ImperialFighter

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)

WORLD INVASION: BATTLE LOS ANGELES  (released 2011/directed by Jonathan Liebesman)

Teaser Trailer - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kavT6W84q5E  NOW GONE!  Will look for replacement soon.

International Teaser Trailer - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zT_YL1085cY

ray_afraid said:

Tobar said:

I like what we've seen of Needa's new shuttle for Revisited.

Are there any stills of that? I don't think I've seen anything.

ray_afraid, I'm guessing you never saw number 61 listed in my signature 'roundup'.  If not, click on the link sometime for a few other things you may have missed.

*slightly off-topic, people*- but in case you miss it, check out the bottom-half of my post here concerning something that could give 'EMPIRE:Revisited' a whole new slant eventually.  I want one NOW! :)  -   http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/AVATAR-and-3d-in-general/post/454732/#TopicPost454732  http://originaltrilogy.com/forum

Okay, here's a couple of thoughts I wanted to post here, while I've got a little time...

A few days ago, I picked up the 3-disc standard dvd release of the AVATAR 'Extended Collector's Edition' which was finally released last week, and watched it over the weekend.  (I even managed to pick it up for far less than the bare-bones, 'Theatrical'-only version...so I'm glad I held off for this.  Bargain.)

Anyway, this was the first time I'd re-watched it again, since seeing the original 'Theatrical' version twice on the big-screen in 3D at the end of last year. 

So I duly put on the even-longer 'Extended Collector's Edition' cut to see how things now looked in 2D...

Firstly, as someone who was very keen to see the originally-omitted 'Future Earth' scenes incorporated into the start of the movie, I'm delighted with how this new opening looks now.  It's just a short sequence overall, and although we only get a very small glimpse of the crowded, grimy world that Jake's character lives in...it's more than enough to give a really interesting contrast to the wonders of Pandora that come afterwards.  I reckon it fleshes out our initial introduction to Jake much, much better now, and these new scenes make for a far stronger beginning.  Considering there was talk of this sequence just ending up in the dvd's 'deleted scenes' at one point, I'm relieved that it finally got integrated into this cut.  I just wish it had been there to begin with, when AVATAR was first released.

On top of that, there's a handful of other small but very worthy additional scenes along the way now too, which definately makes this even-longer cut the definitive version for me from now on, without a doubt.  No matter what's in amongst the 'unfinished' deleted scenes, I'm very satisfied with the movie as it stands now.

Apart from the new visuals on offer, watching AVATAR in 2D this time around seemed a very different experience compared to when I'd originally seen it.  Things still looked great overall, but the lack of 'dimensionalization' was pretty jarring at times, especially in certain moments where I remembered being especially 'wowed' by the 3D 'immersion' at the time.  I really wish I'd gone to see it in it's 'Theatrical' 2D showing too, at one point...as my 'memory' of how the movie *should* look is now firmly fixed as being 3D in my mind, if you see what I mean.  Even if I was to re-watch it in 2D a couple of times over the next few months, I reckon it won't ever seem *correct* to me, except in it's 3D Blu-ray incarnation eventually, lol.  (just an aside, but the standard dvd's 'Theatrical'/'Special Edition'/'Extended Collected Edition' cuts are split mid-way across disc 1 and disc 2, effectively turning it into a 'flipper' disc like the 'Lord of the Rings:Extended Edition's dvds were...  However, the cuts are thankfully all on disc 1 only, on the Blu-ray release)

Another reason why I wish I'd gone to see it's 2D cinema showing now, is because I'd have liked to have seen how it came across in a 'cinemascope' aspect ratio, compared to the 16:9 ratio that the 3D version was presented.  Thing is, Cameron has previously stated that while he prefers a 16:9 ratio for 3D presentations, he still thinks that the wider 'cinemascope' ratio suits 2D movies better...except the 2D dvd releases have not been formatted in 'cinemascope' after all, it turns out, which contradicts what he'd previously said in the past on that point.  Personally, I think I'd have preferred the 2D releases to have been in 'cinemascope', and now regret not going to check out how it looked in that 'Theatrical' format.  Just out of curiosity, did anyone here happen to see both 2D and 3D versions of AVATAR on the big screen?

Onto the little matter of something else now...

