ChainsawAsh

I'm still of the opinion that Ady's added horns don't work well enough to merit that change.  Although, IIRC, that's when Ady was still working in HD - it may be substantially easier now that he's working in SD, though I'm all for removing the horns entirely in the second shot (or just leaving both as is, which I don't see a problem with, either).

It's something that I highly doubt anyone would ever notice.  All the sounds available are royalty- and coypright-free and are typically rather generic sounds.  The only problem would be if a faculty member sees these posts and somehow deduces who I am - once they're in your hands, even if they're used in one of your edits, no one would ever notice since, hell, you could've gotten them from many major Hollywood movies.

If anyone does need sound effects for their edits, it doesn't hurt to ask.  I know of several edits where a simple sound effect or two would have helped to smooth out a rough transition.

There are extensive amounts of gunshots.  For most, there are typically two versions - for example, the real sound of a .44 magnum, then the "Hollywood" sound (the two almost never sound alike).

I could also get jungle sounds, river and waterfall sounds, various types of car engines and footsteps, etc.

The biggest concern really isn't getting caught, it's that I won't have access to these forever.  So, the offer is still on the table.

I noticed that some people were discussing gunshot sound effects earlier.

I probably shouldn't do this or talk about this in an open forum, but I'm in a unique position here at school where I have access to the sound libraries of many of the major Hollywood studios (including Lucasfilm, though for some reason that only includes things like jungle sound effects).

So, until December 13th (when the semester ends and my access expires), if anyone has any requests for specific sound effects, I'll check out the library, see what I can find, and post them on Rapidshare.

Also, since I'm starting Editing 1 next semester, I *may* have access to the sound libraries next semester as well, but I am NOT SURE if that's the case.  If so, I'll let you guys know.

If anyone has requests for sound effects, please PM me - I'd like to keep this hush-hush so I don't get kicked out of film school and ruin my future career in the process.  But I'd love to help you guys out, too.

And remember, after December 13th, I won't be able to access this again, unless Editing 1 allows us to do so (in which case I'll be able to get effects again at the beginning of February).

IIRC, The Godfather films were soft-matted 1.85:1 as opposed to hard-matted, which means to preserve the theatrical formatting for the deleted scenes, all we'd have to do is mask off the top and bottom of the frame, correct?

I'd heard that after QoS, they're returning to the standalone format, but with an overall arc connecting all the films, incluing CR and QoS with the QUANTUM organization.  Kinda like SPECTRE in the old films, but more connected than that.

Sky, come on, man, give it a rest.  You're sounding like a broken record at this point.  All your posts are basically the same Lucas-bashing, I-Hate-CGI, I-Can-Tie-Every-Flaw-In-Modern-Cinema-Back-To-Lucas bullshit, and on top of that they're really fucking long.

To paraphrase something my mother always told me:

If you can't say anything new, don't say anything at all.

I'd love to see this, and I know I have a friend who would too.  He loved the US cut of the film, and though I was less enthused about it I saw potential there for a good film.

1. Blade Runner - my #1 favorite movie of all time
2. The Empire Strikes Back - Do I need to explain?
3. Raiders of the Lost Ark - The only good Indy movie, and it's a near-perfect film in its own right
4. Back to the Future - The REAL one, not the pointless and unnecessary sequels
5. Ghost Busters - Who doesn't love it?  Honestly?
6. E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial - One of Spielberg's most emotional films
7. Ferris Bueller's Day Off - Oh, if only skipping school was actually that much fun
8. The Princess Bride - How can I leave out the movie I quote more than any other?
9. Die Hard - Best action flick ever.
10. Beetle Juice - Michael Keaton makes this a classic.

I found out a way to "fix" Greedo's dialogue using a combination of old, unused dialogue and existing footage - it all boiled down to cutting Han's "Even I get boarded sometimes" line, and changing the subtitles.

Unfortunately, I've since forgotten, and lost the file I tested it with.  I'm sure it'll come back to me eventually.

And honestly, would we really need to re-record Hutteese, when it's not a real language, and isn't even consistent within the Star Wars universe?  Just change the subtitles.

To clarify what I said before:

I don't think digital will EVER be alble to replicate the depth, richness, and warmth that comes from shooting on 16mm, 35mm, or 70mm film.  They may try their damnedest, but it won't happen.

It's clear already that the resolution of digital has already outstripped the resolution of 35mm film, and soon, 70mm as well.  What I'm worried about is that people will see this monstrous 28K image, look at 35mm with it's 6-10K image, and think "Oh, okay, digital is better than film now."

