ImperialFighter

Ah, I see what you were getting at now euroherbal, but I just think this doesn't work out either.  I don't believe the set wall gives any indication that the floor is actually on an incline when Vader initially steps down towards the smaller, circular prop.  It's just the shot panning down that may give that impression.  On top of this, I don't remember any of the other shots of Vader's 'chamber' supporting this notion either, whenever we see the set...

I'm not sure about your actual '8' shape either at the end of the day, but I've noticed something else to think about now...

You'll notice in adywan's behind-the-scenes shot that the 'light grey' circle on the floor is cirling behind Vader on the platform...but in the bottom shot on my previous post...the 'light grey' circle is circling in front of him.  Things have been moved around compared to how the behind-the-scenes shot is layed out...

I'm still finding it hard to decide if we should see the step in the 'side onwards' hologram shot, or not...even with that behind-the-scenes shot that adywan's just posted.  But I think so.  Here's the shots again, to compare things easier on this page.

Radi0n said:

EDIT: wouldn't that mean that, even with the camera angle being below ground level, the chamber base would definitely be visible in the side shot?

This is what makes that bottom 'step' more likely to be not too far away from the same height of the smaller, circular prop, I'd say.  Although it's hard to tell.  It just remains to be seen if adywan thinks it should be slightly seen in the 'side onwards' shots where the distance between the props is concerned, though.

vaderios - I think I see what you mean now that I've clicked on the large image link I posted on the previous page.  But, I think you're wrong if that's the case, as the detail on those wall 'pylons' is different all the way around.  I just think this one is meant to be similar to the detail that we see on the one that is behind the very front of the Emperor hologram in this shot.

euroherbal said:

Look closely, my friends: see how the bottom wall is at the beginning of a ramp? :) That's why we don't see the chamber's rim in the next shot: it's below eye level.

Mistery solved!!! :)

Not sure what you mean here exactly euroherbal.  But I've just noticed in the 3 top shots I showed on the previous page, that it looks like the whole of the bottom step of the 'chamber' prop is itself 'raised up' a little with an angled bottom section.  At the end of the day, the relative distance and height of the props to each other are a little easier to judge if you rewatch the footage a little. 

I'll happily accept whatever adywan's take on it is at the end of the day, though.  :)

vaderios, I've no problem with the overall look of the 'surrounding' wall in the 3 'side onwards' shots personally, as the whole room has an indeterminate shape to it throughout various shots anyway.  I'm content that the 'perspective' of those 3 'side onwards' shots give a good enough impression that it still 'surrounds' the 'chamber' that is somewhere behind Vader.

vaderios said:

I thought the same thing Imp Fighter.

Still, it might bethe pylon that is in front of the chamber that hides a big part of it.

Now if ady wishes to add some glimpses on the floor then i'm ok with that :)

vaderios - I don't look on the 'chamber' behind Vader as being obscured by a pylon in any way, in the 'side onwards' shots of him kneeling.  If you look at the very top shot in my previous post, the walls of the room are 'wrapped around' behind it, at the end of the day.

Ziz - you may be right, but I'm still not 100% convinced.  The angles are deceiving, but I think the gap between the 2 props might just allow for it to be seen in the 'side onwards' shots too.  I realise that the smaller, circular platform is raised a little, allowing for it's illumination below, but I don't think that it's raised so high that we wouldn't see a hint of the bottom step of the 'chamber' base in relation to it in the 'side onwards' shots.

I'm interested to see if adywan reckons the 2 props are far enough apart in the other shots, to make the 'side onwards' ones correct, or not.  A part of me still thinks it should be slightly seen in them however.

Well, having now seen the fully-enhanced EMPEROR/VADER clip, it's turned out to be the 'definitive' version by far, compared to the original and SE versions, as far as I'm concerned.  Simply brilliant work by adywan, and yet another enhancement that exceeds what I hoped for from this edit at the outset.

There is a little something that I've always intended to bring up about this scene eventually though adywan, although I'm not 100% certain if I'm correct about it or not.  See what you think -

Shot 1 -  When we first see Vader kneel on the circular platform prop, it seems to be positioned quite close to the base of the large 'chamber' prop behind him...

Shot 2 -  ...but when we cut to this viewpoint below (these are just SE version shots, by the way folks), it always seems to me as if we should be able to see a slight portion of the base of the 'chamber' prop in the bottom left-hand side of the frame... 

