Sign In

Dek Rollins

User Group
Members
Join date
6-Apr-2015
Last activity
22-Sep-2019
Posts
3,018

Post History

Post
#1297805
Topic
The Phantom Menace - Theatrical version scanned in 4K
Time

MonkeyLizard10 said:

I think that whole Red Letter Media nonsense about TPM is what really got it going. Before then you could go to SW forums and reasonably talk about TPM or the prequels, after… forget it. And all you see is people parroting RLM review quips and quotes, or if you say you like a prequel, they respond by saying, nope, you are wrong and then give a link to one of the RLM videos. (But those RLM videos, I mean there is plenty of stuff objectively incorrect in them, a bit ironic since he is laughing at what a stupid fool Lucas is. Although some of the farther post TPM RLM videos, I almost feel like maybe he is actually not even being so serious about anything he says but just mocking the RLM review lovers.)

(and yes, sure some hated TPM (and even many who loved it did still complain about some of the baby dialogue and scuh given to Gungan officials and he did get a bit more commercial in a few things, I wasn’t so crazy about some of that stuff myself, but in the end, the baby dialogue stuff is jsut a few minutes out of more than 120) and even AOTC and even even ROTS before any of that, but the numbers just seemed to explode after that video, again SW message boards went from somewhat reasonable to almsot total hate fests, couldn’t dare mention anything other than 4-6 after that video)

I’d like to hear what’s objectively incorrect in the Plinkett videos, as I don’t really remember anything that seems to be factually incorrect in them. Anyway, regarding the affect those videos had on popular view of the films. The big thing that I see people say about them is that a lot of things people didn’t like about the movies was hard to fully explain, and that the reviews did a great job of putting those complaints into words.

If you don’t know, the original Plinkett review (Star Trek Generations) was something he did to put out his feelings on why he hated the movie so much in words, and he had some fun by doing an impression of his friends Plinkett character. He then did the same thing with the other Star Trek TNG films, and eventually started doing the Star Wars prequels for the same reason. Obviously his TPM review became a popular hit and the rest is history. I don’t understand the vitriol PT fans have for those videos, because he wasn’t trying to pull one over on the whole world. He explained in great detail the objective flaws in the films, both visible on screen and in the creation of them. Was he perfect? No. Did he make mistakes? Yes. Some of his arguments in various reviews of his are skewed by either misinterpretation or some other form of human error. That doesn’t devalue the abundance of reasonable and perfectly sound arguments he makes for his assertion that they aren’t well made movies.

A lot of the stuff people bash about the prequels for being dumb, actually has decent reasoning behind it.

This is true for a lot of things, but plenty have poor reasoning too.

Even the way Anakin and Padme were awkward in AOTC make sense, I mean he wasn’t some swashbuckling Han or worldly Lando, he was a monk! isolated at an early age and she became a leader at like 14 and then was off to the Senate. So hardly surprising they talk to each other in less smooth ways than Han or Lando. Also some of the wya they acted and talked was also modeled off very early US cinema romance. DOn’t forget the characters were in another galaxy, in anotehr time, not today.

Here is the problem with this. We as the audience are supposed to feel that these too people are in love, at some point in the story, but they never fall in love on screen. They roll around in a field and have dinner and boom, love, apparently.

I don’t want to turn this thread into a debate-fest on whether or not people should be allowed to hate the PT, though maybe that’s already accomplished. 😛

Post
#1297659
Topic
The Phantom Menace - Theatrical version scanned in 4K
Time

MonkeyLizard10 said:

Slavicuss said:

MonkeyLizard10 said:

cool project

I saw this in 35mm as well as on two different digital projectors back in '99, including what might have been the first commercial digital projection of any film in the world.

Contrary to all the net rage, theaters were packed and people generally seemed pretty happy and were NOT all laughing, raging, etc. decent bit of clapping at the end at many showings.

And for AOTC, people were racing out of the earlier showings, smiling, giving thumbs up to people still on line, saying it was awesome, audiences erupted into cheers at the end. Again, contrary to all the hate you hear coming form the net crowd.

Probably still high from the movie they just saw. After a few days of reflection (and repeat viewings) the cracks start to appear, not long after, they’re ripping the film’s a new a-hole (deservedly so).

nah, more just like the sort of sneering hipster crowd took over forums and spread hate and then it became cool to hate everything

A brother of mine, who was around 10 at the time, thought AOTC sucked when it came out. Of course, over the course of the decade the films grew a more negative reputation, but those reputations started at the beginning. There were a lot of people who loved the prequels when they came out, but anyone pretending that there wasn’t any hate until it was “cool” is fooling themselves.

There are many people, even those who have been members of this board over the past fifteen years, who consider the prequels to be some sort of contraband that’s not allowed in their homes. Nobody can convince me that these people were peer-pressured into hating these movies so much.

