CatBus

chyron8472 said:

CatBus said:

Accurate terminology is important–for example, calling everyone under the LGBTQIA umbrella “gay” would be pretty dismissive/marginalizing to those who aren’t gay.

I disagree. Language is fluid and words mean what society wants them to mean. If a society wants to change a word’s meaning, then it changes. There can be an “umbrella” word to encompass the whole umbrella without having to explicitly enumerate each individual sect within it. Other minority groups in society don’t have to do this. I mean, what if the Native American tribes wanted to be known under the umbrella of combining the first letter of every tribe? The term “Native American” does not inherently marginalize the Cherokee or the Osage tribes.

Society at large wants “Eskimo” to mean all extreme-northern-latitude Native Americans. If we’re running with that metaphor, I’d say calling intersex people gay would be more like calling Inuits Eskimos. See how that works out for you.

I’m just saying–I get it that the acronym is unusual and a mouthful and ever-changing and even overused–but it works for the people described by the acronym, and that’s enough for me to accept it. Minority groups aren’t well-served when everyone votes on what a word means, because guess who always wins that vote? And I’m perfectly okay with the idea that I don’t get a vote on this matter.

EDIT: “Queer” was–and still is to some degree–an attempt to create a single overarching umbrella term for everyone. But it’s reclaimed, which is a problem (some people hate it because it will always be an insult to them), and even at the loosest definition, people tend to ascribe gender connotations to the word which still don’t really work for everyone. So the Q fails in its job to cap off the end of the acronym and it continues to grow.

chyron8472 said:

CatBus said:

Queer is the Q in LGBTQ. There’s also the chant “We’re here. We’re queer. Get used to it.” The word is used within the LGBTQ community as a catch-all umbrella term for any gender nonconformity–including LGBT, but also things that don’t quite fit neatly into those categories. Like all reclaimed pejorative terms, the meaning changes significantly depending on the context, and can present outsiders with some anxiety about when it’s okay to use it. For example, it also still gets yelled at LGBTQ-perceived people in a threatening manner (the pejorative usage). So if you’re not sure you’re using the word correctly, it’s probably best to steer clear. But the headline seems fine to me.

I really hate this LGBTQIA-EIEIO business. I wish they would just use the word “gay” and have done with it. Sheesh.

Accurate terminology is important–for example, calling everyone under the LGBTQIA umbrella “gay” would be pretty dismissive/marginalizing to those who aren’t gay. But it’s also pretty well acknowledged that things that start out in a relatively small group of people with specialized knowledge rarely make it out the door making very much sense to the general population–copping to not really getting the terminology is pretty much a rite of passage for straight people. And there are times when the whole mouthful doesn’t apply, so it’s completely appropriate to just say “gay”.

It’s also (at least to me) interesting from a historical perspective: read from left to right, the acronym is basically a timeline of the larger society realizing that people like this existed. First came L & G, then B, then T, then Q, then really just a few years back I broke popular consciousness (“Middlesex” hit Oprah’s book club, etc), and now we’re on to A.

Chances are you’ve got some random subset of Project Threepio then, because it’s always included a README from version 1.0. How did you get it? I’d recommend downloading the full project (lots of info in first post, no direct link). I wouldn’t be surprised if you just got a bunch of SRT files (included with the movie?), and that would definitely cause needless confusion and problems. The very least of which is, without a README and version number, I have no idea if you’re using antique subtitle files with tons of problems or the latest ones.

That said, the same naming convention rules apply, so you probably want either ESB-eng-native or ESB-eng-sdh-native, depending on whether you want SDH or not. SUP format is preferred over SRT, although for English it should not make a huge difference.

EDIT: I just PM’d you. Yes, I know the project is large. That’s probably why you ended up with a small subset of it 😉

Could it be that we’ve finally reached Peak Conspiracy? One can only hope.

There’s a pretty detailed README file included with the project files. That part would be covered in the “Project Threepio’s file naming convention” section.

SW-eng-native.sup: A set of subtitles that cover what most people would want.
SW-eng-sdh-native.sup: A set of subtitles that include SDH (deaf & hard of hearing) audio cues.
SW-eng-alien-35mm.sup: Greedo’s subtitles, for use with preservations that don’t have burnt-in Greedo subs.
SW-eng-match-35mm.sup: A set of subtitles for the rest of the film, designed to look like Greedo’s subs (similar font & style).

SW means Star Wars, ESB means Empire, ROTJ means Jedi. I’d recommend against using SRT files unless you have no other option.

