negative1 said:
most people have families, careers, and real life to worry about.
i don't have anything, or any of those to worry about..
i live in an empty vacuum. (with some air)..
I'm sorry to hear that :(
Asaki said:
NeverarGreat said:
...at least as long as Lucas stands in the way.
Even if George himself said it was okay, there are many others who own the copyrights to the movie(s). If he ever released his preservation, his career would be in serious jeopardy.
Not to sound dumb, but who else owns the copyrights? And why would his career be in jeapordy??
negative1 said:
...or are you saying that the detail in the 720p transfer from
the 35mm is better than you thought? because the 1080p
version is way better!
later
-1
Yeah that's it exactly. I know the blu rays have crazy detail but they also have all the horrible changes. I'm more or less thinking of the gout as the point of comparison and this is looking prettier to me. I can't wait to see the full 1080p, this is definitely going to be the new standard for people to strive to beat.
oops, double post :(
ww12345 said:
... "If the red reel looks this good, what does the LPP look like?"...
It's definitely got the detail and that film look, the colors are all that's wrong, besides a few of the film glitches. It's interesting that even after film is digitized it still has a film like look to it. Why is that I wonder?
jero32 said:
I"m definitely checking them out, I just didn't want to keep posting the same OMG THATS AWESOME over and over again.
My thoughts exactly. We're definitely checking them out. I don't know if vimeo offers view statistics? I bet they're pretty high.
I'm impressed by the detail, like how you can see Leia's stray hairs in the Leia acting like a princess clip!
red5-626 said:
This was hard to fined, but I got it.
Uploaded with ImageShack.us
DVD is looking pretty pitiful down there in the corner. What's VHS the equivalent to, like 240 pixels wide? Something like that?
Hah! That's great! Uh..yeah. Why wouldn't I???
TV's Frink said:
Pfft. Han and Chewie know better. They would either stick with Win 7 or stick with Android, depending on what that device is.
I dunno, the falcon always seems to be falling apart, held together with old parts. They might be using a souped up XP system.
I had a strange thought, one that may have been brought up before, I don't know, but here it is:
We know Lucas changed the Han shoots first scene in Star Wars, so why did he think it was ok for Han to shoot first when they see Vader in Cloud City? Vader does not do anything aggressive to them, Han instantly draws his pistol and shoots when the door opens. How is that morally different? Maybe I should shut up, it's not too late for Lucas to change Empire for the 3D release... :P
You wanna see pricey? Check out this Revenge version of the Jedi teaser trailer
http://www.ebay.com/itm/RARE-Star-Wars-Episode-IV-REVENGE-Jedi-Theatrical-Trailer-/261095253422?_trksid=m7&_trkparms=algo%3DLVI%26itu%3DUCI%26otn%3D3%26po%3DLVI%26ps%3D63%26clkid%3D1954524302331930763&_qi=RTM1084479#ht_500wt_1288
I watched one of these (looked like this one) on youtube, it's kind of neat because it has a glimpse of the deleted sand storm footage. It'll be interesting to see if anyone bites at this price. The one I mentioned in the first post has been relisted for $100 less.
This looks better than I had hoped! Awesome!!
Very well said, Chickenboo, and very true :)
As do I... (I'm the guy in the painting behind Mr Greene).
But seriously, you're doing us all a great service. Can't wait!
Yeah I thought that seemed pricey, I didn't know if that was a rare version or something.
snicker said:
I bought mine for $70 off eBay a few years ago and the guy had more than 10 of them. I wish I'd bought them all now.
I wonder where these things are coming from, how did he get more than 10? I suppose if I had a minimum wage paying job as a projectionist back in the OT era, a copy of the film might have been "lost" during my tenure too...
This looks neato, is this a good price?
http://www.ebay.com/itm/35-mm-STAR-WARS-Teaser-Trailer-1-from-1976-/200814805274?pt=US_Film&hash=item2ec17ec11a#ht_742wt_1271
There are a few trailers, mostly prequel stuff, for much cheaper than this on ebay right now (for example, here’s a phantom menace trailer for $10 - http://www.ebay.com/itm/STAR-WARS-PHANTOM-MENACE-35mm-Trailer-FLAT-Used-Excellent-Condition-/130762411024?pt=US_Film&hash=item1e720c0c10#ht_500wt_1288).