I had an interesting experience yesterday, because I got my first ever look at some genuine 'psuedo'-3D 'converted' footage of STAR WARS...

No, not the upcoming 3D 'conversion' of GL's 'Special Editions' that may be years away from release yet, after his Prequels...but something else... 

You see, I'd recently been reading about how some of the latest 3D-enabled tvs are supposedly capable of 'converting' a 2D source into a 3D picture of sorts, without the need for 3D Blu-rays or 3D programming...but because proper info. seemed a little vague to come by, I decided to investigate a little.  So I popped into my local 'Panasonic' dealership to see what I could find out.  Well, it seems that some manufacturers have indeed managed to incorporate this particular feature into some of their latest models, including 'Panasonic' now...even though they had originally opted out of including this feature, as they didn't think it was viable technology at the time, and would distract from the forthcoming actual 3D content... However, they had ended up changing their minds, probably because they didn't want others stealing a march on them in this area.

Anyway, the manager was a friendly guy who had just happened to have set-up a particular 42" demonstration model earlier, that incorporated this feature...but although he knew it worked with the standard, non-3D Blu-rays he had in-store, he didn't know if it worked with standard dvds or not, but was interested to try it.  So just as well I'd happened to take one along with me to find out...  I put it in the Blu-ray player as he turned the surround-sound up a tad, and dimmed the nearby lights, as we both put our demo glasses on...and lo and behold...there was adywan's 'STAR WARS:Revisited' looking as I'd never seen it before!  :)

The in-built '2D to 3D' mode had given the movie a kind of 'seeing into a window' look which gave things a 'layered'-3D look to everything, and managed a subtle, 'immersive' depth that I liked. 

Now, I only had time to flick through a couple of quick sample scenes -  the scroll and opening sequence up to when Vader appears/the Death Star escape TIE Battle/and a good part of the End Battle...but it certainly had a decent amount of 'dimensionalized' impact to it that I wasn't expecting, and I was quite gutted that I couldn't stand and watch the whole movie that way, there and then, lol! 

The manager (Mike, a guy in his 30's) thought adywan's edit looked amazing of course, and was as engrossed as I was with the effect of it in the 'conversion' mode, so I said I'd organise a spare copy for him.

Considering I wasn't sure this 'psuedo'-3D effect would even work with the dvd in the first place, it was a blast.  As a 'stop-gap' to fill the lack of 3D material at the moment, this is feature that plenty of people will be keen to play about with in the meantime, till more 3D programming appears.  I guess it comes down to how much you personally like the novelty value of this 3D-'style' effect when you see it, as it won't be for everyone.  But I found it fascinating, and I'd certainly re-watch most of my dvds using this setting, to get a whole new fresh perspective out of them...albeit one that I wouldn't expect to match the quality of an actual 3D Blu-ray.

But there's more to consider if any of you are wanting to, and in the position to get one of these currently expensive sets sometime -  after my good experience with the 'Panasonic' set, I decided to quickly pop into my local 'Sony' dealership to compare one of their's too...  Well, it turned out that the one I was shown gave a far less impressive 'depth' effect than the 'Panasonic' model.  But of course, it could just have been that the dealership's settings weren't tweaked effectively when I tried it.  Or it might mean that some manufacturer's really do have much less effective '2D to 3D' trickery built-into their products than others... 

Bottom line, is that it's possible to watch 'a kind of' 3D STAR WARS (or anything else) right now...and I would love to get my hands on the 42" 'Panasonic' I demo'd, just for this feature alone...even though it's smaller than my current 50" screen.  But judging by this small sampling alone, I'll certainly be taking my time to rigorously compare the quality of this feature between various manufacturer's sets, whenever I'm in the position to upgrade again in the future.

And lastly...'Mike the manager' had a copy of 'Panasonic's exclusive 3D Blu-ray of AVATAR playing on another demonstration model yesterday, but I didn't have enough time to check it out.  I take it that it's only the 'Theatrical' cut, but I'm intending to go back and see how good the effect is, as it will be the first actual 3D Blu-ray that I will have watched properly.  And I'm going to pop my standard dvd of AVATAR into the tv set I tested yesterday, so that I can get a rough idea of just how different the quality is between the 'proper'-3D effect, and the 'psuedo'-3D effect, between the two.

