logo Sign In

Gillean

User Group
Members
Join date
24-May-2005
Last activity
20-Sep-2023
Posts
277

Post History

Post
#233474
Topic
How to create Day For Night effect?
Time
Originally posted by: Hal 9000
How do I take footage shot in daylight, and filter it so it looks like it was shot in moonlight at night? What programs would work? I'm using Windows XP.

The scene in question is from AOTC, where Anakin and Padme are on the padio overlooking the lake.


I'm fairly sure someone here has already done that exact shot for a fan edit; so if you can figure out who I'm talking about then you'll be able to get some very specific advice!

[edit]It was Trooperman for his Shroud of the Dark Side edit. Screenshots are on the second page of the project thread.

They're are as good as I remembered them, though I think Trooperman did more on them. I've just quickly fiddle around with his shots in Photoshop at it is fairly easy to darken the overly bright sky while not losing the main subjects.[/edit]

[edit2]There's a very brief shot of the balcony scene in his recent trailer.[/edit2]
Post
#233445
Topic
HDTV resolutions
Time
Originally posted by: yanksno1
I also see sets that accept the 1080p signal, but aren't native 1920x1080p. That's basically upconverting right?
No, that's downconverting.

Originally posted by: yanksno1
What's generally the better resolutions?

Well, obviously 1080p is the best resolution, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is the best for you to get. Price is obviously a big factor, will the difference in quality be worth the additional cost for you? Also, a 1080p set likely won't be the best if you never send it a 1080p signal (I don't think many places, if any, broadcast in 1080p yet, Xbox 360 can't go that high, nor can current HD-DVD players).

[edited for grammar and clarification /]
Post
#231533
Topic
Something is wrong with Vader's Pod
Time
Originally posted by: none
http://javimoya.com/blog/youtube_en.php (down at time of posting)
This site will allow you to download embedded videos from sites like YouTube, GoogleVideo etc. and programs like SUPER can convert them to other formats.


Or alternatively, if you use Firefox there are a few extensions for saving embedded videos (in the same way the above site does).
Post
#231211
Topic
Idea: X-Men 3 - Deleted Scenes - fan edit?
Time
Originally posted by: ADigitalMan
I love how Ratner said back in May (in probably the only interview I read) that there would be no deleted scenes on the DVD because he got every scene he filmed into the movie. If I had more gumption I'd Google the damn article and post it here. Lying hack (and I say that with the utmost respect ).

Well, that didn't sound right based off interviews I had seen so I HAVE Googled up a few Ratner interviews all from May. He had a lot to say about numerous alternate takes, it was actually quite humorous to see how nearly all the interviews focused on that now that we know the DVD has three alternate endings! All the interviews said that there was going to be plenty of bonus scenes on the DVD, but that he wouldn't create an extended edition because there weren't that many deleted scenes, though every interview alluded to at least some deleted scenes existing.

I think part of the reason why some people may disagree with the percentage of deleted scenes is that Ratner's personal definition of 'deleted scenes' might be different to others. Some of the alternate scenes are 'very alternate', so some would consider them deleted scenes.

"Probably 99 percent of the scenes I shot are in the movie, but there are other versions of it that were shot," he said. "Until I saw the movie, I wasn't sure in which direction I wanted to go. For instance, the Rogue scene. Should she get the cure or should she not get the cure?

"So there was a lot of variations."

[edit]Just remembered something else said. When talking about alternate scenes he emphasised that there was a heap of variation in the whole third act. So those three alternate 'endings' could actually be quite long and feature quite a lot of what was mentioned in this thread.[/edit]
Post
#231130
Topic
***The "Darth Editous" Episode V DVD Info and Feedback Thread*** - a work in progress
Time
Originally posted by: Darth Editous
Does anyone know if it (by which I mean the SE+ part of the disc) is likely to be identical to the first DVD release, or will they fix the window in Cloud City, as was rumoured some time ago?

I'm pretty sure there is zero changes on the new discs, same menus, etc. It is quite possible that Lucasfilm had an excess of SE DVDs and that these bonus DVDs are mostly an attempt to whittle down their stock before next year's possible Blu-ray releases.
Post
#231116
Topic
Waterworld ABC Cut? A ton of info - see McFly's posts for details (Released)
Time
I still haven't had time to put together a decent DVD of this. I should have enough time next week to finally sort out the DVD menu and finish my cover (as I'll finally have finished two sites I've been working on and only have a wedding video and audio CD artwork to do).

