Nope.
If you’re gonna post Sonic the Hedgehog™ gifs, at least post ones which are truly random.
I assumed he was referring to the horde of Sonic gifs I put in the “Random pictures and gifs” thread, and not the image of Sonic dancing that doesn’t need to be random and fits perfectly in this thread.
Wrong thread?
Dek Rollins said:
The legality issue should be no different here than in any other case of an HD film project on this site. I mean seriously, people download 20 GB files just to see the exact same BD with different color timing (this is also me for some films).I have no doubt that downloads of almost every project chronicled on this site are illegal. I don’t say that to be judgmental, I just don’t believe for one second that any edits, preservations, or uploads would be protected under fair use, realistically speaking.
I agree.
Maybe if it bombs we’ll be spared of a Suicide Squad cinematic universe.
EDIT: As for that Raiders shot, I really can’t tell any difference between any of the shots other than the light, which I hadn’t even noticed as being different until now. I don’t get why they changed it since it looks better without it,
They were “fixing” a supposed continuity error, because other shots in the scene establish that the light is on. And that shot in particular has stood out to me since I was little, so seeing it with a previously nonexistent light in the middle that looks like they used a soft eraser in Photoshop to make, it’s a little jarring.
but again, I wouldn’t say it’s worth streaming or downloading a 25 gb file for it.
Well, that’s not the only reason there is. There are other alterations that are actually a little nit-picky, and the altered color timing ruins it for a lot of people.
For me, personally, I would’ve gotten the 35mm release even if the BD was untouched. There isn’t anything changed in the Jurassic Park BD and I got that release too. I love 35mm film prints. I just do. Raiders is one of my favorite films, and I have every right to not watch a shoddy Blu-ray release. The legality issue should be no different here than in any other case of an HD film project on this site. I mean seriously, people download 20 GB files just to see the exact same BD with different color timing (this is also me for some films).
Just because you don’t notice and/or care about the problems in a video release, that shouldn’t stop me from caring about the film. When I care enough about a film, I want to make available the best/most enjoyable experience watching it. For me, I’ve found this usually in 35mm print scans.
@ mfm: This is the lightbulb shot I mentioned before.
35mm:
WOWOW (HDTV):
BD:
Well duh. I don’t think there’s a single film that wasn’t released on 35mm prints (excluding any digital age films that were/are exclusively on digital projection). TFA was lucky enough to have a film release.
Well I don’t think many modern films have screenings in 35mm like TFA did so that has to be somewhat unique.
TFA was lucky enough to have a film release.
Anyway, this conversation is kind of pointless. I was just curious why you made a connection out of the blue between TFA having film screenings and a scan of a Raiders print.
I didn’t say TFA didn’t have a film release in general;
I never said you said that.
there were certain theaters that screened it in 35mm as opposed to film.
35mm is film. It refers to a specific size of film, hence the measurement, 35mm. Theatrical releases are generally done with a limited 70mm print release, and a standard 35mm print release. But now that digital projection has gotten to where it’s at, film print screenings for new films are almost totally fazed out.
Well duh. I don’t think there’s a single film that wasn’t released on 35mm prints (excluding any digital age films that were/are exclusively on digital projection). TFA was lucky enough to have a film release.
Well I don’t think many modern films have screenings in 35mm like TFA did so that has to be somewhat unique.
TFA was lucky enough to have a film release.
Anyway, this conversation is kind of pointless. I was just curious why you made a connection out of the blue between TFA having film screenings and a scan of a Raiders print.
Well duh. I don’t think there’s a single film that wasn’t released on 35mm prints (excluding any digital age films that were/are exclusively on digital projection). TFA was lucky enough to have a film release.
Lord Haseo said:
Because if memory serves TFA and the 35mm version of Raiders is of the same print/scan…Say what now?
Yeah, TFA was on one side and Raiders was on the other.
😉…Sure let’s go with that 😉
Lol.
So really, what did you mean?
Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981)
Just watched the 35mm version, and it was great! I really hope they can get the other print scanned so that it can be filled in, cleaned and polished.
What is the difference between that and the original? I could have sworn there were screenings of TFA that were in 35mm.
That is the original. A scan of a 1982 35mm LPP was done and was released on the spleen. None of the digital home video releases to this date represent the original version of the film.
I definitely see why someone would covet this. It’s like owning the original Mona Lisa or Girl With A Pearl Earring.
EDIT: Also, what on Earth does TFA having a 35mm release have anything to do with a film from 1981?
Because if memory serves TFA and the 35mm version of Raiders is of the same print/scan…
Say what now?
…and that was the first time I had ever heard of a 35mm film.
You’ve never heard of 35mm film before TFA came out?
Surely, there must be a side by side comparison somewhere between the 35mm and the Blu Ray?
Of Raiders? Here’s one:
35mm:
BD:
EDIT: Maybe the thread clogging regarding Raiders should probably stop…
Glad we have experts around here like Dek to call Spielberg on his bullshit. I mean seriously, what does that guy know about Raiders of the Lost Ark anyway?
Exactly. I don’t mind just not liking the blu-ray, but it was the accusation of lying that seemed inappropriate to me.
Okay, for the record, the use of lied was a mistake, because that conveyed something that wasn’t my intent. I merely meant that what he said regarding the color timing on the BD was misleading. Was he knowingly deceiving? How should I know? I have no idea how the BD master was made.
For all I know Spielberg just had whoever it is that works on Paramount’s restorations do the thing with with little outside direction from himself; then they finish it, he glances at it, and gives an OK. On the other hand, he could have been working personally with the color timing the whole time and used his 35 year old memory of how he wanted the color in each shot to look, rather than a proper reference. Or he really could have just given it revisionist color biases on purpose and said it reflected the original color without knowing or even caring about any inaccuracies.
