Chewtobacca

CaptainCaveman

Jedi Temple34 has added me to his ignore list.  What I have done to annoy him, I have no idea.  I actually thought I was quite nice to him.

Bingowings said: I must confess I haven't seen the film but the title reminds me of a very nasty experience with a Vegetable Phall (talk about Ring Of Fire).

I have always said vegetable phalls give you a good run for your money.

The World's Fastest Indian

I saw it last night, and absolutely loved it.  Hopkins was brilliant.  The whole thing was beautifully filmed, and it was story all the way through; no CGI, no excessive special effects, just a thoughtful film about what is essentially a true story.  Give it a go!

Thanks, Harmy.  I tried that, but the result was unsatisfactory.  It is not a big problem really.  It is mostly noticeable in the space scenes. 

There is an argument that the hazy brown look on earlier releases had crept into the film with age; and while I think this is probably true, in my opinion the color correction for the BD overcompensates a little at times leaving the film too blue in certain scenes.  It is ultimately a matter of preference: there is nothing really wrong with the BD.

I like it.  It reminds me of an LP for some reason.

Hoth-Nudist said:

Thx for the welcome everyone!

I see what you did there...

Johnny Ringo said:

I only have star trek 6 [of the first 10] but I can tell you the amount DVNR is insane - everyone's faces appear rubbery.

Pretty lousy treatment of a great movie. I'm almost afraid to buy the others now.

Johnny Ringo, VI is by far the worst of the original Star Trek movie Blu-rays in terms of DVNR.  I and II are really good.  (I know I said that  II had a blue tint, but it is light really and you do not really notice while watching.  I am just fussy really.  I watched it yesterday and it looked really good.)  III has some DNR, but it looks good overall, and I think it is worth buying.  You might want to skip IV and V, although they do look better than the DVDs.

Thank you for the link.  It looks really interesting.  I shall have a read. :-)

I have a picture of the second Queen Elizabeth.

I have never been able to find Moth3r's PAL LD transfer.  It would be interesting to see it.  I no longer have a LD player.

Reforged?

I am sure you know, but Tolkien thought of the work as one book.  The publishers decided to split it into three, so I think you could lose The Two Towers.  Three headings comes across as a bit of a mouthful to me.  What do you want for the something?  A label like Revisited or Remixed or another full subheading?

Titles from volumes of The History of Middle Earth that you might use are:

* The Treason of Isengard

* The War of the Ring

The title from another volume The Return of the Shadow would make a great title for a Fellowship of the Ring edit, but I know you like the FOTR as it is.  I do too, though I only like the theatrical cut of FOTR.

I shall try to think of more titles.

No worries, mate!:-)  About the transfer, perhaps I am using the term too loosely.  This is what I mean (from Charles de Lauzirika).

The big difference between the Final Cut and the other archival versions is that the Final Cut went through a state-of-the-art 4K digital intermediate process directly scanned from the negative (for the most part) whereas the other cuts on Disc 3 received new hi-def transfers from a traditional telecine process using the best IPs in the Warner archive.

I need to learn about the process by which studios make transfers and masters really.  I think I understand the basics, but I need to lean more. 

Harmy said:  That is the question, isn't it? Take for instance the 2004 SE of ESB. Would it still be the actuall 2004 SE if it wasn't blue all over?

I think so, but that is just my opinion.  We shall have to agree to differ, if you think it would not be. :-)

Ah, Lazenby!  I quite liked him actually.  There is always Barry Nelson as CI agent Jimmy Bond.  Any fans?:D

Connery was the best Bond, though I like Dalton and Craig very much too.  Happy birthday, Connery anyway!

Which other bloke?

Version 2 of ESB and ROTJ were pretty good.  I watched them recently and they were actually better than I remembered.  I recommend you obtain G-Force's ANH, Adywan's theatrical restoration/recreation of ESB, and dark_jedi's ROTJ if you want the best that is currently available in terms of theatrical versions.

Harmy, I am not suggesting that each archival version should have different colors.  I am suggesting that Bladerunner had an original color timing.  I do not think the 1997 DC DVD was trying to establish a different look for that particular version: I think it just transferred the film, with the DC changes, but ended up with too red a color palette.  In short, I think there is an original color timing, reproduced with varying degress of success on the various releases, and a new color timing for the FC, nothing in between.

There were also fixes in the FC that were not on the archival releases, so it is not the same transfer.

msycamore said:

It's a fantastic set but it's sad they didn't get the archival versions exactly right in how they're supposed to look, here is some of the worst examples.

I see what you mean in those shots, but I thought the 2006 limited edition Director's Cut DVD was different from the archival versions on the 2007 set, because the archival versions were cleaned up as much as possible for the 2007 set.  I have read the quotation from Charles de Lauzirika before, which is why I was under the impression that the archival versions were pretty much accurate. I absolutely agree that 1997 DVD is too red and that the Final Cut is at times closer to the original than the archival versions.

Yes, welcome!  As Frink said, that is a super username. (We should have thought of that in the lurker username thread.)

It sounds like you will fit right in. :-D

Lowry and restoration in the same sentence is kind of funny, considering they either apply too much dvnr, or fuck colors up on almost all their DVD's.  I wonder why the Indiana Jones set turned out ok.

The fact they are being involved when they are the ones who botched the star trek blu rays, means i guess i will stick with the DVD's.

If you are referring to the original films, rather than the series, Paramount only paid for Star Trek II to have a full restoration.  The color timing of II is too blue, but apart from that the print looks better than it has in ages.  It is Paramount's fault that the others were not fully restored. 

I have seen some excellent Lowry restorations, such as the early Bond films and North by Northwest.  I agree that their restorations often have a shift towards blue, but I have never seen it very heavy since Empire Strikes Back, and most of their work is excellent, in my opinion.

As to Blade Runner, mysycamore, are you comparing the archival versions to the 1997 DVD?  On reflection, I can see that their colors are different from that release, so I suppose I was wrong about them having the original color timings, but I cannot see where they are worse than the Final Cut.  The 2006 DVD release colors look different from the original release too. 

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDReviews24/bladerunner.htm

I like the look of the 2006 DVD actually.

As for Aliens, this is an interesting link.

http://www.highdefdigest.com/blog/aliens-dnr-paranoia/

deleted

xhonzi said:

Chewtobacca:

right click on it and select view image.

Does this not work for anyone else?  I use IE8 (I know, I know) and it is not on my right-click menu.  I am forced to go to properties, look at the url, and copy that into a new browser tab.

I should have mentioned that I use Firefox.  I have not used IE in so long that I cannot remember what the options were like on it.