So my question is, do you think we should see a hint of the black 'chamber' base prop (with similar 'reflections' as the smaller, circular platform here), or not?  Or do you reckon the base is rightly 'offscreen' here, and that the gap is fine?  It's a static shot, so it should be possible to add a hint of the base fairly easily, if you think that a little of it should indeed be seen here.  This same static viewpoint is seen 3 times during the whole scene, by the way...

And here's a larger version of it for a clearer look -  http://img52.imageshack.us/img52/4872/starwars51954.jpg

Shot 2 -  And here's another angle that shows the gap between the props, for you to judge it further.  As ever, it's best to see how things look from the shots in motion...

Heh, now that's an equally dark scenario ray_afraid...

I think on balance though, that I'd rather the origin/parentage of Anakin had been left unsaid and unrevealed onscreen, and left to the imagination as a mystery...no matter where anyone's imagination might lead them about it, lol.

Akwat Kbrana said:

I sincerely believe that none of those forum members I mentioned would ever leak the workprint if Ady asked them not to.

Hell, I doubt any of us would ever leak it even if adywan did ask us to!  :)

Anyway, nice to see this latest recognition of the movie -  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-12085224

It's a toss-up whether this reasoning is any worse than the 'immaculate conception' origin for Anakin that GL gave us.  I'm torn...

But seriously, if I recall correctly, adywan is planning on not having Anakin build his mum a 'protocol' droid to begin with, for his eventual TPM:Revisited, which helps.  And I'm kinda hoping that he'll simply omit that part of the Qui-Gon/Shmi conversation, when the time comes.

adywan said:

They also removed my comments so i'm going to write one again.

Heh, this article you flagged up was some piece of work adywan.

I felt compelled to comment too, lol...which I did as 'DisappointedSWFan' on page 3 of the comments after it.  And I thought some of the points raised on the same page by commenter 'Andy Havens' were interesting...if not a little depressing, especially the reminders about how the whole 'Anakin's mum/birth' deal was handled.  (you know, Shmi's unlikely, unsatisfactory 'explanation' to Qui-Gon in TPM could also be interpreted as a complete 'lie' to Qui-Gon when he has the audacity to ask about it, lol.  At the end of the day, we don't get to know what 'kind' of slavery she's involved in, and maybe she didn't 'know' who Anakin's dad was...  And although there's been some comments about how a 'protocol' droid seemed an unlikely choice to help her out...it would be perfect for interpretive dealings with various alien unsavoury types on her behalf/Watto's behalf, if you get my meaning...  No, no, surely not...)

I meant to add my own sadness at hearing this news at the time, but got side-tracked.

Anyway, it's good to know that his most famous movie has just been announced as being amongst the latest ones that are being preserved for posterity by the US Library of Congress as part of it's National Film Registry -  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-12085224

Couple of thoughts -  I take it that it's the PRE-SE version of ESB that they'll be preserving!  Also, since STAR WARS (again, I hope it's the original version...) has already been chosen for preservation, surely they can't miss out on the last chapter eventually?  I'm not sure that the prequels will get the same attention however...

kenkraly2007 said:

I agree with everyone here even though I sometimes don't and I think It is important to preserved the original theatrical cuts of the original star wars trilogy from 77-83 for histrionical reasons.

As if there hasn't been enough 'histrionics' over them...  ;)

Now I realise English may not be your first language ken, but I love that you agree with everyone here even though you sometimes don't...

GoldStone9 - I don't think it's listed on adywan's first post yet, so here's the Youtube clip - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mt6E1-_vXQU

But just to remind everyone, there's still an 'exclusive' clip for any donator's before the end of January, which shows the complete 'Emperor/Vader' exchange.  See this post - http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/STAR-WARS-EP-V-REVISITED-EDITION-ADYWAN-CHRISTMAS-CLIP-NOW-AVAILABLE/post/454858/#TopicPost454858

gurgle1624 said:

  What concerns me more than the body movement with Yoda, which I noticed but didnt really care about, is the scaling of the floating X-Wing as it advances towards Luke. It just seems that the scaling is off.

  Compare the size of the front landing gear as it advances towards Luke (using Luke as a size guide) and then as it actually lands in the close up shot next to Luke.

  Seems as if the X-Wing is smaller as it advances and then is its normal size as it lands, again using Luke as a guide.

   Either that or Ive just had to much eggnog tonite.

Can't say that I've ever had any problem with the scale of the X-wing in this shot myself gurgle1624, but I had a look at it seeing as you mentioned it.

