back some memories from a long, long time ago. Ive got a cassette tape of myself and my best friend acting out the entire movie, special effects and all, from 1978/79ish! He was all of the Empire characters and I was relegated to being the rebels, Leia included. 😃 But Im fairly certain, somewhere in the depths of my garage is a cassette of a live theatre recording I took many years ago.

Post
#1082631
Topic
STAR TOURS (1987) Restoration and Saving of the Original Movie Attraction
Time

Wish I could help out, but all I have is home video shot back in 90’. 480i at best, but with all the fanfare that led up to actually boarding the ship for the ride itself. Regardless of the cheese factor, it was still a cool ride. At that time, anything new Star Wars related, was welcome.

Post
#1076574
Topic
What Was Your Reaction (If You Ordered It In 1978) To The Infamous &quot;Early Bird Star Wars Toy Kit&quot;?
Time

I never got the EBS. Hell, I didnt even know it exsisted until after the fact. But I do remember my first figure, Chewbacca from Service Merchandise! I was only 8 yrs old, but boy was I excited and played with my lone figure until Christmas of 78’ when I got all the figures, a TIE Fighter, an X-Wing and Lukes landspeeder. To date, probably the best Christmas ever. From then on until Jedi, every Christmas was Star Wars heavy.

Post
#1064078
Topic
Rogue One * <em>Spoilers</em> * Thread
Time

canofhumdingers said:

Yeah it wasn’t so much that as it was, “when the heck did they have TIME to do it?” They were in a mad rush to find and retrieve the data file while K-2 was simultaneously helping them search and fending off wave after wave of troopers. At least for Luke and co. it happens in a moment of relative downtime when they aren’t actively running from troops.

It’s not a big deal, just a funny little observation.

Heres my take, I think they did it to lighten their load because they knew they were about to be climbing and felt more comfortable in their lighter weight outfits.

My only two gripes, which have been addressed by others here in the forum, were the lack of stormtrooper continuity and Vader’s actor. In the OT, stormtroopers had to be roughly 6’-6’2" and weigh around 180-200. In R1, they were a hodge podge of body types and heights. Hell, there were even some fat troopers. Not a big deal, but an attention to detail SNAFU none the less. But the biggie to me was the actor who played Vader sucked! His gait was wrong, his hip swivel was not a Vader trait, his body type was not Vaderesque. More attention shoulve been paid to who wore the Vader suit. This guy had skinny legs, hyper extended knees, narrow shoulders (maybe it was the shoulder armor), flat chest etc etc. His battle scene movements werent too bad though. Spenccer Wilding, although a big guy like Prowse, had a more slender swimmers build than Prowse. Prowse had a more square body type which gave the appearance of more girth throughout. Oddly enough, Hayden Christianson did a better job in the Vader suit that this guy.

Post
#1058462
Topic
The Force Awakens: 1.78:1 scenes in 2D?
Time

My dumbass is just now getting it! Duh! I wasnt thinking. Thank you for the correction, again. But, again, I am of the opinion still that it would be better if they released a scope disc for folks with anamorphic projectors. As is, like you said, a BD is 1920x816, similar to a 35mm Flat film print. A scope BD would be 1920x1080 and when unsqueezed, you’d have a better projected image than the BD we get now.

Post
#1056851
Topic
The Force Awakens: 1.78:1 scenes in 2D?
Time

Fang Zei said:

Slight correction: you’re mixing up the vertical resolution of 2k with the horizontal of hd. Scope is 2048x856 for 2k cinema and 1920:817 for hdtv.

For 35mm film, traditional 2x anamorphic cinemascope is something like 1880x1550 for 2k.

I thought 2k was 2048x1080. 16x9 HDTV is 1920x1080 and a scope film brings that down to 1920x860ish. If BD would come with an anamorphic scope disc (1920x1080), then you project with an anamorphic lense, youd have a 1920x1080 image which is better than the afor mentioned 1920x860ish image. Granted, to the average joe, theyre probably not gonna notice the difference. But for most folks here, the goal is to get as close as possible to the cinema experience in the home. The thing I dont understand is that 2k and 1080p are nearly the same, but considered different.