As well as replacing the confusing DVD recorder menu system I'll be cutting the duplicate footage and nothingness. I'll also be making a dual-layer single-disc version to go along the standard two-disc single-layer set.
Post
#230552
Topic
Info &amp; Help Wanted: <strong>Coming To Your Screens Summer 2007</strong> - Super8 OT project...
Time
Originally posted by: boba feta
I don't really know a lot, the covers don't exactly give it away, so it'll be just as much of a surprise for me. What I do know is one contains the Cantina scene (how much of it I'm unsure) and "the extra-ordinary rebel attack on the Death Star, the dogfights, the missile runs and the final climactic devastating blow".

I just hope all the reels are different.


Sounds like you've got the Volume 1 & 2 versions of the reels.

Star Wars Vol 1 contains - blockade runner, jawas, droid sale, Ben & the Force, cell block shootout, chasm swing, lightsaber duel and escape from Death Star.

Star Wars Vol 2 contains - Luke sees Leia's image, sand people attack, entrance to Mos Eisley, cantina interior, Tatooine escape, Alderaan explosion, Death Star arrival, Yavin approach, Death Star battle and medal ceremony.

Can't find a list of the Empire reel contents.
Post
#230500
Topic
David Gilmour: &quot;No George Lucas Syndrome&quot;
Time
Originally posted by: C3PX
My apologies, I didn't intend to start a battle here. You have some very good points, I still think the initial quote from this thread was a valid comparison; you don't seem to be seeing our point of view, but neither I nor anybody else really cares. It really isn't important enough to waste anymore time on.
Phew! I'm glad I was 'battling' a gentleman (gentlelady?), I'm too much of a stubborn git to let something go, even something so trivial! I was relieved to see this thread off the first page as it meant no on was going to read my post and then see it as an attack. I let out an 'Oh no!' when I saw it was back, 'who had I rubbed up the wrong way this time?'; thankfully I had nothing to worry about. Hehe, 'git'; funny how differently I write and really speak!


Originally posted by: C3PX
Originally posted by: Gillean
I really got to stop using sarcasm here; I need to remember that this forum is mostly visited by Americans. This isn't an attack on Americans, but simply the truth; Americans find sarcasm offensive or generally just don't pick it up, whereas people from most other western countries consider it affectionate and can sense it pretty easily. It is funny the shock American friends get when they visit here, they think we're all attacking each other when we're just having fun. Of course now I've written that I'll find out C3PX is from the home of sarcasm, Australia!

Ha! That is a pretty funny observation. From my experience in America, Americans can be pretty sarcastic. I must admit some of them are unbelievably dry; I can't count how many times I have received confused or annoyed looks from one after making some facetious comment. Especially the office workers or computer tech types, they all seem to take everything seriously. All around Europeans are a lot more fun and laid back. But generalizing in such a way is pretty pointless; I have known people from plenty of other places that take life way too seriously also. It is very hard not to realize that regardless of being American, Australian or whatever else, sarcasm can be a bit hard to pickup in written from.

Yeah, re-reading my paragraph, I way over-generalised the point I was trying to make. I think that had I read what I wrote the first time I would have replaced the emboldened bit with 'this isn't an attack on Americans, but I find that a lot of them either see sarcasm as offensive or just don't pick it up, whereas people from most other western countries tend to consider it affectionate and can sense it pretty easily.' I dunno, something like that. My opinion on this was actually formed because American friends told me that was the case and then I just observed it many times. I do know plenty of Americans that definitely aren't offended by it and pick it up fine though; they don't use it themselves much (which is really better for everyone!).

I'm positive that sometime since finishing schooling some fuse between my brain and my hand broke, I'm often reading things I've posted and finding they didn't match up at all with what I was thinking! A couple of days ago I was reading something I'd just posted on a Mac forum and, well, what I was reading wasn't even English, somehow I'd replaced random words with other random words! I must remember 'and' doesn't equal 'had'.

Originally posted by: C3PX
Also I thought it was funny that I mistakenly said "Next to the Mona Lisa in Rome." When I have been to the Louvre in France and have seen the real thing.