I'll mention my thoughts about that, at some point in the future. 

AuggieBenDoggie said:

@ImperialFighter

To be honest, the continuity errors during that whole end sequence have never bothered me. They are not at the point where they stand out like the Walkers in the hoth battle do ( all over the place ).

I think the movie still works fine with or without them....the continuity errors during that end sequence I mean.

Sure, the overall movie has always been awesome, and will always work fine, no matter how many little continuity errors there are that may niggle me or anyone else.  But since there's the opportunity to bring every single one of them up to someone who is capable of improving many of them, no matter how big or small, then I'm pleased when any are highlighted.  There's certainly been a heap of things mentioned here by various people that I'd never noticed before, and that have never bothered me before...but it's sure nice to know that adywan has managed to fix so many of them so far.

Not everything that's brought up can be sorted, and there's some compromises that have to be allowed for along the way with certain other things, but I can certainly confirm that I'm extremely impressed and delighted with how everything about the section of the 'end sequence' that I brought up has been enhanced now, and I'm sure you will be too. 

adywan said:

The continuity errors have been fixed, including the transparency issues with the falcon, the strange flight path and other things

They certainly have been!  :)

Monroville said:

adywan said:

Monroville said:

Even so, it would make more sense (to me) to show the Falcon moving away from us, since that is what it was doing in the previous shot as it was leaving the underbelly of the frigate, as opposed to just veering off to the left.  That's all I'm sayin'.

I tried it with the falcon  just flying straight towards it, but in the final shot there was nothing to see. The falcon works best if it veers off to the left and in the final shot we can see it in the distance flying off screen

Understandable; I never thought that the Falcon would already be pretty small in the picture and having it fly directly away from us could get it lost in the galaxy image.

I guess maybe actually show the Falcon heading directly away and veer to the left/lower left (or even more to the center left of the screen)?  That way you still have a good profile of the Falcon, and altering the left turn towards the lower end of the screen as opposed to the higher end would keep it in the same general plane of space it was when it left from underneath the frigate.

Overall, I'm just a composition guy.  It's not a big deal, but the Falcon always looked weird just flying off to the upper left corner the way it does.

Okay adywan, I've been meaning to bring up a few things to do with the whole 'galaxy' sequence ever since Monroville first brought it up on page 146 in 2008.  (but I knew it would need a long post to describe properly, so kept putting it off, lol)  Better late than never, I guess!  :)

Since then, you've confirmed that you think of the 'celestial object' as being a distant 'star' that's forming, as opposed to being the distant 'galaxy' where Han is being kept prisoner.  And your interpretation certainly works for me, as it makes sense of Lando's eventual 'wayward' flightpath upwards to the left, and away from the 'celestial object', if this is the case...

(Alternatively, for anyone that still wants to look on the original effect as a 'galaxy' as described in the screenplay...well, it's not necessarily the one where Tatooine and Han are located...and could just be a *random* 'Star Wars galaxy' seen in the far distance...which would equally account for why the Falcon currently flies away in a different direction from it, instead of heading towards it)

Either way, I see you've also now confirmed that you're planning on keeping a similar Falcon flightpath in the overall sequence, as seen originally.  However, there are a couple of things I'd like to bring up about the Falcon's current trajectory between the various shots, so I've organised these screenshots of the sequence to help me explain my thoughts better to everyone, as I go along (but you really need to study the actual footage to see the proper movements, of course) -

Shot 1.  At the start of this shot below, the Falcon is 'hovering' and turning around a little, just slightly below and along from the position where the window with Luke, Leia, R2 and C3PO is situated 'offscreen' on the left of the frame.  As it does this, the 'Medical Frigate' continues to move along to the left...so that by the time the Falcon finally blasts away near the end of the shot, the 'offscreen' window is a good bit away to the left of it at this point... 

Shot 2.  ...we then cut to this next shot below (I didn't have time to grab the exact start and finish of this, so you'd need to study the footage) which shows the Falcon now appearing from a point underneath the middle of the window, as it heads towards the right-hand side of the 'celestial body' in the distance, and ends up roughly in line with, and just slightly to the right of the 'small white dot', before the shot ends... 

...but the Falcon's appearance from underneath the middle of the 'Medical Frigate's window here has always seemed wrong to me, due to the fact that the window had moved quite a bit away from the position from where the 'hovering' Falcon blasted away in Shot 1 just beforehand.

