What? It should be exactly the same.
EDIT: You're right - obviously, the information I was given that it is from the 97SE was wrong - this is clearly the 2004 version. In that case, you should definitely swap it for the original version of the scene, since there doesn't seem to be any narration during it anyway.
moviefreakedmind said:
I know on their video we noticed that the lightsabers looked 04-ish in the Star Wars clip, but what about this picture from Empire? Are these the original lightsabers? I believe they were redone on the blu ray, but I don't own it so I can't check.
http://www.rmwusa.com/
On their website at the top several images cycle through and one is of Luke and Vader in their Bespin duel.
That looks very much like the BD and it probably is too - remember, they are what used to be Lowry, so they did the 2004 restoration as well. And those sabers most likely weren't actually redone either - they just screwed up the colors.
If that works, sure :-)
I'm pretty sure it should be "change tempo/pitch" by -4,096%.
What program are you using for the editing? I definitely wouldn't recommend transcoding the file more than absolutely necessary, seeing as how it already has a very low bitrate. I was able to open it in Audacity and you can slow it down in there and export lossless wav and use that for the editing - eac3to will probably make it an AC3 file, right? And you definitely don't want that!
Yeah, I think they're PAL, I forgot that.
It's not as easy as just synching the sound of the 97SE mix to the DeEd because it has the narration in places where there is no dialogue, including the added bits (but @yoda-sama: it is the '97SE, so most of those changes you mention aren't there) but if you guys want to give it a shot, here you go:
ESB
The bitrate is pretty low but it's the best I managed to find.
For ESB and ROTJ it only exists for the 97SE and unlike the commentaries, it would be pretty difficult to re-cut it to fit the original - I have the files, if someone wants to attempt it though and then I'd be happy to include it in the next release.
As for that Web Commentary, I'd love to include that too but no one seems to have it for ESB and ROTJ.
Not with the currently available sources but I'm hoping for better ones down the line, so if I get them, the original Rancor will definitely be restored and I'm looking forward to it.
Oh, yeah, I forgot to change it - here's a link to the new one:
https://plus.google.com/u/1/photos/109609428403596349302/albums/6044645069501365185
Not yet.
Yeah, it was a good movie - I was just trying to say, that I wouldn't really call the apes there state-of-the-art.
Oh, yeah, I'm working on getting that - maybe not for v2.0 but it's definitely not forgotten.
I typed brachiosaurus and my spell-check uderlined it and offered brontosaurus as an alternative - true story.
@moviefreakedmind: I don't know - I didn't like the Tim Burton remake but I thought the apes (played by people in masks) looked frickin' awesome.
Maybe it was already known at the time, that Darth Vader was a dick, so they were basically just saying that he's a major dick. ;-)
@skyjedi: The resolution of Vista-vision is about twice that of a normal 35mm frame but it's quite irrelevant, because I'm pretty sure the finished effects only exist on 35mm anamorphic.
@mfm: I would personally consider that good enough but I also think, that today 4K is pretty much the standard and with their resources, it wouldn't be much more expensive than 2K, so 4K should therefore be used, even if they are scanning an IP - even theatrical prints benefit from 4K scanning, so an IP certainly would.
Oh, yeah, as long as it is given a proper treatment, an IP (or preferably multiple IPs) should be a perfectly acceptable source - the BD of Blade Runner looks great.
No, it certainly wasn't - the monkeys looked so terribly fake, I had a hard time watching the otherwise pretty good movie.
And yeah, the GotG CGI characters were pretty good but they are kind of cartoony by their nature, so that helps a lot (alongside the great story of course).
Darkless is an interesting word :)
But he wasn't talking about the window - that has been noticed before - he was talking about the floor panels. In the original, only the floor panel Vader's standing on is brighter, whereas in the SE, the next one's brighter as well - I wonder what was the point of that change - if anything, it would have made sense to make them all the same.
Oh, wow, never noticed that.
@darklordoftech: Yes, exactly.
@MaximRecoil: I simply disagree with this - people weren't used to seing CGI dinosaurs, so they seemed much more real back then, than the seem now - I know this, because I experienced it and my dad said this as well, last time we watched Jurassic Park. I just watched the 1st Harry Potter movie yesterday and I could spot things being obviously CGI, where I never spotted them before. And the LOTR example is a very good one as well - when I first saw those movies, they seemed flawless (visually anyway) and now, I can see all kinds of things looking fake and CGIed, though I can still see less CGI fakeness there than in the Hobbit movies, because there is simply less CGI - like Neverar says, people just learned to recognize the signs of something being CGI but in the early days, most people thought it was photo-realistic. You may be the exception to that but not the rule.
Sure, some CGI always looked bad (CGI Jabba is a great example) but most CGI definitely seems much more fake now, than it did when it was created.
I don't know, have you seen Jurassic Park recently - the CGI in it has aged a lot - the T-Rex scenes still look great, because they are in low light and there's rain and stuff but that first Brontosaurus shot (the CGI model of which they tweaked and re-purposed for the SE's Ronto) looks ultra fake today, yet, in 1993, everyone thought that it looked totally real - the perception of what looks real on screen and what doesn't has always changed over time - when they first showed footage of a train coming towards the camera in the early days of cinema, people were ducking and running out of the way - and that was black-and-white, grainy, 2D projection, likely at 15fps.
Yeah, I mean, I had all the information I needed to understand what was going on in ROTJ.
@Davextreme: Yeah, I know - but I've seen some 1080p iTunes files and they look awful compared to their BD counterparts but I suppose that if people are going to convert to this kind of shitty format anyway, it's still better to have a quality controlled encode from the original files out there.
@Adm. Kirk: Compare - you'll copy the MD5 checksum from the 1st post and then compare it with your file. I was introduced to this concept recently myself but it really is very useful for this stuff.
@Conquistador: The last part is supposed to be smaller - the others are all supposed to be the same size.