There is SO MUCH more to it than resolution.

You can't light a digitally-shot movie the same way you'd light the exact same shot for film.
Lenses behave differently on digital than on film.
Depth of field works differently on digital than on film.
The capturing of color information works differently on digital than on film.
Contrast ratios and latitude work differently on digital than on film (yeah, I know that's going back to lighting).

My point is, if you shoot the exact same shot, say, on anamorphic 70mm (like Ben-Hur) and then on this 28K camera system, you'll NEVER get the two to look similar.

The thing is, I'm not saying that the look of one is better than the look of another.  I just highly prefer the look of film, and I can't understand, after 100 years of seeing movies shot ON FILM, that people are so ready to let that brilliant aesthetic die.

Right on the nose.  Hear, hear!

That doesn't look like Hoth, that looks like an all-out Imperial invasion of Tattooine to me.

Still don't get what the Royal Guards are doing there, though.

Well, all this debate may soon be a moot point:

RED (the digital camera company responsible for the world's first 4k and, later, 6k digital camera systems) has unveiled their newest product: the RED EPIC, which, by 2010, will be capable of ... this is NOT an exaggeration or joke ... 28k digital recording.  That's right - 28k.  As in twenty eight thousand.  28,000 x 9,334 pixels (that's right, a native 3:1 aspect ratio - other aspect ratios, such as anamorphic 2.39:1, accomplished using non-square pixels, I believe).

This completely blows the maximum resolution of film out of the water.  General consensus (and this is PUSHING it, believe me) puts 70mm and IMAX film at 10-15k maximum resolution.  This is about twice that.

If this becomes cost-effective, and editing setups can online this massive resolution of footage, then I, with extreme sadness, predict the death of film by the end of the next decade (that is, 2020).  It will happen the same way film editing switched to digital.  Once it becomes cost-effective and the quality debate is negligible, that's the end.

http://www.red.com/epic_scarlet/

Here's a size comparison of NTSC video, 720/1080 HD, 2k, 4k, RED 2540, RED 5k, RED 6k, UHDV (which, in tests, caused motion sickness in several audience members when projected at full resolution), and RED 9k.

This new 28k system will be MORE than THREE TIMES the size of the 9k frame, which is the largest one in this picture.  It is heavily debatable if 35mm film is even equivalent to 9k, much less 28k.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/89/UHDV2.svg

I'd hoped something like this would be years upon years away from us, but apparently, I was wrong.

Johnboy3434 said:

but I'm a person who's more interested in aesthetics than historical preservation. Two different mindsets, that's all.

The thing is, the amount of grain present in a shot is an AESTHETIC choice by the cinematographer.  They could have gone with a finer-grained film stock while using more light, but they didn't.

I understand your argument, but as a preservationist, I can't accept it - that's like saying that old effects should be updated to meet current technological standards because it's ugly in comparison to what we see now.  While there are those who would argue for that, the concept horrifies me.

If you're running OS X, get UnRarX.

Make sure ALL 47 files are in the same folder, and make sure NONE of them have been renamed.

Then open the first file in UnRarX, and wait.  UnRarX will show you as it's running which files it's extracting at which given time.  Don't touch anything until it's done (this could take a little while).  Then, the files should be extracted to a new folder in the same folder that the RAR files are in.

Prepare for a lot of technobabble here - note that ASA is the exact same thing as speed with 35mm still film (100-"speed" vs 400-"speed" etc. - the number is the ASA).

The "resolution" of 35mm film depends on the ASA of the film stock used.  A film with a low ASA like 64 or so would have a very high resolution - before it's been processed, probably around 15k (though we'd never see that).  After it's been processed, the original negative could have up to 10k resolution.  This is because there are many more film grains, that are much smaller (this also results in a very non-grainy image).  The only problem with this is that you can't use this type of film for everything - you need a LOT of light to expose it.

Now, higher ASA's, like, say, 200 or 300, require less light, and are the most commonly used.  These films have less film grains, but they're larger, so it makes the image appear grainier.  Pre-processing, these would have roughly 12k or so resolution; post-processing, the original negative would ballpark around 8 or 9k.  These films are more forgiving as far as light goes, but still can't shoot in very low-light situations.

Now, the much higher ASA's, like 500, 700, or higher, can work in extremely low light.  They have even less grains than 200 or 300 stock, but they're even larger, so the image appears very grainy.  Pre-processing, these would have around 10k at the absolute maximum (probably closer to 8/9k).  After processing, the negative would have around a 5 or 6k resolution.