However, judging by the angle of the Falcon in adywan's recent new screenshot below, it looks like this problem is 'fixed' now, and will tie-in far better with the previous shot...

So far so good, and this new shot looks great.

Shot 3.  ...but we then cut to this next shot of Leia and Luke looking out at the Falcon...

...and this is where my own particular problems with the sequence start...because as the shot progresses (and again, I didn't have time to grab a shot from the very end of this, so you'd need to study the footage), not only do their eyes 'follow' the flight of the Falcon upwards, but they also slowly look over to (their) right...especially Leia, who is looking quite a bit over to her right by the very end of the shot.  And bear in mind that the 'Medical Frigate' is still continuing to travel to Leia's right during this shot too...so this makes the Falcon's existing position that we previously saw at the very end of Shot 2 seem as if it didn't go far enough over to the right of that shot, before it eventually starts to 'veer around' offscreen during this one... 

So I reckon that Leia's 'eye-line' here indicates that the Falcon should have been seen to pass 'across' her viewpoint a bit more to the right in Shot 2, compared to what it currently shows...and I'm hoping that adywan's new Falcon trajectory in Shot 2 is going to show that.

Shot 4.  ...we then cut to this 'closer' shot of the Falcon, which happens to be my own biggest bugbear with the overall sequence...because although it certainly follows the look of the original 'storyboard' closely, I've always disliked this particular effects shot...mainly because it always looks to me as if the Falcon is just flying closely over the top of a very tiny 'celestial body' here!... 

...and there's something else that I find jarring about this shot too, although it's a bit tricky to get across -  as I say, I don't think the Falcon ended up far enough over to the right by the end of Shot 2, judging by how far over to the right that Leia is looking by the end of Shot 3...but I also don't think the starting position of the Falcon in this 'closer' shot of the 'celestial body' ties-in very well with where the Falcon ended up at the very end of Shot 2 either (and once again you need to watch the footage as I didn't have time to grab the very beginning of this shot)...because previously in Shot 2, the 'celestial body' was centrally located in the shot compared to where Luke and Leia were looking out, and it was moving slowly to their left in the shot due to the travel of the 'Medical Frigate' they were aboard...and that was before Leia then carried on looking to her right to watch the Falcon's (offscreen) trajectory. 

My point is this -  to make sense of the Falcon's direction at the start of this 'closer' shot of the 'celestial body' compared to where we last saw it at the end of Shot 2, I ideally imagine the Falcon has just ended 'veering around' (offscreen) at the moment that Leia is most looking up to her right at the very end of Shot 3...but it always seems that the Falcon should be further to the right of the frame here at the very start of this shot, than it currently is...or should even be actually entering the far right of the frame, to better match where Leia's 'eye-line' had been looking previously... 

However, at the moment I don't know where adywan's new trajectory in Shot 2 is going to end up in the frame when the shot finishes...so I'm interested to see if it ends up further over to the right of the shot than in the existing version, so that it takes Leia's continued 'look to her right' in Shot 3 into consideration. 

But whether the Falcon finishes up in roughly the same position by the end of Shot 2 as is currently shown, or not...there's still a couple of possible variations that I reckon might be worth considering for this later, 'closer' shot of the 'celestial body'.  I think it's because the Falcon element in Shot 4 doesn't seem to 'recede into the distance' very much, that always makes me think the 'celestial body' looks tiny as the Falcon heads towards it/passes closely over it...so I'd personally prefer to see the existing Falcon removed and replaced with a more obviously 'receding' Falcon element from another shot instead (if that's possible)...which would perhaps give a 'bigger scale' to the 'celestial object' in relation to it...

