ChainsawAsh

Ditto!

Mac user here:

- You can use DVD Player to open DVD media (VIDEO_TS folders definitely, and maybe ISO files) that's stored on a hard drive.  Just go to "File - Open DVD Media..." and navigate to the folder you're looking for.

- I recommend Roxio Toast for disc burning on a Mac.  It'll burn both single-layer (~4.5GB) and dual-layer (~8.5GB) discs.  This is what I used to burn the Revisited NTSC DVD-9.  It'll burn VIDEO_TS folders and ISO files.

- I highly recommend getting Verbatim dual-layer blank discs, not any other brand.  Memorex is particularly bad - only about 50% (at best) of Memorex dual-layers I try to burn are successful.  Verbatims are more like 95% successful.

Hope that helps!

I think he means the "He may have lied ... let's fucking lynch him!" attitude that seems to be building here.

This is sweet!  I was obsessed with TtTE (that initialism looks weird...) when I was a kid.  I'd love to have the proper episodes to show to my potential future kids down the line.

I'd like to also throw my hat in Gaffer's ring on this one.  Innocent until proven guilty, 100%.

Ah, I see.  I don't really have any experience with adjusting the red, green, and blue values individually, so I have no idea.  Sorry.

If it looks anything like this (the window labeled "Color Correction" on the bottom), I'd move the middle (midtones) directly away from the yellow (so basically, slightly down from where they have it in the screenshot, and probably nowhere near as far to the edge of the wheel).

If that doesn't work, try the same for the far left (shadows) and far right (highlights) wheel.  You may have to use a little bit of all three, or two of them to achieve the desired effect.

Also, if you can enable a vectorscope, that will show you where the color signal is in the video in relation to the exact same color wheel in the other image, and you can use that to tell you which direction you need to pull the signal.

For example, in the vectorscope image I linked to, the signal's pushed pretty far into the yellow/red portion of the wheel, so to make it more neutral I'd pull the wheel (midtones most likely) in the opposite direction (toward blue/cyan).  The more "centered" it is on the vectorscope, the more balanced the overall color is - though that's not always what you want, so be careful.

Hope that helps.  I don't have any experience in Vegas, this is all from Avid, but the theory should be the same.

I wouldn't be surprised if Lucas has seen it, but he hasn't gone on record one way or the other.

Unfortunately, Star Wars: Revisited would have to be redone from scratch for it to be Blu-Ray quality, which Adywan (understandably) doesn't want to do.  However, The Empire Strikes Back: Revisited will be in 720p high-def, which is about halfway in-between standard DVD quality and full Blu-Ray quality.

He's also hinted that Return of the Jedi: Revisited may be done at full 1080p (Blu-Ray) quality, and it seems likely that he'll use the new Blu-Ray set as a base for it and his prequel "Revisited"-s.

FanFiltration said:

...my medical cannabis use...

Nice...

Wait.  So, in order to get the new deleted scenes, you have to shell out for all 6 movies?

Motherfuckers.

I highly recommend ditching the black bars for the MKV.  Compression will be more efficient without them, as bitrate won't be wasted on empty space.

Just remember - vibrancy ≠ oversaturation.  You can have a vibrant image without everyone's skin looking like they've been lying on a beach for a week with no sunblock.

One of these days (possibly with DJ's V3, actually) I'm seriously considering loading each film into Avid or FCP's Color and color correcting them shot by shot, maybe even doing some scratch & dirt cleanup while I'm at it.  While the initial results of this thread are less than perfect, they will improve, I'm sure of it, and having a thread such as this - purely devoted to the color of the films - will be an invaluable resource for anyone doing color work on the OT.  Myself included!

I can give you the new (Blu-Ray) Assembly audio.  Not until next week, but I can get it to you.

As most have said, that saturation boost is way way way too much.  Makes it look like everyone has a permanent sunburn in the Star Wars universe.

And DJ, those V3 caps look awesome, by the way.

720x576 MKV at the proper speed?!  I'd be all over that!

Ha, right!  Original, but the SE ones aren't too offensive (minus the 2004 color issues).

Must...resist...urge...for...image-only post....

zombie84 said:

As much as reading that gave me a headache I am actually kind of curious where he got that understanding from. Is there some young earth creationism school of thought for home video now or something?

The vast - and I mean VAST - majority of consumers don't understand how something shot on film can look as good as - or better than - HD video.  If it wasn't made digitally, it's not as good, period.

I've encountered this many, many, many times, both with members of my family (*cough*my parents*cough*) and complete strangers in many different cities (at a Sony Style store in Vegas, a Best Buy in Chicago, the list goes on).  To the average consumer, film = old, blurry, grainy, inferior, and digital = crisp, clear, lifelike, and superior.

ray_afraid said:

doubleofive said:

 

I'm pretty sure all of the movies from that point on match the 1981 incorrect timing. Hooray for continuity, boo for it being the wrong one!

 

hmm.. I just can't see why that would be... Like I said, I understand that ANH was added later and was placed at the wrong timing, but why would the other two which always had the titles at the beginning have them at the wrong times?

This is because what we refer to as the "1981 crawl" was actually made before the Empire crawl (or at the same time), and the Empire crawl (and every one after that) was made to match it.  The A New Hope crawl just didn't get released until the post-Empire theatrical re-release in 1981.

Therefore, the only crawl that matches the intended music cue is the 1977 Star Wars crawl - all 6 other crawls start too late.

(This is entirely from memory and I have no references to cite so I could be wrong about it.  If I am, feel free to call me on it.)

Frink beat me to it, but yeah, hal = skyjedi 2.0, not the other way around.

Only, with hal, it's more like skyjedi plus a whole extra dump truck full of stubborn.  Oh, and hal's views are pretty much the polar opposite of sky's.

(Note that I think I may be getting haljordan and kenkraly mixed up in my mind, but I'm too lazy to figure out which is which right now.)

Harmy said:

...It's misspeled as "Wookie." I really hope that's not gonna be a deal-breaker for anyone...

Eeeehhhh......

Didn't that already happen?

kenkraly2007 said:

I agree with everyone here even though I sometimes don't

wat

If it were my edit (which it isn't, since I haven't released any), I wouldn't mind so long as I was properly credited.  If I wasn't, I'd report the video to YouTube for copyright infringement.  If I were, I'd leave it alone.

Many movies intended to be shown in 1.85:1 were shot "open-matte."

Basically, there are two ways to shoot in 1.85:1 with 35mm film:

1. "Closed-Matte" - You mask off the top and bottom in the camera, so there are essentially black bars on the film negative itself

2. "Open-Matte" - You mask off the top and bottom on the monitor, but not in the camera, meaning there are no black bars on the negative itself, but the top and bottom were never meant to be seen

The second method is far more common.  All three Back to the Future films were done this way, as were several Stanley Kubrick films.  When it comes time to release a fullscreen VHS, they don't have to go through an expensive pan-and-scan transfer, they just transfer the full frame of the film.

The problem with this is that the shots are composed for 1.85:1, not 1.33:1.  Because of this, oftentimes you'll have boom poles dipping into the shot which would not be seen in the widescreen version, or other mistakes (a good example is The Shining - in the fullscreen version, you can see the shadow of the filming helicopter in the opening sequence, whereas it is unseen in the widescreen version).

As such, even if a film was shot "open matte," 9 times out of 10 it was always intended to be viewed in widescreen, and the only reason it was shot 1.33:1 was because it was easier and possibly cheaper.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_matte