Hehe, I didn't notice that at all. Maybe we've both read The Da Vinci Code and Rob Brown's severely messed up geography and factless facts have muddled our brains! Rome is right next to Paris right?
Post
#230102
Topic
Update: Blade Runner Dvd
Time
Originally posted by: Mike O
The Alien Quadrilogy (That isn't a word, is it?)

You're right; of course plenty of people think it is actually a word after Fox marketing department made it up. The real word is tetralogy. Quadrilogy 'seems' right, but it is a mix of Greek and Latin; duology, trilogy and tetralogy being Greek, quadri being Latin. Of course it may end up being a real word if it remains in usage; 'television' is a similar Greek/Latin combination.

While just Googling some of that info I found this humorous quote:
Originally written by: C. P. Scott (1846-1932)
Television? The word is half Greek, half Latin. No good can come of it.
Post
#229766
Topic
***The &quot;Darth Editous&quot; Episode IV DVD Info and Feedback Thread*** - a partially &quot;de-specialed&quot; DVD
Time
Originally posted by: Darth Editous
That's what the AVI Pizza-the-Hutt mentioned is (assuming it's the same one I torrented via Demonoid). It's only one-CD quality, and only stereo, but I used all the highest XVID parameters.


Ah cool, I hadn't noticed that; I actually already have that!
Post
#229748
Topic
Info &amp; Help Wanted: <strong>Coming To Your Screens Summer 2007</strong> - Super8 OT project...
Time
Originally posted by: BigBlueRig
depending on where you live....START RECYCLING!! At least here in CA, I know you can make BANK doing simple recycling. My high school wrestling coach would put on a pair of gloves, get one of those grabber things for only a few $$$, then go through the top of the dumpster at the high school.

He was doing it hardcore and was pulling down a few hundred a week, but even then...if you scale it way back and just keep all of your stuff and some of your friends...you can put a major dent in that bill.

boba feta is from New Zealand and I doubt such a recycling plan would work there, we have nothing like that in Australia, we just expect to recycle for nothing.
Post
#229746
Topic
***The &quot;Darth Editous&quot; Episode IV DVD Info and Feedback Thread*** - a partially &quot;de-specialed&quot; DVD
Time
Originally posted by: Darth Editous
I thought I might also make a true speed (1 out of every 12 fields repeated) PAL version to get the audio at the right pitch - any interest?


I wanted to wait and see if any other PAL viewers would give their opinions first, but that hasn't happened!

Being used to regular PAL I'm not sure if repeating fields would bug me or not without seeing an example. If you've already done some experimentation with this method could you upload a sample for us to see?

Another option that could be good no matter what region you live in would be a true 24fps XviD or AVC copy based off your PAL video and with the NTSC audio slightly sped up to match. Currently I could only play such a file on my computer, but many others here may have no trouble (at least with the XviD version).
Post
#229367
Topic
David Gilmour: &quot;No George Lucas Syndrome&quot;
Time
Originally posted by: C3PX
Nobody ever implied that this had anything to do with Star Wars other than the use of the term "George Lucas Syndrom" used by the interviewer, and the fact the George Lucas doesn't "get it"
You aren't getting what I'm saying. The whole reason why people are saying that Lucas doesn't 'get it' within this thread is because their presuming Gilmour is saying something that matches with their own opinion, when he doesn't. I better make it clear, I'm not saying that he is saying saying something contrary to most of our opinions, he just isn't saying anything related to it at all.

Originally posted by: C3PX
and that he constantly changes what at one point we all felt was a near perfect movie.
The fact that we thought it was near perfect shouldn't be a factor for an artist if they aren't finished. The original quadrophonic mix of DSotM has become quite popular, many Pink Floyd fans love it (and I'm sure it's a great alternate mix, I haven't heard it though). If that was in the public domain before they started working on their 'final' mix and all their fans said they thought DSotM was already near perfect, then would we expect the band not to do any more work on it?

Originally posted by: C3PX
He gets it because when asked if he would change his album he says that there is no point in changing something that is near perfect.
Exactly, he says there is no point changing something that is pretty well perfect. I'm sure even Lucas would say and believe that. I'm asking how that applies to a work that production was forced to discontinue when it only met 50% of the creator's expectations. The answer is that it doesn't.