Here's a few screenshots/descriptions that will hopefully give an indication of the kind of thing I mean, since I've not got mock-ups organised.  Okay, this first Falcon replacement example is from 'A New Hope', and shows a more obviously 'receding' Falcon than the current one seen in Shot 4.   I reckon that if this element could be added to start further to the right of Shot 4 than the current Falcon does, close to the edge of the frame...that this would tie-in better with where Leia was previously looking, and improve the 'scale' of the 'celestial object' -  

...alternatively...since it's a 'seperate camera-angle' shot that's sandwiched between the reaction shots of Leia/Luke and R2/C3PO either side of it, I also reckon that a totally different-looking Falcon approach towards the general direction of the 'celestial object' could be used for Shot 4 altogether, that would give a more dramatic and 'close-up' visual of Lando and Chewie leaving to look for Han at the end of the movie...  You'd need to watch the footage to see the full effect, but this particular 'receding' Falcon example below is from 'A New Hope' (soon after the end of the Death Star escape/TIE dogfight), and starts it's trajectory by 'entering' the bottom of the frame, close to our viewpoint -

...and here's another possible version.  Again, you'd need to watch the footage to see the full effect, but this particular 'receding' Falcon example below is from 'Return of the Jedi' (where the Falcon veers underneath the 'Medical Frigate' during the space battle), and starts it's trajectory by 'entering' the right of the frame, close to our viewpoint.  This particular element veers to the left a little then moves upwards towards the end of the shot -

If either of these bottom 2 examples were to be used, then the prominent 'small white dot' seen near the top of the 'celestial body' could be moved nearer towards the central 'orb' in Shot 4 to help give the impression that we are seeing the Falcon approach the 'celestial body' from an angle more to the right of it...that ties-in somewhat with the position that Leia was last looking towards at the end of Shot 3.  (Unlike the example at the top though, I guess the 'engine roar' would need to be boosted up a little for either of these 2 examples, since they start off 'closer' to our viewpoint)

Shot 5.  ...we then cut to this next shot below of R2 and C3PO looking out...

Shot 6.  ...we then cut to this next shot below (which shows the very start of it), which shows the Falcon's existing final flightpath as it moves upwards to the left of the frame and away from the 'celestial' body...then disappears from our view altogether, before the shot ends a couple of seconds later...

Final thought -  adywan, I know you're also planning to keep the tiny Falcon's current trajectory going upwards to the left in this final shot, but perhaps you'd consider making it eventually 'recede' into 'nothingness' as it travels away from the 'celestial body'?  Thing is, the existing tiny Falcon element stays at roughly the same size during this shot, which kind of makes the 'celestial body' seen here seem very small in comparison too...so making it more obviously 'recede' into the distance here would help to give the 'celestial body' a bigger 'scale' in this shot...and would also help to tie-in with the Falcon's previous 'momentum' if you do decide to replace the existing Falcon element in Shot 4 with a more 'receding' one...

At the end of the day, I'm looking forward to whatever you end up doing in this sequence, as I know your blue engine glows are gonna look great throughout.  :)

Very pleased to hear the good news about the car. 

And nice poster amendment!  :)

DarkGryphon2048, you should pray that you are never in DAYV's present situation, rather than being a total arse about something as trivial as his trademark caps.  Unbelievable, and I'd certainly give you the ban-hammer for that if it was up to me.

DAYV, as others have said, I reckon the majority of us here are kinda stunned about your situation.  But please know that we're all rooting for you, and I hope you can pick yourself up for the sake of your nearest and dearest.  Just know that there's lots of people here who actually DO give a shit about situations like this.  Take care in the meantime.

COWBOYS & ALIENS  (released 2011/directed by Jon Favreau)

Teaser Trailer -  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hd2eyd9HkeQ  NOW GONE!  Will look for replacement soon.

corellian77 said:

ImpFighter, you do know that you can hit the "Play" button on your remote to watch a movie as opposed to repeatedly pressing the "Pause" button, right? ;)

I guess my big screen made them more noticeable, but they got annoying on the umpteenth watch, lol.

Okay, this is a little thing I mentioned in the passing many moons ago adywan, but which probably got lost amidst everything else.  Anyway, I didn't show screenshots at the time, which would have pinpointed things better, as they are not too obvious at first.

It concerns a little print damage to the SE in a couple of places.  If nothing else, the print itself is pretty 'artifact'-free, and these 2 small instances are the only ones that have ever caught my eye.  Maybe you can study these 2 shots and patch them a little, though? -

Although the slow-motion shots of the Dagobah 'cave' duel are pretty well cleaned-up in the SE print, there's still a couple of annoying, momentary white 'flecks'/artifacts near Vader's neck area during the single 'front-on' close-up of him swinging his sabre.  They are not part of his costume, nor 'light reflections' as he moves... 