I bought a few 5 frame film strips for super cheap, we’ll see how they turn out when they come 😃
negative1 said:
again, unless we can come up with a good plan
or network, or star wars server as mentioned in
the very first post(!). it's going to be a tough
thing to implement.
later
-1
or maybe break it up into a whole BUNCH of large torrents. That's how we had to do things in the dial up days of the 90's, you had to split files into a ton of smaller ones. It would be a hassle though, for sure.
negative1 said:
well, hey, we just got to mars recently.
so it's not like we knew how it really look before!
i'm sure we could make some sets look just like it now!!
later
-1
The tatooine sets looked pretty good, it was mostly things like the grasslands of naboo (cartoonishly green) and the interiors of Grevious's ship that bothered me the most. And I think there's something to be said about having the actors able to interact with and react to an actual environment, but I don't mean to derail the thread. I just want to restate how much I appreciate the screenshots because it reveals how much craft went into these films.
negative1 said:
Brooks said:
That is interesting, I never would have noticed that. One of the things I love about the screenshots you guys post is seeing details in the film that I've never noticed. Not just strange artifacts like that but just how elaborate the sets were in scenes like that one. It's amazing they built all of that for such a short shot. I miss the days of real sets.
if the set looks real,
what difference does it make?
ever see this:
stargate studios virtual backlot
========================
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PIEC4WqGOw
who need's real sets? ha ha
later
-1
That is really neat. Why didn't the environments in the prequels look that good? Maybe it's because they weren't based on real world settings like the ones in that video were. I did notice that the other worldly setting in the youtube video was the worst looking one.
negative1 said:
look at the b ffet 23 sequence
and frames as found by harmy:
=========================
http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Star-Wars-Tantives-Orange-Items-Thread-other-unintended-objects/post/593364/#TopicPost593364
pretty neat..
later
-1
That is interesting, I never would have noticed that. One of the things I love about the screenshots you guys post is seeing details in the film that I've never noticed. Not just strange artifacts like that but just how elaborate the sets were in scenes like that one. It's amazing they built all of that for such a short shot. I miss the days of real sets.
years?... YEARS? oh lord... patience, I must learn patience.... :)
There's a lot of articles that mentioned this comment. Here's one for example
http://blog.moviefone.com/2007/02/10/george-lucas-empire-strikes-back-was-the-worst-star-wars-film/
I'm sure you can google more. On the other hand, I recently watched the blu ray special about empire and Lucas didn't say anything negative about it. He seemed mostly to think it didn't have enough action or was too slow
none said:
Late night typing again... if the movie is 6-8 TB (raw pics directly from the camera) and there are 6 reels, that's 1-1.33 TB per reel. (two e's)
1 reel = 20 min = 28800 frames... 208mb / frame... that doesn't sound right...?
According to this site: http://www.pgreen.co.uk/resolutionsize.htm
To store the basic scans for a 2K Digital Intermediate of a 90 minute feature:
- 1 second = 24 frames
- 1 min: 24 frames x 60 = 1440 frames per minute
- 90 min's: 1440 x 90 = 129 600 frames per feature film
- 12Mb x 129 600 = 1 555 200 Mb or over 1.5 Tb
Storage - 4K
- 48Mb x 129 600 = 6 220 800 Mb or over 6.2 Tb
So revise the numbers from 90 min to 120 or so and maybe there's some minor compression savings and thus -1, 6-8 TB values make sense.
I'm confused. They're using an 8mp camera right? My 8mp rebel takes RAW shots that are around 7-10 mb per shot, nowhere near 208. ???
Also from that article:
"... if we were going to take this movie and cut it up into 2,000 separate pieces, we had an opportunity to upgrade what those 2,000 separate pieces are. It seemed like we had a perfect opportunity to go back and create a cleaner, sharper and purer version of the movie."
It's kind of discouraging to think they had the opportunity to rework the film and they didn't fix any of the big problems. I guess Lucas really liked the way it turned out, despite all the criticism??
Was the 3D theatrical truer to the original or the blu ray (besides the 3d of course)?
Gorgeous shots, thanks for sharing!
[/IMG]