Personally, I'm still satisfied that it does the job reasonably well, given it's kind of 'forced perspective' look, and I reckon the bottom shot is a better one to use as a comparison of Luke's size beside the X-wing prop, overall -

I'm sure looking forward to eventually finding the time to go into a few thoughts/possibilities to do with all the other 'Dagobah' stuff that's been mentioned here recently.

adywan said:

Yes, i will be erasing the engines.

Great.  Thanks for confirming that.  :)

adywan said:

ImperialFighter, the medical frigate is a bit of a problem.  It's going to be very hard to add the interior in the first shot.  I haven't given up hope but there aren't any shots of the interior from that angle that I could add the missing elements.  The shot that pans across from the falcon you can now see the droids in the window.  The outer edges of the window i don't know if you would see it or not from the inside at those angles.  I doubt i would be adding anything like that.

While it would be neat if anything at all could be done to enhance the first shot, then at least the removal of the 'glow' in the second shot would help match things, if it turns out not to be possible. 

However, it's awesome news that you've been able to include a glimpse of C3PO and R2 into the panning close-up of the window adywan!  :)

As far as the outside detail being slightly visible through the left-hand side of the full-scale window, I don't have any decent additional material to judge this properly.  But as Monroville mentioned, the outer detail is at a slant compared to the inset window, and I'm interested to see whatever savmagoett draws up eventually.

Can you also confirm if it's going to be possible to match the actual shape of the miniature's inset window with the angles seen on the full-scale one, or not?  (Monroville - that was certainly an interesting idea to alter all the full-scale shots instead, if not.  Angles that match the miniature instead would work I guess, although it seems an awful lot of work)

adywan said:

I have erased the galaxy/forming star from the first 2 shots as there is no way you'd see it that early.

Yet another neat improvement, as I don't have to imagine the Medical Frigate is kinda 'circling around it in some kind of distant orbit' between the shots anymore!  :)

HigHurtenflurst said;

Just a question from a curious observer...  Do you guys ever find that obsessive frame by frame nit-picking of a movie like this, and the incredible amount of knowledge you have of all the behind the scenes magic ever prevent you from simply losing yourself in the story?  Can you sit down, watch it from start to finish and lose yourself in it, or do you find yourself analyzing every little bit?

I've watched ANH:R many times now and love how all the little changes have made the SW world so much more vivid and real, and I expect even greater things from ESB:R and even so much more from ROTJ:R, but I don't have the level of involvement that you all seem to.  I can still lose myself in it.

So, just wondering if the movie is still magic for all of you, like when you were 10, or if it's more of an appreciation of the technical elements now?

Well, my own personal take on this is that I definately can and do still lose myself in the movie's story where ANH:R is concerned...and have no doubt I will be able to do the same with ESB:R eventually, once the final release is completed and out there.

However, like ANH:R when I first saw it, it will take a few viewings to get used to the shock of the new (and improved) ESB over the previous versions that I've been used to over the years, so that I get the distracting appreciation of all the new enhancements out of my system.

When I watch ANH:R now, I can watch it as if the movie was always this way, right till the end.  On the other hand, I'd find it difficult to watch either the original or SE versions now without being totally distracted...by all the little flaws and inconsistencies that adywan has touched up now!

So to sum up, it wouldn't be easy to immerse myself totally in ESB's story at the moment, if I was to watch the original or SE versions...but that's only because I've been involved in studying various scenes for inconsistencies for the time being.  Once adywan has decided enough's enough at some point, and is satisfied with what he's done, I know his version will become my preferred one without a doubt...and I'll eventually be able to watch it for the storyline without any major distractions, once I've gotten used to it.

And this process will be repeated with ROTJ:R onwards, hopefully.

But if ol' George had just gone ahead and released his original versions on DVD in a high quality way years ago, I'd have been none the wiser, and have continued to love the O.T. the way it used to look to me.  But ironically, his initial tinkering made me realise that he could have done so much better in many ways, when he tried to improve what I had already been very satisfied with.  Thankfully, a guy came along who actually managed to.  :) 

Here's the third thing -

Do you think there should be a slight hint of the 'miniature's outer protruding detail seen in Shot 1 added to the left of the full-scale 'window' seen in Shot 2, or not?  (I'm uncertain about this, but am interested to see if you reckon it would be visible at all, due to the angle that we see out of the full-size 'window' in Shot 2)

Shot 1 -

Shot 2 -

Here's how things look directly from the outside, which may help to decide if anything would show, or not...