The second example is at the point where Luke has gone over to Leia near the end, just at the point before he looks at her and she looks back at him.  There are some momentary slight white scratches and a 'fleck'/artifact to the left of Leia's head at this point...

And one of the things I've been intending to show since weeks, is my own tuppence worth concerning the ending's 'galaxy'/'star formation'/'Falcon's trajectory' thing.  :)  I'll organise the screenshots tomorrow sometime.

adywan said:

The first shot has the light partially submerged which is lighting up the muddy water creating the orange/brown glow. Then the ship moves and you can see that this wing raises up slightly and the light is no longer submerged, so we have the white light and is more illuminating. In fact the very first time we see the xwing set should have the orange glow added as the ship doesn't move before this.

Just to clarify my post from the previous page a little -  although I reckon the X-wing stays in a generally static position in the swamp throughout this sequence, only being rocked side-to-side a little as R2 falls off, I shouldn't really have referred to the X-wing in the middle shot below as giving off an 'orange' glow.  As you say, the X-wing is still giving off a 'white' glow here (just like it does throughout the sequence), but is merely highlighting the murky colour of the water in the set at this point. 

What I was trying to get across, is that there's a jarring continuity difference due to the sudden lack of 'low-level mist' being highlighted in 'white' light in this particular 'wide' shot of the X-wing and Dagobah set, compared to the other 'wide' shots that we see before and after it.

Now I happen to really like the look of the middle 'wide' shot here, as it gives a real sense of the 'swampy' conditions, due to the look of the 'scummy' water movement in it.  It's not really it's sudden difference in 'low-level mist' compared to the top 'wide' shot here that bothers me, because it's filmed from a different angle, which gives it a bit of leeway.  But it's the sudden 're-appearance' of 'low-level mist' in the bottom 'wide' shot that comes a mere 10 seconds after the middle one, that makes the inconsistency stand out...because it happens to be filmed from a very similar angle to the middle shot beforehand.

So while I thought that by 'whitening' the murky light reflection on the water in the middle shot would make for a less obvious difference, I guess adding a little 'low-level mist' to that portion near the wing would allow for a 'white' glow even better -

Although it always distracts me, I guess it's no biggie, as Dagobah's 'mist' might just flow and ebb and flow again very quickly!  ;)

Due to unforeseen reasons, I haven't been around this thread since well over 2 and a half months, and am still wading through the last 50 pages (!) since then, to catch up.  However, I was very sorry to read about the developments with your dad adywan, and wish you both well. 

I also see we've gained a few new faces along the way, so "Hi" to those...and seem to have "lost' some too, as I see Jay and Moth3r are rightly on the case, lol.

I'm hoping to comment on a couple of other recent things brought up soon, but here's a little detail for now.  It's not a significant thing, but it's one of those little inconsistencies that catches my eye every time...

To put it in context, here's a sequence of shots that are seen in approx. 1 and a half mins. of each other in screentime -

To begin with, the X-wing's lights give off a 'white' glow to things...

...but when we then cut to the shot below, the 'X-wing's light now gives off a distractingly 'orange' glow, compared to the previous shots and the following shots that come after it...  Now I realise that the 'orange' glow shot below actually shows the water more and has a lot less 'mist' than the next shot which comes just a few seconds after it, but I reckon things would tie-in a lot better if the 'orange' glow could at least be 'whitened'-up.  See what you think... 

TRON: LEGACY  (released 2010/directed by Joseph Kosinski)

Theatrical Trailer 3 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4RiUy23e9s

(I'll add this final trailer to it's others on page 1, eventually)

As there’s too many <span style=“text-decoration: underline;”>wrongly</span>-titled trailers uploaded these days, I’ll have to work out if these are in the correct order when I have more time.  (I’ll also add the trailers/posters for the previous HP movies here too, at a later date)

Note -  this instalment is <span style=“text-decoration: underline;”>not</span> in 3D for it’s ‘Theatrical’ release anymore, as they couldn’t ‘convert’ it in time, and have held off.  The 2nd half (and final instalment) <span style=“text-decoration: underline;”>is</span> going to be ‘converted’ for it’s ‘Theatrical’ release next year though…

HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS: Part One  (released 2010/directed by David Yates)

Trailer 1 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=195QFr3EXGI

Trailer 2 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4APiZSf75Hs

Trailer 3 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCUv5h4CncU  NOW GONE!  Will look for replacement soon.