So, in short, -eng-native is probably what you’re looking for, unless you want SDH cues.

Darth Lucas said:

I gotta say I’m a fan of the VertaBot

Ditto. And since the real Mike’s gone radio silent, I say we hook VertaBot up to a chatbot and then we can have an active Legacy thread again.

DrDre said:

I’m working on the VertaBot now, and it’s looking awesome. More coming soon…

Please please please please please.

Lawrence of Arabia: Episode IX: The Motorcycle Menace: Special Edition

When Sherif Ali first appears, visiting his well, he is chased off by the sound of some guy yelling in a parking lot. After he leaves, Lawrence and his guide emerge, unhurt, from behind a rock.

Prince Faisal has no eyebrows. This alteration makes no sense unless you’ve also seen the revised Doctor Zhivago, which explains how Prince Faisal lost his eyebrows to frostbite.

After Lawrence rescues Gasim from the Nefud Desert, Gasim tries to shoot Lawrence at point blank range, but rather improbably still manages to miss. Lawrence returns fire, killing Gasim in self-defense.

The Arab alliance passes several wacky dinosaurs as they storm Aqaba, adding some much-needed physical comedy to an otherwise tense scene.

Sherif Ali steps on the Turkish Bey’s foot, adding some much-needed physical comedy to an otherwise tense scene.

After his imprisonment at the hands of the Turkish Bey, Lawrence blinks a lot more, causing his compatriots to feel uneasy around him.

When attacking the retreating Turkish soldiers, Lawrence does not issue a battle cry. In a later revision of the film, the original “No Prisoners!” battle cry is restored.

All of the signs in Damascus have been changed to Aurebesh.

Lawrence is discouraged because politics in Arab-controlled Damascus has devolved into a rather awful musical number.

Near the end of the film, General Allenby, played by Jack Hawkins, has been digitally replaced by a much younger-looking random different General played by Hayden Christensen.

As Lawrence is driven away in a staff car, you hear the random General screaming “No! Noooo!” although he’s not actually in the scene. The last two alterations make no sense even if you’ve seen the revised A Passage to India, also featuring Hayden Christensen, where this random General character is revealed to be General Allenby at a younger and more obnoxious age.

Tobar said:

Alderaan said:

It might not be until the copyright expires and the films enter the public domain

About that…

Whether it’s 100 years from now, or 20,000 years from now, copyright expiration marks the point at which we’ll have a new, high-quality respectful commercial OOT release. Implanted directly into our brains by our machine overlords, sure, but still.

SilverWook said:

That’s a bit harsh. One can be unaware of what version they’re watching without being a moron.

Agreed. At some point, Star Wars is new to people–and new people are born every day. Today, the Special Edition Trilogy has been the only commercially available version to watch longer than the Star Wars Trilogy ever was. You can’t blame people for watching the crappy version and thinking it’s the real thing. Yeah, it’s technically ignorance, but it’s not like informed choice was ever part of the equation. Same for colorized films, etc. If it’s the only version on Netflix, it’s effectively the only version.

Queer is the Q in LGBTQ. There’s also the chant “We’re here. We’re queer. Get used to it.” The word is used within the LGBTQ community as a catch-all umbrella term for any gender nonconformity–including LGBT, but also things that don’t quite fit neatly into those categories. Like all reclaimed pejorative terms, the meaning changes significantly depending on the context, and can present outsiders with some anxiety about when it’s okay to use it. For example, it also still gets yelled at LGBTQ-perceived people in a threatening manner (the pejorative usage). So if you’re not sure you’re using the word correctly, it’s probably best to steer clear. But the headline seems fine to me.

yotsuya said:

As I said, I have not done a complete examination of the UK PAL versions of TESB and ROTJ, but the ANH UK PAL GOUT is not missing a single frame at the reel changes that is included in any other version nor is it missing any other frames. It matches the DE LD frame for frame and the DVD and Blu-ray at all the reel changes and in all the non SE sections. The US GOUT is not far off, but it is missing that one frame.

PAL GOUT (including UK) is missing a frame compared to NTSC GOUT in ROTJ (Ewoks jump a log reel change), but there’s the whole thread linked above talking about frames missing from both, which I can’t verify, but seems pretty exhaustive.