...and here's a larger version so that it's clearer -  http://img219.imageshack.us/img219/1145/starwars54453.jpg

Here's the fourth and final thing -

Is it going to be possible for you to add a glimpse of C3PO and R2 as seen in Shot 2 into the right-hand side of the miniature 'window' seen in Shot 1, even though it's a moving shot?

If so, due to the angle, do you reckon that we would see a portion of them both, or just R2?  C3PO is initially close to the edge of the full-scale 'window' in Shot 2, which matches where he's positioned when we eventually see him in Shot 3 below...

Shot 3 -

...but while R2 is situated in a spot where we'd likely see a portion of him in the miniature's 'window', I'm curious if you reckon we'd also see a little of C3PO's right arm, or not, from that angle...since he doesn't step nearer towards R2 until a little afterwards...

I'm looking forward to seeing if anything can be done with any of these things.

Here's the second thing -

Do you reckon you are going to be able to make the shape of the miniature's inset 'window' match the angles of the full-scale one, even though it's a moving shot?

Thanks for putting those 2 adywan interview links up doubleofive.

Some interesting snippets in them both.  :)

adywan, there's still a few things concerning the 'Medical Frigate' that I'm interested to know if you're planning to do something with, or not, but I'll need to go into them over 3 seperate posts to make things easier for me to describe properly -

Here's the first thing -

Shot 1 -  In this first series of screenshots showing the initial shot of the 'Medical Frigate' coming towards us, the 'window' bay is not 'lit' up...

Shot 2 -  ...but when we then immediately cut to this next shot below, the 'window' bay is 'lit' up now...

Shot 3 -  ...then we cut to this shot...

Shot 4 -  ...then we cut to this shot...

 Shot 5 -  ...then we cut to this shot...

Shot 6 -  ...then we cut to this shot...

Do you reckon you are able to give a hint of a 'light' glow to the 'window' that is currently 'greyed' out in Shot 1, so that it ties in with the glow we can see in Shot 2?  (I doubt that you'd be able to show a tiny C3PO and R2 at the 'window' of this moving shot...but then they haven't necessarily gone over to the window until a few moments later anyway, so it wouldn't matter, lol)  But a hint of a 'light' glow would be good at least, if possible.

Although my first choice would be to see a hint of 'light' added to Shot 1, you could alternatively just also 'grey' out the one seen in Shot 2 as well, so that it wouldn't be so jarring...and we'd then just focus on the 'lit' up 'window' by the time we get to see it properly in close-up in Shot 5.  See what you think.

vaderios said:

Also its me or its the same shot that were used in the both sequences? if yes ( you can see in the overlay image) shouldnt be different one from the other? its more foggy too!

 

If tho you can consider to do some changes to the second establishing shot (yes even its for 4 seconds) i would like have it a bit zoomed out so the Xwing have more path to travel to the ground.

vaderios, although I started to draft this yesterday after seeing your comparison shots, I've only had a chance to finish this post off today.  I'm a bit late to the party now it seems, but here's how I see this -

While the backgrounds in these 2 X-wing shots may be very similar (although not identical), I reckon they both still work pretty well overall.  Thing is, the level of the background in the 2nd shot is positioned lower down than in the 1st shot...giving the (proper) impression that the X-wing has travelled nearer to the shore during the cutaway to Yoda, having passed over the 'watery' area we see in the 1st shot...and this is why we (correctly) see only the 'foggy' area in the 2nd shot...

However, I reckon there's a questionmark to do with how far away the X-wing's starting position seems to be from Yoda's, Luke's, and R2's position here, compared to how close it seemed to be to them in some previous shots...  Depite this, the overall effect remains magical, of course.  :)

Anyway, I just wanted to add that I remember really liking this particular mockup below of yours at the time...even though I'd like see a slightly 'gloomier' look to it overall, to match the look of the original a little better.  (I think I'm right in thinking you grabbed a portion of the background 'set' from the shot where Yoda beckons back to Luke to follow him) -

I liked the extra 'reality' that the existing 'set' elements you used gave to the shot over the original painted matte.  But even if adywan only gives it a slight enhancement eventually, I've no doubt that his version will look better than than the current SE shot.  His recolouration alone will improve it, if nothing else.