There are also people like me. I enjoyed TPM and AOTC a lot when I was younger, hated ROTS, and then I came to a realization over time that even the first two aren’t very well made films, and many of their problems ruin some of the mystique of the OT. I still enjoy some aspects of the first two prequels, as they do hold some good ideas and good filmmaking, and my nostalgia for them makes them fun to revisit. I wasn’t brainwashed by internet forums, I just built a greater understanding of what I was seeing on the screen for myself. That’s enough ranting though. I don’t disbelieve that the general response in your area at least was positive.

I’m actually very excited for this project since the P&S VHS is what I used to watch TPM on.

Post
#1295038
Topic
UPDATES: TV Version & Workprint DVD Trading; Superman, Halloween, Star Wars, Star Trek, ect.
Time

I’m not sure I understand. You agree that these should be available on the internet, but you’re only offering them for trade? That’s completely contradictory. Offering things exclusively via trade has almost always been a ridiculous practice. Trading bootlegs is no more legal than file distribution.

I’m sorry you had to pay money to get these, but now you are in a position to make it a lot easier for everyone else. There’s no reason you can’t just upload them somewhere.

Post
#1290078
Topic
Jurassic Park theatrical regrade
Time

Yeah, it shouldn’t be too overwhelming. It’s over a year since I finished updating my Terminator project and from time to time I still get PMs here and there, haha. So be a generous host and keep on it till you feel like it. As long as you don’t feel the need to respond to every request immediately at the expense of your sanity, you’ll be fine. 😃

Post
#1281718
Topic
Predator
Time

marin888 said:

We already have 4k BD - perfect home video release for 1.85:1.
So, I’m more for preserve this film as uncropped - Full Frame.

Is the 4K master actually used for the standard BD? Cause I can’t do anything in 4K.
And I didn’t mean as a replacement of releasing the scan open matte, obviously the full super8 frame would be the priority for most people. I just think that, if it looks good enough, watching it in widescreen would still be great (and for me personally, preferable 😃).

Post
#1281093
Topic
Alien 1979 35mm scan opportunity
Time

TiddySprinklesPimpBillion said:

Dek Rollins said:

TiddySprinklesPimpBillion said:

RU.08 said:

Well for the theatrical experience anyway. The “detail” in prints is 1-2K not anywhere near 4K (although they have much richer dynamic range than digital) and most prints have little shadow/highlight detail, the exception being dye-transfer prints that retain the same detail level into the shadows/highlights. Blurays and 2K/4K restorations are often sharpened way beyond the sharpness of prints as well. This is not a limitation of prints - films like Alien were shot in anamorphic and transferred using contact-printing so there is little to no loss of sharpness between the negative and the final prints.

So then I should get rid of this since it shouldn’t exist to own? Mastered in 4K and is older than ALIEN. (Warning, shit cover design.)

https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/The-Bridge-on-the-River-Kwai-4K-Blu-ray/183746/

You’re telling me I’d need to watch it properly if the scan were a low resolution of an outdated print? Not the 65mm~70mm print but a 35mm answer print?

Same goes for this too, I bet. ALSO older than ALIEN. https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/2001-A-Space-Odyssey-4K-Blu-ray/224350/

Jonno said:

Indeed. 4K transfers should be technically superior, in terms of detail retention and consistency of performance, every time.

But that’s not what films shot in the 1970s were designed for - even TV and home video would have been a distant afterthought. It was all about rendering the best possible image on those theatrical prints, and all the creative decisions in the filmmaking process had that firmly set as their end goal.

4K (and, to be fair, Blu-ray) are fantastic at wringing visual information out of archival film materials - it’s among their chief selling points - but they’re aimed at achieving a much different purpose than the one those materials were created for. Hence my concern about claims of ‘original intent’, which is always a dicey issue with this technology.

This isn’t some bullshit whingey tripe about some George Lucas revisionism this forum is so bitchy about. Too much complaining about comparing it to an older print on an outdated format such as VHS, Laserdisc, and DVD. Hell, the current Pet Semetary 4K+Blu-ray disc has fucking weird color timing but is revisioned. ALIEN doesn’t regarding the Theatrical Cut. Same goes for BLACK HAWK DOWN. 2K upscales don’t count.

So yes, perhaps this does recreate the theatrical experience of seeing this within the same day or a week of opening in 1979. I’m keeping the official 20th Century FOX 4K UHD release and this fan “restoration” will be a nice bonus disc, not a replacement.

EDIT: By the way, no need to pay attention to me, I’m a fucking dumbass.

Dude, chill out. You came in here to shit on the thread for no reason and it’s clear you don’t understand why people enjoy these preservations. Why should I, someone who doesn’t own any 4K equipment, be forced to accept the new UHD BD of Alien as the absolute for enjoying this picture? How do you know the color timing isn’t different from the theatrical release? Why is it wrong for people like me to see a theatrical preservation as the definitive version of a movie? We aren’t forcing you to watch it in place of your glorious official release. Even good BD releases don’t always preserve the theatrical experience as it was originally intended. And calling yourself a dumbass doesn’t automatically make you not an asshole shitting on a thread for no reason.

It’s a fan preservation, not a definitive or official one, and it won’t replace the 4K UHD.