Again, missing is a misnomer IMO. A frame can’t be missing if it was never seen in any theatre in the first place. But some home releases contain more extra/bonus frames than others 😉

TV’s Frink said:

Ha, this just keeps getting better.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/deputy-attorney-general-privately-acknowledges-recuse-russia-probe/story?id=48080253

That’s not better at all. Brand is much more politically connected than Rosenstein (in particular, with Ted Cruz). Even if she doesn’t kill the investigation outright, which is the most probable outcome, the next most likely scenario is she may politicize it to the advantage of the Cruz camp. Rosenstein really needs to sit tight–no recusal. You really should never make any decision based on the contents of a Trump tweet.

It’s not an anomaly, it’s a reel change. Frames always get cut at reel changes. Even PAL GOUT is missing frames. I don’t think there’s a single home video release that contains “all the frames ever included in any home video release”. It just happens. But most home video releases contain all the frames seen theatrically, and then some.

LexX said:

Does anyone know if the GOUT is really complete or if there are frames it doesn’t have?

http://originaltrilogy.com/topic/Whats-missing-from-GOUT/id/6725

Also, for our purposes, we’re talking NTSC GOUT. PAL GOUT has some frames that NTSC GOUT doesn’t.

But “complete” is a bit in the eye of the beholder. GOUT already has more frames than anyone ever saw theatrically, so if you’re talking about theatrical fidelity, GOUT is already beyond complete. But as far as every frame that ever made it into any home video release ever, no, it’s not.

Sooo let me get this straight. Wait, let me step back. This seems awesome. Okay, that’s done. But I’m not sure what this is exactly.

What exactly do you feed the bot at the beginning? The corrected frames plus equivalent original frames, right? Any guidelines, like make sure the primaries are well-represented? Number of frames? Mix interior/exterior lighting?

Then step 2 machine learning happens, which I’m perfectly happy to leave at: ???

Then for step 3, here’s where this crap always falls apart for me. It seems to produce, what’s the word… damn good results. Are there exceptions? Does it fall down on filtered shots? Grain, dirt, damage, misalignment? And if it doesn’t, umm, I dunno, I was just wondering when we could take a turn with this shiny new toy of yours?

NeverarGreat said:

Are they really this desperate for attention?

Bingo. Assign the action a number in terms of payoff divided by effort. For an assassination attempt, that number is scraping near zero. For creating a media circus, the number is huge. Such reasoning can always be thrown by the “complete idiot” factor, though. Which, to be honest, I think I’ve been failing to adequately account for lately.

GOUT is just a reference for which video frames to include. Lots of video/film releases are missing frames here and there, particularly at reel changes. In fact, the GOUT frames probably include more frames than anyone ever actually saw in theatres, but it is consistent (well, assuming you stick with NTSC or PAL…), and no other release is consistent with another, so “just pick a standard and stick with it” applies here.

So everyone syncs up their audio (and subtitles, natch) to the GOUT, and then as long as whoever releases the video makes it GOUT-synced, it all just works–video from one guy, audio from another, subtitles from a third. Makes the sort of informal cross-project collaboration we do around here easy. The problem is, if your video is missing GOUT frames, how do you fix that? Some will add black frames, some will add color-matched frames from a comparable alternate source. Some will just say to hell with it and not be GOUT synced. If your video has frames the GOUT doesn’t, that’s easy–just chop them out.

I have never been able to notice a one-frame sync difference (42 ms off). Probably because there are already ADR and SFX sync problems in the movies themselves, and a one-frame difference is less than that. A two-frame sync difference (83 ms off), however, is right on the edge of perception for me. It requires just the right sort of thing to be happening, but then I notice it. For other things, I don’t. Three frames is right out.

I wouldn’t sweat the 1 frame sync issue in ESB (but it’s also dead simple to fix, so why not?). ROTJ used to have a 2 frame sync problem that was bad enough I made my own audio files for it. IIRC, I never noticed it at all on SFX or the score, or even most dialogue–but every time Han spoke, it was obvious. I think it’s because Harrison Ford moves his mouth a lot (unlike Carrie Fisher), and he talks quickly (unlike Ian McDiarmid). It takes both factors for me to notice a two-frame offset. ESB also used to have a two-frame sync problem for a much smaller section of film, but Han didn’t speak during that part, so I never noticed.

Handman said:

"Every member of the Judiciary Committee who voted for President Nixon last week has now reversed his position. As a group they feel particularly badly let down and have taken the lead in calling for the President’s resignation.

I did not know that, point conceded. I knew they eventually reversed their positions, but I didn’t know they’d done it before he resigned.

Handman said:

CatBus said:

NeverarGreat said:

Yeah, but it took a Democratic majority.