Originally posted by: C3PX
I have never heard the Dark Side of the Moon album art to be a very important piece of art.
Yet you just quoted me saying it was voted the fourth greatest of all time.

Originally posted by: C3PX
It is an album cover. You don't see us rallying to preserve our old VHS covers for the Star Wars Trilogy.

Actually, people here were doing exactly that, it seems most people here do find the cover and poster artwork important and worth preserving. The reason you may not have seen it is because it was a relatively easy task to do. There aren't too many variables when it comes to scanning a single image when compared to the preservation of the thousands of images via old laserdisc reading equipment.

Originally posted by: C3PX
And it is honestly laughable to call the DSotM album an important piece of art.

Maybe you haven't seen the hundreds of articles on the web by music fans bemoaning the digital music revolution and the coming death of album artwork. Maybe you haven't seen the hundreds of programs written to allow people to easily interact with their album artwork because of so many people asking for it. Maybe you haven't seen all the books in the library about cover artwork. Plenty of people, specifically artists and music historians do feel that certain album covers are important pieces of art. There's plenty of gallery and museum owners that feel they are important pieces of art, since they often appear in exhibitions. I doubt I'd be able to convince you of their importance so we're just going to have to disagree.

Originally posted by: C3PX
You act like the bloody thing is hanging next to the Mona Lisa in Rome.

I really got to stop using sarcasm here; I need to remember that this forum is mostly visited by Americans. This isn't an attack on Americans, but simply the truth; Americans find sarcasm offensive or generally just don't pick it up, whereas people from most other western countries consider it affectionate and can sense it pretty easily. It is funny the shock American friends get when they visit here, they think we're all attacking each other when we're just having fun. Of course now I've written that I'll find out C3PX is from the home of sarcasm, Australia!

Sarcasm aside, as I already mentioned covers such as DSotM ARE regularly displayed in art exhibitions. Art is purely subjective though. The reason why Mona Lisa is in the Louvre isn't because it is one of the best paintings ever or that it is 'arty'. There are paintings that are heaps better, much more interesting in both content and technique, but they'll never end up in the major galleries, if they end up in galleries at all. It is purely cultural significance and as I already mentioned plenty of people important in the art world consider certain album artwork to be culturally important, so I really wouldn't be suprised if it really did appear in the same gallery as the Mona Lisa in a hundred years. There really isn't that much different between the Mona Lisa and the DSotM cover in the end. Both are commisioned works, both have been mass copied and both are burnt into the heads of most people in the western world. The cover will never be as important as the Mona Lisa (that's just stupid), but it is a lot more culturally significant that most of the great artworks (since really, how many paintings other than ol' Lisa can non-art historians name?).

Originally posted by: C3PX
That seemed like more of a slam towards the whole idea of the originaltrilogy.com to me. Perhaps I took it wrong. However if you think it is silly for people to try to perserve something "the great Master Lucas" doesn't believe to be a worthy representation of his now crappy sci-fi films, why do you come here?

It wasn't a slam at OT.com, you misunderstood me. I fully support OT.com and its purpose. It was purely a jab at DSotM's supposed lack of changes. The original DSotM is as far gone commercially as the OOT.

Originally posted by: C3PX
Anyway I have wasted enough time with this. I was just annoyed at Gillean's limited focus and his odd sense of duty at proving Gilmour doesn't really get it, and that he is no better than Lucas.

That isn't what I'm trying to prove, I have no interest in proving who is better than who. All I'm trying to get across is that Lucas' and Gilmour's situations were completely different and they shouldn't be compared. Actually, that's not right; they should be compared.

Gilmour said 'We worked on it until we thought it was pretty well perfect.'

Lucas said 'Well Episode IV was not really finished because I didn't have the money, the time or the technology to finish it. At the time I was kind of upset about it. People were going, "It's marvellous! How do you feel?" And I was saying, "I feel it's only 50 or 60% of what I wanted".'
Post
#229266
Topic
Asian Women and Water Operas
Time
Originally posted by: Darth_Evil
Ok, that doesn't make any sense. There were no asian women in that scene. Just asian looking CGI aliens.