For me, someone who doesn’t watch 4K discs and doesn’t have the equipment to play them, it will definitely replace the 4K UHD that I can’t watch. “Definitive” is usually a subjective term based on a persons preferences. “Official” is also a meaningless term in this situation, since the “official” versions of many films have incorrect color timing and even George Lucas-esque changes. The print is being scanned for the sake of preserving the theatrical experience, and for the people who prefer watching movies how they originally looked at the cinema. I seriously doubt that the 4K UHD disc looks like the picture did in theaters, and your going to need to show some proof if that’s what you’re saying, since you’re the one making the claim that this project is superfluous.

Case in point, the 4K UHD with the BD included is fucking trash regarding T2. I’d rather see a proper presentation of that compared to the sub-par bullshit of that release, which far more needs it compared to ALIEN.

You don’t think people would jump at the chance to scan a print of T2? Priorities can’t be set on something when the source of the project doesn’t exist yet. If you want a 35mm print of T2 scanned, go find a print and rent it and pay these good folks for the cost of scanning. If you don’t like that someone is scanning Alien, then I’m sorry but you’ll just have to live with it.

EDIT:

JayArgonaut said:

TiddySprinklesPimpBillion said:

But get with the times of home media physical formats.

Troll confirmed. I shall respond no further after this.

Starve Trolls Do Not Feed Them

Lol sorry. 😛

Post
#1281044
Topic
Alien 1979 35mm scan opportunity
Time

TiddySprinklesPimpBillion said:

RU.08 said:

Well for the theatrical experience anyway. The “detail” in prints is 1-2K not anywhere near 4K (although they have much richer dynamic range than digital) and most prints have little shadow/highlight detail, the exception being dye-transfer prints that retain the same detail level into the shadows/highlights. Blurays and 2K/4K restorations are often sharpened way beyond the sharpness of prints as well. This is not a limitation of prints - films like Alien were shot in anamorphic and transferred using contact-printing so there is little to no loss of sharpness between the negative and the final prints.

So then I should get rid of this since it shouldn’t exist to own? Mastered in 4K and is older than ALIEN. (Warning, shit cover design.)

https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/The-Bridge-on-the-River-Kwai-4K-Blu-ray/183746/

You’re telling me I’d need to watch it properly if the scan were a low resolution of an outdated print? Not the 65mm~70mm print but a 35mm answer print?

Same goes for this too, I bet. ALSO older than ALIEN. https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/2001-A-Space-Odyssey-4K-Blu-ray/224350/

Jonno said:

Indeed. 4K transfers should be technically superior, in terms of detail retention and consistency of performance, every time.

But that’s not what films shot in the 1970s were designed for - even TV and home video would have been a distant afterthought. It was all about rendering the best possible image on those theatrical prints, and all the creative decisions in the filmmaking process had that firmly set as their end goal.

4K (and, to be fair, Blu-ray) are fantastic at wringing visual information out of archival film materials - it’s among their chief selling points - but they’re aimed at achieving a much different purpose than the one those materials were created for. Hence my concern about claims of ‘original intent’, which is always a dicey issue with this technology.

This isn’t some bullshit whingey tripe about some George Lucas revisionism this forum is so bitchy about. Too much complaining about comparing it to an older print on an outdated format such as VHS, Laserdisc, and DVD. Hell, the current Pet Semetary 4K+Blu-ray disc has fucking weird color timing but is revisioned. ALIEN doesn’t regarding the Theatrical Cut. Same goes for BLACK HAWK DOWN. 2K upscales don’t count.

So yes, perhaps this does recreate the theatrical experience of seeing this within the same day or a week of opening in 1979. I’m keeping the official 20th Century FOX 4K UHD release and this fan “restoration” will be a nice bonus disc, not a replacement.

EDIT: By the way, no need to pay attention to me, I’m a fucking dumbass.

Dude, chill out. You came in here to shit on the thread for no reason and it’s clear you don’t understand why people enjoy these preservations. Why should I, someone who doesn’t own any 4K equipment, be forced to accept the new UHD BD of Alien as the absolute for enjoying this picture? How do you know the color timing isn’t different from the theatrical release? Why is it wrong for people like me to see a theatrical preservation as the definitive version of a movie? We aren’t forcing you to watch it in place of your glorious official release. Even good BD releases don’t always preserve the theatrical experience as it was originally intended. And calling yourself a dumbass doesn’t automatically make you not an asshole shitting on a thread for no reason.

Post
#1276021
Topic
Project 4K80
Time

Bluto said:

Thanks for the info, Dek - I hadn’t come across this before. What software would allow you to apply this LUT to the Grindhouse ISO in order for the output to be another Blu-ray-compatible ISO?

Bluto

If you have a video editor there should be some sort of plugin available to apply LUTs. I honestly don’t remember how the Grindhouse ISO was packaged, but if you don’t care about menus, putting it through tsmuxer has a BD ISO option.

a_o said:

Dek Rollins said:

^This might be of interest to you. I prefer NeverarGreat’s LUT applied to the Grindhouse over any other version of Empire right now.

has someone applied this LUT to the film & shared?

Not to my knowledge. I can look into getting my file uploaded if you guys want it (24.8 GB).