adywan, good to see that you gave everyone an early christmas present of the Dagobah/Shuttle clip, as I was keen to see how you ended up finishing off that sequence, compared to the incomplete 'workprint'.  The subtlety of your Yoda blinks is wonderful throughout, and now that I can see something else you've cleverly managed to do...it's thrown up a couple of issues I'd like to go into before too long.  Since you've shown your current intentions, I'll finally get around to finishing off that humongous 'Dagobah' post which I've been meaning to get around to since ages.  :)    Some 'Dagobah' scenes are a continuity nightmare, and it won't be pretty...but although certain things will have to remain a compromise, I'm going to be interested to get your take on certain aspects of it all.  (Before I get around to that though, I'm hoping to finish off a post concerning a few outstanding things I'm curious about, to do with the 'Medical Frigate' sequence which come before your now perfect Falcon trajectory scene)

But until then, here's a little something that I'd also like to hightlight.  It's just a brief thing, but it's certainly something that always catches my eye now.  It concerns the shots where Han enters the rebel hangar and dismounts -

At the end of the top shot, as shown here, there is a Snowspeeder situated beside the 'ice pillar' behind Han and his Taun-Taun...

...but when we then immediately cut to Han dismounting in close-up, we suddenly see the rear engines of an X-wing appear beside the pillar...

Is it possible for you to 'erase' the engines in the close-up of Han, so that we'd only see the 'ice pillar' here, so that this isn't such a jarring continuity error any more?  See what you think.

Here's a large version of the top shot for a clearer look at what I mean - http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/8/screenshot637.png

adywan said:

I was just watching the ILM: Creating the impossible documentary and they showed a few scenes from TPM. Now this was presented in HD and this was definitely the new TPM transfer that will be on the Blu-Ray. The difference between the existing HD transfer (which is the same as the DVD transfer) and the new one is astounding. Now this was taken from a compressed broadcast so some detail is probably lost, like grain etc, but now the proof is out there that it will indeed be a new transfer with the colouring fixed.

Now they also showed a few clips from the OT and, to me, the colouring looked almost the same as the 2004 transfer. I'm going to go through it to get some comparison snapshots and i'll post them later. But if the colouring is indeed the same then you can almost guarantee that this is what we'll get for the Blu-Ray.

 

adywan said:

Well, guess what?  I was right.  The OT clips were from the same 2004 transfer.

Gah, I can't bear to look.  It never ceases to amaze me how GL settled for the severe tinting and crushed blacks which ended up ruining the colour and detail of his originals.  The only real difference in colour I'm expecting for the Blu-ray releases will be Luke's 'green' sabre in ANH being fixed now.  Maybe.  Which LF will no doubt hail as a great new 'creative choice' that fans should appreciate.  Either way, I'll be too busy watching 'ESB:Revisited' for it to bother me anymore.  :)

As far as the new non-pink transfer for TPM, the difference looks striking indeed, judging by your comparisons adywan, although I'm mainly just interested in what yourself and others will be able to do with it eventually.  I just hope that the 'deleted' scenes have been given the same colour-timing too though...

Filthy Pierre said:

Adywan are you doing a fix for the scale of the TIE Fighters for Vaders fleet?

There is one shot of a TIE going behind the command section of a Star Destroyer that would make the TIE extremely large.

The scale being wrong happens a few times. I'm going off the fact the Star Destroyer is 1600m long I'm not sure if that is the case or not.

I thought perhaps remove TIEs that are wrong scale

Reduce them to make them in scale

or have them cut in front of the command section to remove scale problem.

Sorry I don't have any pics for reference just yet.

Then adywan replied...

adywan said:

I think i know which scene you are talking about.  It's the one where we see the shadow of the stardestroyer covering up the stardestroyer just after the probe has been destroyed.  The TIE that goes behind the bridge has been removed and the one that looks like it comes from behind the bridge actually just appears from nowhere as it is missing from the first few frames.  All these have been fixed in this shot, but i haven't seen this happening anywhere else apart from this shot.

This was another little thing I've never noticed before, but which is satisfying to have fixed for this particular edit now!

But just to clarify things, I take it adywan meant these 2 shots, rather than just one of them -

You really need to study the footage, but here's a link to a LARGE version of this top shot for everyone, where if you look closely at the 'ball' atop the tower on the right of the frame, you can just make out where a TIE is diving down behind the tower at too big a scale compared to it, before it goes on to emerge again near where the other TIE is seen receding towards the bottom left of the tower -  http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/9892/starwars50702.jpg

...and again, you need to study the footage, but here's a link to a LARGE version of the very next shot as the shadow continues to pass over the stardestroyer, where the smallest TIE seen in the shot is moving to the right below the tower, before also going behind it at too big a scale compared to it -  http://img42.imageshack.us/img42/1180/starwars50704.jpg

adywan said:

If i was to change the angle of the ship then wouldn't i have to use an existing shot for this, which would then create a copy paste scenario?  The shot is fine as it is.  I've never had a problem with it, and i don't think there would be any stardestroyers following it out as vader would have ordered them to continue the search for the falcon.