Darth_Evil, they weren't THAT good at CGI characters back in 1997!

http://www.starwars.com/databank/character/lynme/img/movie_bg.jpg

Originally posted by: Darth-Adroit
The E.T.s are probably the worst because their presence confirms that Earth exists in the GFFA.


Three ETs confirm what hundreds of humans couldn't? I find it less of a stretch of the imagination to believe that a small group of ETs could develop intergalactic space travel during the time period since 'A long time ago' than the appearance of humans on hundreds of worlds!
Post
#228967
Topic
David Gilmour: &quot;No George Lucas Syndrome&quot;
Time
Originally posted by: Ozkeeper
Gillean, many of your claims on the process of recording Dark Side of the Moon and the members of Pink Floyd feelings about some of their previous work are in fact wrong. Even a basic search of wikipedia will show you that . There are also a few good books on the band, which I can't be bothered finding and quoting at the moment. Pink Floyd was in our record collection at home before Dark Side was released. It wasn't a matter of a bunch of stoners going into a recording studio and following a set of rules. They were breaking totally new ground with the techniques they used.

The time travel scenario the person asking the questions mentions is from A Sound of Thunder , by Ray Bradbury, first published in 1952. With Delicate Sound of Thunder being the name of the Pink Floyd live album released in 1988 while under the leadership of Gilmour, it would be a stretch of the imagination to think he is not aware of the story. I have no doubt Gilmour is familiar with the concepts presented in this story and mentioned by the interviewer, as they have been presented many times in various media (perhaps most widely seen by visitors to this forum on one of the Simpsons Halloween episodes, with the malfunctioning toaster). I also have no doubt that Gilmour knows who Lucas is and his attempts to re-write Star Wars 'history'.


Now you're misrepresenting what I said!

I made NO claims about Pink Floyd's feelings about previous work. I didn't need to do 'a basic search of Wikipedia' because their thoughts on previous work has nothing to do with my point.

I made only two claims about their recording process. My first, they had money backing them. 'A basic search of Wikipedia' tells me they were popular and they were backed by labels, enough to get into one of the best studios. Hmmm, seems I was right. And my second, they didn't develop any new technology for this album. Hmmm, I can't find any 'good books' that tell me they invented the synthesiser, the clock or the cash register; can you point me in the right direction to one that does? They certainly developed a heap of new techniques, they did amazing work, but they weren't limited by technology or money. They were only possibly limited by time, but as Gilmour himself said, 'We worked on it until we thought it was pretty well perfect', so that proves they weren't even limited that way.

I made no claims Gilmour didn't understand the butterfly analogy as again it is beside the point. He is talking purely about making changes to a work he already considered 'pretty well perfect'. The analogy works in that instance, but doesn't apply to the Lucas scenario at all. That said, as I previously mentioned concerning the Lucas question, we can presume Gilmour understood the butterfly reference, but it can't be proven by just that quote. His responses would be the same whether he knew the source of the references or not. Heh, now I'm bringing in arguments with no bearing on my point!

To clarify my point, Gilmour's responses tell us nothing on his thoughts on Lucas' changes. It only tells us that he thinks there is little point changing near perfect works. If you're going to post about an artist 'getting it' then find a quote about them actually referring to the same or a similar situation.

Hehehe, now I'm just going to be a jerk! JediFlyer06, if Gilmour was talking about art in general then can you find some of his complaints about the continual changes to a very culturally important piece of art, the DSotM cover artwork (voted fourth greatest of all time)?

Speaking of the multiple editions of DSotM; none of them are actually unchanged from the previous! Track divisions move back and forth (by up to 13 seconds), fades appear and disappear, The Beatles make guest appearances and then go absent, track credits list and unlist people, completely different audio mixes replace older ones, and tracks are significantly altered on live editions. You can't find a new unaltered original version of DSotM in any stores. I think I better start a website dedicated to the preservation of this important classic!
Post
#228922
Topic
David Gilmour: &quot;No George Lucas Syndrome&quot;
Time
Originally posted by: JediFlyer06
No, everything in the quote implies that Gilmour gets it. We're not talking about the narrow focus of just SW. I'm sure Gilmour could give a shit. He's talking about art in general...music, movies, etc. When you change something that was created in the past, whatever you add takes something important away from the work. That's what this whole thing is about. Gilmour understands that and the quote demonstrates that.