Now, these are original negatives, that have not been transferred to positive.  A release print of these (using the traditional conforming process) would have about 3k-6k resolution.  Today, though, many high-budget films scan the film negative at 2k or 4k, then print THAT back to film, which means the maximum resolution of that film, ever, no matter if you scanned it back from the new negative made, would be 2k or 4k, depending on how it was printed.

For example, the maximum resolution of "The Dark Knight" is 4k for the 35mm scenes, and 8k for the IMAX scenes, because they were scanned at those resolutions, edited in Avid at those resolutions, then printed back to film at those resolutions.

Also note the following:  Entire films use a variety of different film stocks and ASAs, so one film will not have the same perceived resolution for every shot or scene.

Also note that these are estimates based on my experience and what I've been tought in film school so far (sophomore year now), and that film does NOT have a "resolution" per se.  The maximum "resolution" of film is determined by scanning it at higher and higher resolutions until there is, finally, no longer a difference.  It's generally accepted that the vast majority of people can't notice a difference between the same film scanned at 4k and 6k, so 4k is generally accepted as the "maximum" resolution of film.

But again, it is an analog format, thus has no real "resolution" - the only resolution there would be is the number of grains on a particular frame, since that's equivalent to a "pixel," but by the nature of the way film is exposed, some frames would have a vastly different number of grains than others, not to mention that actually counting the grains in a frame is pretty much impossible.

There - I hope that helped.

Oh, and about film grain - saying you're not a fan of film grain is like saying that you're not a fan of pixels in HD video.  The only difference is that pixels in HD cannot change at all, while film grain is a chemical process that does change, even on the same shot.

As a liberal-leaning independent, I'm curious to know what the supposed "difference" is between "real Liberals" and Democrats, because at the moment you're just confusing the hell out of me.  I also don't get why the fact that the director is a Democrat matters.

I was also one of the ones who argued for toning-down the PT fights, mainly because they look like superfluous eye candy without any of the real emotional weight that the OT fights had.  And I stand by that.  I also highly dislike the way Jedi in general are portrayed in the PT, lightsaber duels notwithstanding.

This is, however, a debate for another thread.

Apparently being nice to newcomers who don't know the ropes is a foreign concept to you.

Hey, hey, calm down, there - it's a perfectly reasonable mistake to make, and I don't think he was being a smartass about it either.  In fact, I think it was YOU who were being the smartass to begin with instead of politely explaining that selling here is against the rules.

Kurgan said:

BUT if you're going to add any, I suggest making them the oval style of reflections you'd see from an anamorphic camera lens (as the films were created in) rather than the trite "round" lens flare you see in every movie and video game...

Agreed, but here's something to keep in mind.

Any shot where the lens flare itself is to be created by what would have been an optical effect at the time the movie was shot should be a round lens flare, since that would have been shot using horizontally-run 35mm film with a spherical lens (like the original Star Wars) or 65mm film (like Close Encounters or Blade Runner), also with a spherical lens.  (I don't know how ESB and ROTJ's opticals/composites were done)

Any shot where the lens flare itself is to be created by something that would have been shot on-set should have an ovular lens flare, since that would have been shot using an anamorphic lens.

Although personally, I'm a fan of using ovular lens flares for every such flare in a "scope" film, regardless of whether it was shot using anamorphic lenses, super 35 spherical, or 70mm - the circular flares in the IMAX scenes of The Dark Knight bother me, for example.

The difference between Abrams "destroying" Star Trek and Lucas "destroying" Star Wars is this:

You can still put the original Star Trek episodes in your DVD player and watch them all you want, along with the movies (ST:TMP theatrical cut notwithstanding).  And you can easily just not see, or ignore this one.

With Star Wars, Lucas went back and actually *did* destroy the originals, and the only DVD copies of those we have are laserdisc quality at best.  And even if you don't mind the updated "originals," they contain enough references to the PT that you can't just as easily ignore those.

If you don't think it looks good, don't see it, but I don't see how screaming to the heavens "OH MY GOD ABRAMS IS RAPING STAR TREK SOMEBODY STOP HIM!" is going to help any.  There are ten of those movies to choose from, and countless episodes of several different TV series.  Pick one of those and watch it instead.

Me, I'm intrigued by this new film, and I will see it.  Admittedly, I've never been the biggest Trek fan (I've seen all the movies, but few of the TOS episodes and none of any of the other series), but I don't think this looks like the shit everyone else seems to want it to be.

Uncanny Antman said:

I was joking.

Ah.  Duly noted.

96?  Really?  I can hear the difference until it gets up to 256 or higher.

I'm good as long as it's over 256 kbps.