ChainsawAsh

Sending a 200MB file kills your bandwidth?  Damn, you need to upgrade your ISP.

xhonzi said:

Well, we're not in Chicago

I am.  Does that mean it applies only to me?

But my issue is still exactly the same as mono-to-fake-stereo conversions.

In 3D filming, you use two lenses to record two images, and the perspective is different in each image, thus creating the stereoscopic 3D effect.

In 2D-to-3D conversion, you have to create the second image, as only one was ever recorded.  Therefore, you're creating something that was never there to begin with, much like fake stereo, or 120/240Hz TVs.

So, if I go to see a movie that was shot in 3D, in 3D, then I'm seeing a left-eye and right-eye image that were both recorded on set as separate images.

But when I go to see a movie that was converted from 2D into 3D, only one of my eyes is seeing something that was actually recorded that way.  My other eye is seeing a computer-created version of the image that attempts to juggle everything in the frame around to give the illusion that it was recorded from a different perspective than it was.

You can't get real depth that way - you can't see a little bit more of the cheek behind Han's nose, or a little bit more of his ear, thus making his head look like it truly has depth.  No matter how good it is, it's still going to be unnatural.

Jedi has three dots ("...") at the end of its crawl, while all the others have four ("...."), including the prequels.

It looks like the Criterion is blue-shifted, while the others are red/yellow-shifted ...

Get ready to boycott, then.

Mielr said:

 

Don't show any SW virgin the Special Editions! What a horrid thing to do to someone. If you don't want to use the GOUT, then use dark_jedi's versions, and show them in the order they were released. If we were meant to see TPM first, then it would have been filmed first. IMO. :-)

 

This, this, 100 times this.

HotRod said:

That's the thing...the only 77 version I have is the dvd release...and let's be honest...the quality isn't that good.

So?  Why is that an issue?  It's not like it's unwatchable.

TheBoost said:

 A nice new VHS tape had a much better image than the current GOUT DVD.

Now that's just not true.

zombie84 said:

ChainsawAsh said:

zombie84 said:

ChainsawAsh said:

Bingowings said:

it had a nice editorial comparing the 3Dising of classic 2D films to Ted Turner scribbling pastel shades over monochrome classics

That's good.  That's pretty much exactly how I feel about it.

 That's not the same. Ted Turner bought the films and changed them against the wishes of their owners. This is totally different--the owners are changing them on their own will.

Yeah, but I don't really care.  It wasn't shot that way, so I refuse to see it that way.  Even if a director chooses to colorize his own movie, as in your example, I'll never watch the colorized version, and I'll continue to wish it didn't exist, despite what the director says.

The same thing applies to 3D.

 This seems to me to be a rather rigid mode of thinking.

For example, editing. Often the craftiness of editing is to make things that weren't shot one way seem like they were in fact shot a certain way. You can manipulate a performance, create a camera move, or disrupt a camera move, you can even move around scenes and create a whole new story line.

You misunderstand me.  By your logic, I shouldn't like any film, since they're all edited, and thus not presented the way they were shot.

I equate the conversion of 2D films into fake-3D to the cropping of widescreen movies, or the colorization of black-and-white films.

Look, I don't hate 3D.  3D is fine when it was shot with stereoscopic lenses, like Avatar, or Tron Legacy.

In fact, I just thought of a much better comparison: turning mono into fake stereo.  It never sounds right, and it destroys the original intent of the mix, regardless of whether the artist chose to make it that way or not.  I'm not talking about going back to the stems and making a new, true stereo mix - I'm talking about taking the mono mix, and running it through EQ and such to make it sound like it's in stereo.

Turning a 2D image into a 3D image is the same thing.  You're right about Toy Story and Toy Story 2 - Pixar was, in effect, able to go back to the "stems" and make a true "stereo mix," in that, since they had all the original files, they could just add a second camera to make a true 3D image.

You simply can't do this for something that was shot with a single lens.  It's trying to add something to the image that was never there to begin with.  Kind of like those 120/240Hz displays that add in fake frames to try to make things look "smoother," when really it just gives everything a very artificial, speed-up-then-slow-down effect.

And I will have no direct issue with modern films being converted from 2D to 3D in post, so long as the 2D version is released alongside the 3D version (like the next Harry Potter films).  I wish they wouldn't make the fake-3D versions, but that's their prerogative.  I have the option of not seeing them, and I take that option.

You will never get me to watch a 2D-to-3D conversion, just as you'll never get me to watch a colorized film or listen to a fake-stereo audio recording.

I wish people would stop quoting vbangle.  It's like he's not on my ignore list at all...

It doesn't look too over-saturated to me.  If anything, the one on the bottom looks washed out and faded.

TV's Frink said:

ChainsawAsh said:

Then, when you get to the prequels, show her Adywan's restored theatrical cut of TPM, then the DVDs of II and III.

I can certainly understand the advice of only showing the theatrical versions of the OT.  But I would never show the theatrical versions of the PT.

I'd show the theatrical cut of TPM over the DVD cut any day.

Regardless, your display still needs to be calibrated, or when you bring it over to a display that is calibrated, it won't look the way you meant for it to look.

It keeps linking to a "Sign In to Yahoo!" page.

Try imgur.com instead.

Ah, gotcha.  Well, it's really only worth doing if you're coming from an uncompressed source, or a source that has a higher bitrate than Dolby Digital or DTS would.

