I must say that even though he expresses it in a rather extreme way, in principle I must agree with generalfrievous but I see the SE situation as more of a marketing scheme :-D
PM sent :-)
OK, here it is:
No, that's just DVD and from what I saw, the HD upscales will serve the purposes of my edit much better.
I play most of my video from my laptop through HDMI, so for me, the blu will definitely be better. I can't really take full advantage of LPCM audio, so I'll probably demux those and keep it as an mkv, but from what I saw, the picture quality looks great and I'm also curious about the menus and stuff, I'm sure they'll be great. Any idea how it will be shared yet? Using torrents is strictly forbidden by my school dorm internet provider (not because it's illegal but because it could provide access to the local network from outside) and is punished by an immediate ban :-(
Thanks, I'm glad you like it :-)
As to SW, I'm at a friend's place now, but I'll post another "work in progress" video when I get home. I'm almost done with what I can use the 97SE for, so I'll be waiting for the GOUT upscales to come out.
But then, it's a movie and it is an art form, be it 2D or 3D, so it should be the director's choice what he wants us to focus on.
I'm just going to go on record and say I would fuckin' love to see Jurassic Park in 3D. Just as well as STAR WARS and Titanic.
I think (and I'm sure Puggo would agree) that while this project looks really good for what it is (a preservation of a 16mm print made for home viewing) it is not what everyone saw in the cinemas in 1980. What people saw in cinemas in 1980 were mostly pristine colourful 35mm or 70mm prints. And that experience could only be reproduced for home video by a proper HD restoration of the original negatives or at least of a really nice well preserved 35mm or 70mm print.
Oh, right, of course.
adywan said:
I really can't see why some people have such a huge problem with movies being done in 3D. It's not as if you HAVE to watch the 3D version (ok apart from Star Wars, but what's new there). Anytime a 3D movie is released in theatres there is also the option to watch it in 2D. It's a choice. If you don't like 3D then you don't have to watch it. It's the same when they are released on Blu-Ray.
I don't think that 3D is just a fad this time. It's here to stay and i, for one, love it. Some conversions are pretty crappy and give you a headache but when they are done properly they can look really good. It's the same old argument with film-makers that's been going on since the early days of cinema. First it was sound, then it was complaints about the use of colour in films taking away the artform, then digital and on and on...... Things evolve and things change
I totally agree. And I must admit that if a 3D film doesn't have at least some in your face 3D effects, which I find very entertaining, I usually leave the cinema disappointed - such was the case with Avatar - I saw a few 3D films in IMAX (mostly documentaries) and I was totally blown away, then I saw Avatar in a normal 3D cinema and I was disappointed by how not so 3D it was, so I went to see it in IMAX, thinking it must have been the projection technology and screen size but I was disappointed again.
And I'm going to see TPM in 3D because it's got a lot of scenes that will look amazing in 3D. While the film is crapy in terms of it being STAR WARS, I'm sure it's gonna be a great 3D experience simply because it's an FX spectacle. And it's also (well, sadly) the first SW film I saw in cinema as a kid, so it's also got a nostalgia value for me.
Yeah, that's exactly what I said a few posts above.
Did the X0 team ever transfer the 1995 PAL LD? That could be interesting because it has less DVNR and more horizontal resolution, so a clean X0 transfer could actually be an improvement over the GOUT.
I think I won't because I already got rid of the source files from my HDD and moved on to Ep4. Here's a an idea though, there's a saturation setting on every TV and most computer monitors, so if you think it's oversaturated, you can turn it down yourself ;-)
OK, I see. But that's really weird. There's definitely less detail on R2 i the GOUT but look at Chewie's fur - there's definitely more detail in the GOUT there.
I'm pretty sure that is due to the higher PAL resolution. The PAL GOUT is only an upscale of the NTSC master, so the fact that the screen is from the PAL GOUT DVD doesn't really mean anything.
That's quite alright :-)
No, sorry.
Dunno, ask in hairy_hen's thread :-)
Thanks :-) Here's another one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfS-cwoMEfY
BTW. the latest sample looks awesome.
And then I cropped and resized it to 1280 width (which should always be the width of 720p video) while keeping the same AR and the resulting resolution was 1280x486 for the picture area.
I overlayed a screenshot from the latest sample over the same frame from the HD SE version (which I presume should be the correct aspect ratio) and adjusted it to fit like this:
Yeah, I was thinking that maybe they used the 1995 PAL master for Jedi? But then why wouldn't they use it for all the PAL GOUT DVDs? Does anyone know what tapes they used for the PAL transfers?
As far as I know, these tapes are the digital master, while LD holds analog video. So the GOUT is a professionally done re-encode from digital to digital, while a '93 LD transfer is digital converted to analog and back to digital from the same original source.
Cool B-)