And I know I’ve already mentioned this a couple of times, but when it came down to impeachment time for Nixon, a majority of the Republican members of the committee voted against all charges for impeachment. After there was already a recording available of Nixon committing the crime he was being charged with. Meaning, if Republicans had a majority, and the chairship, Nixon’s impeachment would likely have never even come up for a vote, and Nixon would have served out his full second term.

“What did the president know and when did he know it?” was uttered by a Republican senator, partisanship was not what it is now. And it was the public/media who rose to the occassion to hold their government officials accountable, not the opposing political party. Barry Goldwater himself urged the president to resign, which essentially cemented the decision in his mind. We all know Trump wouldn’t make that call.

I agree things are more polarized now, but the votes from the time reveal most Republicans lined up behind Nixon even after the facts were out and incontrovertible. So that really just means that Republicans would not have considered impeachment if they ran the show back then, and they’re even less likely to vote to impeach today. I disagree about the cause for resignation though. Nixon resigned after many things happened–enough Republicans broke with their party to give the Democrats a comfortable margin on impeachment (my point was not that none broke with Nixon, but that most didn’t), the Supreme Court ordered the release of damning evidence, but Goldwater? He was a Nixon competitor–a leader of the nascent conservative movement getting a chance to get a dig at America’s last arguably liberal President. Of course he called on Nixon to resign.

But I also agree Trump wouldn’t make that call under any imaginable circumstances either.

NeverarGreat said:

Yeah, but it took a Democratic majority.

And I know I’ve already mentioned this a couple of times, but when it came down to impeachment time for Nixon, a majority of the Republican members of the committee voted against all charges for impeachment. After there was already a recording available of Nixon committing the crime he was being charged with. Meaning, if Republicans had a majority, and the chairship, Nixon’s impeachment would likely have never even come up for a vote, and Nixon would have served out his full second term.

That’s not to say we’re completely out of other avenues. There’s the theory that Rosenstein could simply ignore any attempts to fire him, claiming that if he’s being fired for not shutting down an investigation by the very people under investigation, then that firing is improper and void. But that’s uncharted legal territory. And the courts could step in, and it could be a lovely mess. But frankly it’s not very good odds. State attorneys general can bring suits, New York seems likely already. You’ve got money laundering, racketeering, RICO, all the good stuff at their disposal. But since we’re on the topic of legally uncharted territory, the president may actually have the power to pardon himself (it’s never been tried), only matters of impeachment are explicitly barred–and state AG’s can’t impeach the president.

I’m saying that Trump’s allies control the House and the Senate, and they have already bent over backward to avoid investigating this matter, so it’s abundantly clear what they’d do if he fired Mueller (same thing as when he fired Comey–either nothing at all, talk about how Mueller was a liberal partisan hack, or the McCain Special*). The courts have no legal authority to investigate, prosecute, or remove a President, so it doesn’t matter where they stand.

* Talk about what a sad, bad, terrible thing this is. Outrageous, unwarranted, and unprecedented. And then do nothing.

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

So WaPo is reporting that Trump is under investigation by Mueller for possible obstruction of justice, and there’s also a report that Trump floated the idea of firing Mueller publicly in order to influence Mueller to go easy on the investigation.

Amazing.

I hope he does fire Mueller it will add ammunition to the case.

More to the case, yes… but with nobody left to prosecute it.

I think a lot of people underestimate how lucky we are to have a Special Prosecutor in the first place. If the stars hadn’t aligned just right, the only things checking the power of this menace would have been the House, the Senate, and the courts. And while the courts are doing an admirable job going it alone on the whole checks and balances business, there are some things they simply lack the legal authority to do.

There’s this school of thought that if Trump indirectly fires Mueller by cycling through justice department heads just like Nixon did (he can’t fire him directly), that this will lead to widespread outrage, and that this outrage will lead to Trump’s goose finally being cooked. But what’s missing from this theory is the legal mechanism and authority that would cause Trump’s downfall. Courts can’t do it. House and Senate won’t do it. 25th amendment? Pfft, Trump’s own hand-picked cabinet of sycophants won’t do it. Voters? Show me how any amount of voter outrage can work against this map to do anything but give Trump an even friendlier Senate than he already has, and don’t even talk about House maps. Where’s the realistic path? Are we counting on military coups now? [Different, friendly] foreign interventions? Alien abductions?

Mueller is all we have. Please don’t wish for him to be fired just so you can feel the rush of righteous indignation, because it would only be followed by the utter incredulity of watching nobody doing anything about it.

ROTJ is now synced. ESB currently has an extra frame at the very beginning, so audio should be slightly delayed.