Yeah, the books don't say there is no God, just that the angel currently claiming to be God is lying.  He was the first angel created, so when all the other angels came into being just after him, he kicked back and said, "See what a good job I did, guys?"

I'm looking forward to True Grit for these reasons:

1. The Coen Brothers are doing it
2. Jeff Bridges is in it
3. The Coen Brothers are doing it
4. Matt Damon is in it
5. The Coen Brothers are doing it
6. Josh Brolin is in it
7. The Coen Brothers are doing it

EyeShotFirst said:

ChainsawAsh said:

zombie84 said:

ChainsawAsh said:

Bingowings said:

it had a nice editorial comparing the 3Dising of classic 2D films to Ted Turner scribbling pastel shades over monochrome classics

That's good.  That's pretty much exactly how I feel about it.

 That's not the same. Ted Turner bought the films and changed them against the wishes of their owners. This is totally different--the owners are changing them on their own will.

Yeah, but I don't really care.  It wasn't shot that way, so I refuse to see it that way.  Even if a director chooses to colorize his own movie, as in your example, I'll never watch the colorized version, and I'll continue to wish it didn't exist, despite what the director says.

The same thing applies to 3D.

I still wouldn't have a problem with it if that was the case. It is the fact that each time Lazy Lucas and his goons make changes, they call it the definitive version and completely ignore all other versions. So 3D Star Wars will replace the SE and 2004 release as the hated version.

The Fanboys will say it is awesome though.

Well, I don't necessarily have a problem with directors doing that, so long as the original version is still available.  I'll just pretend the colorized/3D-ized versions don't exist.  It helps to not make me go crazy and kill people.  ;-)

As with any film or book series ...

Watch them in the order they were made/released!

And, since she's never seen them before - DO NOT SHOW HER REVISITED, OR THE 1997/2004 SPECIAL EDITIONS!  Please show her the 1977, 1980, and 1983 theatrical cuts, like it's meant to be.  Use the GOUT for IV, Adywan's restored ESB theatrical for V, and the GOUT again for VI.

Or you could wait for Harmy's ROTJ theatrical restoration to be done for VI.  ANH, on the other hand, would have to wait until after Ady finishes ESB:R, as he's said he'll do an ANH theatrical restoration for that one once he's done with ESB.

Then, when you get to the prequels, show her Adywan's restored theatrical cut of TPM, then the DVDs of II and III.

And if you do show her Revisited, please make it the Purist version.

Aw, I'd love to see AoD in a theater.

Which reminds me, I haven't watched it in, like, a year.  Evil Dead Halloween marathon it is!

zombie84 said:

ChainsawAsh said:

Bingowings said:

it had a nice editorial comparing the 3Dising of classic 2D films to Ted Turner scribbling pastel shades over monochrome classics

That's good.  That's pretty much exactly how I feel about it.

 That's not the same. Ted Turner bought the films and changed them against the wishes of their owners. This is totally different--the owners are changing them on their own will.

Yeah, but I don't really care.  It wasn't shot that way, so I refuse to see it that way.  Even if a director chooses to colorize his own movie, as in your example, I'll never watch the colorized version, and I'll continue to wish it didn't exist, despite what the director says.

The same thing applies to 3D.

"Kids" by moe.

Yeah, I listen to hippie music.  What of it?

skyjedi2005 said:

I was looking forward to the Hobbit but looks like it will now never happen, or PJ will film it on a soundstage in europe which would be lame.

It looks like The Hobbit is moving forward, as a 2-film adaptation...

...and it'll be 3D.  Which makes me angry, as I was really hoping for it to be shot on film, like LOTR.

What are you using the PCM 5.1 for?  It'd be useless for anything but a Blu-Ray, if I'm not mistaken.  Or perhaps a DVD-Audio.

PolygonAlchemy said:

Hey again, guys. Have been kept busy with real life work stuff recently, as well as this little game called Minecraft which has been eating up a lot of my free time :)

I kinda put the comic cover set on hold for a bit until I have a chance to flip through some more comics and look for other covers to use, as well as art to use on the back.  I took ChainsawAsh's advice about tweaking the logos as well as using the proper "Attack of the Clones" one, (which I had completely forgotten about) I also moved the bar on the back to the side, which will make room for a "Special Features" box.

Jumping through earlier pages on this thread, though. I came across ChainsawAsh's covers based on the 90's VHS tapes.  Seeing them made me all nostalgic as those where the original set I owned growing up as well.  So naturaly, wanting to have as many projects ongoing at once, I had the idea to try and do a set of covers for the prequels in the style of those classic covers.

What do you guys think?  I haven't done the backs, yet,  which is what will really complete the look. These are just mockups basically.  The hard part was finding poster art that matched the style of the originals. These I went with still feel a bit too... photographic for me.  I donno.  I thought of trying to tweak the colors to make them match better. I notice the 3 original trilogy covers had a lot of blue on them. I tried to bring out the blue on these a little without over-filtering them.

Any suggestions, guys?  Thanks!

I toyed around with doing those, but I just used the Struzan art.  It never felt quite right to me, so I dropped it.

I agree that those feel too photographic, but I like the yellow logos for AOTC and ROTS (it helps that you based them on the official logos).  Not sure about the TPM one, but that's a hard one to make a logo for.  I think that's why Lucasfilm never bothered making an official one.

Give it a shot with the Struzan art and see how that works, if it does at all.

I'd also consider switching up the logo placement a bit, as they did on the OT covers.

Also, is it just me, or is the ROTS spine logo too high up?