Since I was mulling over whether to add my own 2 cents about this initial response at the time a couple of days ago anyway, I guess I might as well chip in now -

Personally, I'm very glad that the original look of this shot is being kept as it is, because it was always one of my favourite effects shots of the Executor.  As was previously shown, it is noticeably different to how it looks in the first reveal of it earlier in the movie, and I reckon it's 'overhead' view as it exits the asteroids, is a superior and more ominous look somehow, than a 'side-on' replacement would be...

...and I have to agree with the notion that we wouldn't necessarily see any 'accompanying' stardestroyers at this point, which I'll come back to.

And I also have to say, that rather than a 'flpped' re-use of another shot, that I also happen to prefer this particular section of the Executor too, as seen in the original shot from earlier on in the movie...

...because I like the colour that the engine glow gives to this shot (even though I guess the new asteroid explosion will probably give some colour too)...and because of the 'scale' comparison that we get here between the command tower on the SD nearest us, in relation to the distant command tower we see on the Executor.

(And although you really need to study the footage in motion, I think that all 3 stardestroyers here are filmed in such a way that they all slightly 'pan around' upwards in unison during the shot...and I don't know if adding the 'flipped' section of the Executor would match this movement properly anyway)

Anyway, going back to the 'accompanying' Stardestroyers thing - when we intially see this shot where the asteroid smashes into the SD tower, all these stardestroyers are presumably still pretty much inside the asteroid field at this point.  We then cut to Vader inside the Executor telling his (remaining) hologram commanders "...I want every ship available to sweep the asteroid field until they are found" (including the ones that were 'accompanying' the Executor in the 'asteroid explosion' shot beforehand, presumably)... before telling Piett to move the ship out of the asteroid field for a better transmition to the Emperor, as he rounds the corridor.  We then immediately cut to the shot of the Executor exiting the asteroids seen at the very top here...but I always see this shot as being a slight 'jump ahead in time', rather than the Executor just happening to be about to exit the asteroids at that point anyway. 

I at least allow enough time for Vader to have gone around the corner, down the steps, through the doorway and into his chamber (which I always think of as being positioned not too far away from the Bridge, as described many moons ago)...before I imagine we're at the point that the very top shot shows, before we then immediately cut to Vader approaching the Emperor's hologram.  In other words, I imagine the Executor has 'pulled away' from it's 'accompanying' stardestroyers by the time we see it exit the asteroids, as they have slowed and remained futher back, sweeping inside the field as Vader ordered...and are therefore now offscreen in the frame.  That's just my own take on things of course.

Finally, and this is just a very minor thing adywan, but this comparison shot reminded me of something I'd noticed about the underside view of the Executor...

...in the top version (which is our first proper view of the Executor in the movie), the detail that 'juts out' underneath seems different to how it looks in the bottom (reversed) version seen here.  It's no biggie, but I'm wondering if this bit of the top version it can be tidied-up a little to match better?  Especially when we have just immediately cut from this 'close-up' of how it's lit.  Note: I'm referring to the end area of the bit that 'juts out' here...

See what you think.

Bobby Jay said:

ImperialFighter

Could you please let us know which model the 42" Panasonic was. I had heard Panasonic had announced some new models featuring 2D to 3D conversion but wasn't aware they had been released yet.

Sure, I'll check the model number when I get a chance to go back again sometime over the next fortnight.  However, I'm hoping to check on a couple of other brands too such as Samsung and LG, if I can find a demonstration model of each locally, to see how their 2D-3D conversion compare's to the Panasonic I looked at.

I've not been able to come across much in the way of detailed comments on the whole 'in-built' 2D-3D conversion thing where 3D tvs are concerned, but this particular link I found yesterday gave a little bit more of a mention to it than most I've seen.  Click on this, then click on where it mentions 2D-to-3D conversion -  http://www.digitalversus.com/bringing-tv-to-life-with-2d-to-3d-conversion-news-13322.html

And here's a very in-depth guide to 3D formats in general that Bill Hunt from TheDigitalBits has posted recently, that covers just about everything in an easy-to-understand way - http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articles/jeffkleist/3d2010primer.html

SUPER 8  (released 2011/directed by J. J. Abrams)

Theatrical Trailer - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxIZX5FEntA

(I'll add this to the other one on page 1, sometime)