Trailer 4 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Aso-uQxk0s  NOW GONE!  Will look for replacement soon.

**Coming Soon… ** David Yate’s HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS: Part Two is due for release in 2011…

*** NOTE TO MYSELF - DOUBLE-CHECK THE LIKES OF MY VARIOUS ‘INDY 4’ EDIT IDEAS TO SEE THAT THE MUSIC/AUDIO ENDS OR FADES WELL ENOUGH IN EACH EXAMPLE TO WORK PROPERLY ***

POST SOMETHING ALONG THE LINES OF THIS ON THE PREQUEL DISCUSSION THREAD SOMETIME -

Where do I start? - Speaking for myself, each of the Prequels have some dreadfully cringe-worthy moments throughout them, especially some of the dialogue. But as far as I’m concerned, the absolute worst thing for me is NOT the overly-goofy ‘Jar Jar’ character…but rather the far-too-young, ‘cute kid’ casting of ‘Anakin’ to kick off that particular trilogy of storylines. For me, placing the burden of such a long-anticipated new ‘Star Wars’ movie on such young shoulders was George’s BIGGEST blunder among many as far as ever re-watching these particular movies in their current form.

After enduring the ridiculous early lines involving the Neimodians and the Emperor at the start of ‘The Phantom Menace’, the casting of such a young boy gave the rest of the movie an overall ‘childish’ vibe instead of a ‘childlike’ one. Ideally, Watto’s ‘slave boy’ should have been played by an older young actor that was much nearer Natalie Portman’s character’s age, as her initial ‘You’re a funny little boy’ dialogue comes off a ridiculous considering we’re meant to buy into them eventually having an intimate relationship together. It wasn’t young Jake Lloyd’s fault that he came across as unconvincing and unsatisfying in the role for me, it was George’s poor judgement, and those around him who didn’t have the balls to point this out, pure and simple!

Also go on to say that even missing out ‘TPM’ and just starting the Prequels with ‘Attack Of The Clones’ is almost as bad due to George’s dreadful dialogue between ‘Anakin’ and ‘Padme’ throughout the build-up of their ‘romantic’ relationship. On top of that, ‘Anakin’ comes across as so whiny, it’s hard to care.

Also say that although various ‘re-editing’ ideas could improve things somewhat over the Prequels for me, the hurdle of the way ‘Anakin’ is portrayed over the initial 2 movies effectively rules them out for an enjoyable re-watch for me these days. even a ‘nostalgic’ one unfortunately.

Say more about how the first movie’s ‘childish’ set-up of ‘Anakin’, and whiny follow-up, then makes me couldn’t care less by the time the 3rd movie’s adult ‘Anakin’ burned alive in deadly seriousness! Talk about the uneven tone of the Sequels, this easily matches it, lol!

WOULD THIS WORK? - perhaps my solution for a possible ‘Prequel’ re-watch would involve some sort of initial ‘prologue’ of certain moments from ‘TPM’ (and ‘AOTC’ too??) which would NOT show any of the interaction of ‘Padme’ with ‘little Ani’ whatsoever, and just be some scenes that I like such as part of the ‘pod race’?? - something along the lines of the ‘prologue catch-up’ scenes at the start of the OBI WAN KENOBI tv show? - Then go DIRECTLY onto a heavily re-edited version of 'Revenge Of The Sith, as the only bit of backstory to the OT trilogy that I might be able to stomach?? - UPDATE - BECAUSE I ONLY REALLY NEED ROTS TO SHOW THAT LUKE AND LEIA WERE SEPERATED AS BABIES, AND MY CUT-DOWN ‘OBI-WAN KENOBI’ TV SHOW FOOTAGE IS A FOLLOW-UP SHOWING HOW HE LOOKED OVER LUKE ON TATTOOINE AFTERWARDS.

ALSO MIGHT SHOW SOME RE-EDITED ‘SCREENSHOT’ IDEAS IN A ‘HIDDEN’ PORTION SO THAT IT DOESN’T CLUTTER UP MY POST ON THIS?

Sorry to see Google Ads has finally infiltrated this beloved site...