But to say that a man’s word with no proof of truth is better taken over actual proof, then I guess I’ll just drop out of this discussion.
Oh, and again…
And why wouldn’t the LPP be trustworthy? Do you even know what an LPP is? The color on that print is still intact with minimal anomalies.
Even accounting for variances in color between different prints, that print shows extreme differences from the BD color timing.
EDIT: And I’d like to apologize if I’ve acted like a “know it all”.
I also just prefer the way theatrical prints look over what most official digital releases are.
I never mentioned the level of taste the digital alterations were on. The fact that there are digital changes made to the original film is a problem no matter how insignificant they are. And I’d say the light is an SE level change, because it’s so incredibly pointless and very noticeable. And the DNR is bad enough to remove visible detail in the image.
Spielberg claims that the coloring on the blu ray is closer to the theatrical look, and I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt now that he’s denounced the ET changes.
He lied.
I’m sure it was a lie with malicious intent, with the sole purpose of destroying the integrity of a classic film.
Yeah, I seriously doubt that. Do you think that was Georges intent with the SE’s?
By the way, you don’t know what the theatrical look of the film was.
EDIT: And why wouldn’t the LPP be trustworthy? Do you even know what an LPP is? The color on that print is still intact with minimal anomalies.
Even accounting for variances in color between different prints, that print shows extreme differences from the BD color timing.
Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981)
Just watched the 35mm version, and it was great! I really hope they can get the other print scanned so that it can be filled in, cleaned and polished.
What is the difference between that and the original? I could have sworn there were screenings of TFA that were in 35mm.
That is the original. A scan of a 1982 35mm LPP was done and was released on the spleen. None of the digital home video releases to this date represent the original version of the film.
I don’t know what you mean by “represent[ing] the original version of the film,” but a 35 year-old LPP can’t be too trustworthy either, unless there are special-edition-like changes on the blu-ray of Raiders of the Lost Ark that I’m unaware of. Supposedly the reflection of the snake has been touched up, but I see no reason to watch a beat-up film print over the pristine blu ray copy for that alone.
The reflections on the glass in the snake scene have been digitally removed, and a light that was off has been digitally turned on at the end of the film. Not to mention the horrible DNR done to the BD. Over all, I would never call the official BD a pristine copy.
Spielberg claims that the coloring on the blu ray is closer to the theatrical look, and I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt now that he’s denounced the ET changes.
He lied. The BD has a rather disgusting looking orange filter, and also has a lot of highlights that are blown out and then dulled.
It looks terrible, and I refuse to watch it that way.
EDIT: And why wouldn’t the LPP be trustworthy? Do you even know what an LPP is? The color on that print is still intact with minimal anomalies.
Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981)
Just watched the 35mm version, and it was great! I really hope they can get the other print scanned so that it can be filled in, cleaned and polished.
What is the difference between that and the original? I could have sworn there were screenings of TFA that were in 35mm.
That is the original. A scan of a 1982 35mm LPP was done and was released on the spleen. None of the digital home video releases to this date represent the original version of the film.
EDIT: Also, what on Earth does TFA having a 35mm release have anything to do with a film from 1981?
EDIT 2: I can understand your confusion regarding my use of “35mm version”, but yeah, there weren’t multiple official cuts of Raiders; I was just referring to the scan.
Suicide Squad is getting panned and hearing that made my day.
I’m glad someone finally admitted that they want certain movies to fail.
You’ve never heard that before?
I think he’s sarcastically portraying his disdain for it.
I’m not clicking on those links for the answer.
I don’t even think I saw the trailer with Bohemian Rhapsody in it, but I did see a trailer with a terrible cover of “I Started a Joke”, and that put me off a little, but when I saw the Joker’s face I decided I wasn’t going to see the film.
Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981)
Just watched the 35mm version, and it was great! I really hope they can get the other print scanned so that it can be filled in, cleaned and polished.
Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964) – A
Just wonderful. And a great release by Criterion, too.
No rating for Ark?
I rated it before (both by itself and with the rest of the trilogy), and I didn’t feel any change of heart.
Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981)
Just watched the 35mm version, and it was great! I really hope they can get the other print scanned so that it can be filled in, cleaned and polished.
Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964) – A
Just wonderful. And a great release by Criterion, too.
I’m sure YHWY thinks my choice of spelling is completely fine
This is not a point in your favor.
???
I didn’t even know we were getting points for this stuff. When I had 100 points redacted for misspelling you’re it was news to me that I was getting points to begin with.
And why is it note worthy to say that post isn’t a point in my favor? Is there something wrong with it?
It has a purpose in saying that if someone unsavory agrees with you, maybe you should reconsider what you’re thinking.
I don’t think my choice of spelling in that instance is fine. I was suggesting that you wouldn’t have a problem with it, given your arguments on the subject of language. That means I don’t agree with you.
I’m sure YHWY thinks my choice of spelling is completely fine
This is not a point in your favor.
???
I didn’t even know we were getting points for this stuff. When I had 100 points redacted for misspelling you’re it was news to me that I was getting points to begin with.
And why is it note worthy to say that post isn’t a point in my favor? Is there something wrong with it?
I agree that colored emojis are hideous, but I was mainly thinking about the ones this site has, which I’m completely fine with (that is, unless it just shows up as a box).
If emoticons are good, emojis are fine too. They convey the exact same thing; they just look different.
😉 and ; ) are both saying the exact same thing. I think both are useful in the way that most people on this forum use them (simply conveying the emotion/tone of what was said). The overuse of them (or maybe worse, the replacement of words with them) is what needs to be stopped.