Nothing in that quote implies he's talking about art in general, he only specifically talks about his own album. You're just reading your own opinion into the quote; stop and read it again without bringing your own bias.
Post
#228586
Topic
David Gilmour: &quot;No George Lucas Syndrome&quot;
Time
Originally posted by: JediFlyer06
Funny how so many artists seem to "get it", and Lucas just, well...


I'm sorry, but nothing in that quote points to David Gilmour 'getting it', nor does it show what George Lucas did was wrong, almost the opposite.

Gilmour may not even know what the interviewer is talking about when he mentions GL Syndrome, sure he may, but he would give the same response whether he knew or not.

He then goes on to say he worked on Dark Side of the Moon until they thought it was 'pretty well perfect', something Lucas never had the opportunity to do due to money, technology, history and the industry.

Pink Floyd were pretty popular before DSotM and had seven studio albums in their past. There would have been plenty of money for it because the labels pretty much knew what they were getting (though likely underestimated its future popularity). Not that much money is even needed for an album, it mostly needs time from the individual band members. They didn't need to develop any technology as everything they needed existed. There hasn't been that much development in music tech so there wouldn't be anything new that they'd have wanted to use back then (apart from speeding up production).

George Lucas wasn't that well known, he had one hit movie, but his name wouldn't have meant much back then. Sci-fi blockbusters didn't exist as sci-fi wasn't very popular at all before Star Wars. Money was therefore fairly scarce; there is so much more to lose when financing a large movie compared to an album. This money was definitely needed because movies require long term commitment from hundreds of people. The technology pretty much didn't exist, Lucas had to spend a lot of his budget developing that technology. In the next twenty years the tech is leaps and bounds ahead of where it was then, the ten years after that even more. There is so much more he could do now than he could do then.

You may think that he should be happy, he got most of his script on film and it is the writing stage that is so important and equally as cheap as writing music for an album. But while bands really have no limitations to work within while writing a song (except self-imposed limitations), Lucas had to consider a heap of limitations when writing his script. We really have no idea what Lucas actually wanted in his film back then.

Another thing to take into consideration is the nature of music artists. Generally they don't dislike their own past tracks because of a particular part of the track, usually they'll dislike the entire thing or the even the entire time period the track was made in! The reasons they end up disliking tracks are because their music tastes change and they end up embarrassed by the tracks of their youth or they simply get sick of it from playing it hundreds of times at concerts. Either of these reasons wouldn't make an artist want to touch that previous work again, quite the opposite, they want nothing to do with it. It spurs them on to creating entirely new pieces. Lucas on the other hand didn't have to 'perform' his own work hundreds of times and it is highly unlikely he would ever dislike the entire work even if his tastes changed a lot since there is usually so much more variety in a two hour visual and audio work compared to a five minute audio piece. I'm sure there could be early works of his he does totally dislike, but none of them were ever popular so very few people care.

While I don't agree with a few of Lucas' changes or his unwillingness for the original versions to be in the public, this quote gives no reasons why it is wrong or even backs your point of view; except for the fact that some unnamed interviewer feels the same.

Hmmm, just thinking about Lucas' unwillingness to re-release the work he doesn't like... Why is it fine that hundreds of music artists don't re-release their old works when they sell out because they don't like them?
Post
#228312
Topic
Can anyone help me get hold of the 'TB' 97 SE release?
Time
I've got the three OT TB discs (don't currently have the Ep I disc, which you don't need for the current articles anyway!). I'm in Australia, but if you don't find someone more local soon I'd be happy to send you some copies from here (or even just send you the appropriate screenshots).

I actually have these because one day I'd like to produce a DVD set about all the changes, sort of a cross between your articles and the Wookie Groomer splitscreen discs.
Post
#228067
Topic
mp3 player recommendations
Time
Originally posted by: MeBeJedi
My friend has an Ipod (mini, I think), and his beef is that you have to sync up the player with the same computer. He had his player all loaded, and tried to add some more songs from another computer, and wiped the memory.


That's because he did it wrong. Of course you can only synchronise the iPod with only one computer at a time, otherwise it wouldn't be synchronisation! What he needed to do was turn off synchronisation and set it to manual management, then he can drag on tracks from any of his computers.