Sure I understand, but it's a shame Jay's homepage redesign has been tainted now.

Thread is now about Google Ads on OT.com (but I'm keen on zombies too, although I've never dated one)

ChainsawAsh said:

ImperialFighter said:

So I take it you've compared both the pre-'Quadrilogy' DVD version and 'Quadrilogy' DVD version against your Blu-ray version on the same equipment/settings to make this judgement then?

If that's the only way to really tell, I just don't get why the slight difference in color timing is that huge of an issue.

To me, color timing only becomes an issue when it's at Blade Runner Final Cut or 2004 Star Wars levels of change.  This set is nowhere near that.

Well that's the thing I guess.  You personally reckon there's only a 'slight' difference, whereas I happen to think there's more than just a 'slight' difference between the pre-'Quadrilogy' ALIEN dvd colour and the 'Quadrilogy' ALIEN dvd colour to begin with... 

Pre-'Quadrilogy' (PAL) dvd in top shots, with 'Quadrilogy' (PAL) dvd shots underneath -

I wish I could prefer the 'Quadrilogy' dvd's altered colouring, but I really don't...and that's why I was concerned that the blu-ray would be just as off-putting to me too.  

But after Chewtobacca's comments about the blu-ray having a more of a 'mid-way' look compared to the previous contrasting dvd releases, I may be less disappointed once I get a chance to compare them all myself.

Chewtobacca said:

I have now seen the Blu-ray of Alien, and I agree that it looks somewhere between the two previous DVD transfers, which seems like a good place for it to be.  ImperialFighter, I would recommend that you at least rent the Alien BD.   You might be pleasantly surprised.

If that's right Chewtobacca, then I'm certainly pleased that the colouration of the Blu-ray isn't as much of a departure from the early DVD colour as the 'Quadrilogy' release colour was.

So I take it you've compared both the pre-'Quadrilogy' DVD version and 'Quadrilogy' DVD version against your Blu-ray version on the same equipment/settings to make this judgement then?

As I thought the 'Anthology' Blu-ray looked suspiciously very close to the 'Quadrilogy'-tampering due to the few screenshot comparisons I've seen...I guess I should now try to do the same actual comparison at some point (with a borrowed/rented 'Anthology' BD for now), as I'm certainly interested to see which version I then reckon it's closer to.

dark_jedi said:

But the key word in that line is "DVD", who friggin cares about DVD now when we have BLU!

High-definition be damned, if it doesn't look as 'aesthetically' pleasing overall compared to the DVD version. 

But that's just an individual preference and matter of opinion at the end of the day, so you takes your choice.  Damn you Ridley Scott!  :)

ChainsawAsh said:

Thanks for the screencaps, DJ - looks like this is much more faithful to the theatrical version of Alien than the 2003 DVD!

I'm a little unsure what you meant here CA, so bear with me - do you mean you reckon dark_jedi's 'Anthology' Blu-ray shots look 'more faithful' to the 'Theatrical' version (early DVD 'Theatrical' release I take it, as opposed to 'Theatrical' cinema release) than the 2003 DVD release because of the colouration or the starfield thing?

I'm not using my own monitor at the moment, and the one I'm currently using may be set overly-dark, but do you mean it looks like there's no starfield added this time to the Blu-ray 'Theatrical' version?  I agree that this seems to be the case, going by the current monitor I'm using.

However, if you mean the colouring, then I'd have to say that these particular Blu-ray screenshots just indicate the same very different bluish (teal?) hue that the previous 'Quadrilogy'/ 'Director's Cut' DVD showed, compared to the earlier DVD which showed a grey 'Nostromo'. 

Although there'll be more of a stark contrast when the whole movie is compared on a tv, I've re-posted these screenshots at the same size for easier comparison (hopefully, I've described them correctly) -

msycamore's NTSC pre-'Quadrilogy' 'Theatrical' DVD (same as how my PAL version looks) screenshots are at the top of both examples, while dark_jedi's 'Anthology' 'Theatrical' Blu-ray screenshots are underneath -

and

TV's Frink said:

http://www.highdefdigest.com/blog/aliens-teal-orange/

Thoughts?

Yup, that about sums up how I feel, and why I'll just have to stick to my earlier dvd versions for now.