ImperialFighter

vaderios said:

Imp fighter I still want that flipped dagobah shot to be noted and explained in depth :)

I've not forgotten, and there's that Hoth one that I never noticed before either, until recently.  I'll be covering those when I can, as there's a bit to go into concerning both scenes that they appear in.

Okay Adywan, I explained the scenario to my mate who sells in 'Currys' and also to someone else that I know is knowledgeable in my local 'PC World' too.  I'll just post the points here for the benefit of others here that may buy expensive equipment in future - 

Both of them reckoned it seems unlikely that the 'extra 3' that was advertised at the time would have been for only 3 'months' rather than 3 'years', if you're sure that it didn't explicitly say so.  Most stores/companies normally offer 'years' of extra cover, not 'months' they said.  So that's definately a point that can be argued more yet, since it seems the promotion was ambiguous.

As far as the 'Warranty card' being missing from the packaging, it's unfortunate it wasn't included due to someone's error.  They both agreed that it's the last thing most people concern themselves to look for when they open things up, themselves included.  Ideally, it would be spotted as missing at the time, before something breaks down, but as you were told the 'receipt' covered you, it's not surprising you didn't concern yourself with that.

Both of them confirmed that a basic 'receipt' only covers anyone for 1 year, but think you should continue to argue the fact that you paid for what you believed was 3 'years' extra cover, not 3 'months'.

The other point they said they would argue if it was them, is this -  since you still have the 'receipt', they recommend that an equally valid complaint route on top of the 'warranty' thing....is to emphasise that 18 months is too short a 'shelf-life' for an expensive monitor to last anyway.  So they said that you should make a fuss over that aspect too, and complain that is wholly inadequate, and 'not fit for purpose'.

They suggest getting onto the 'Gateway' customer service, either directly or online.  They also think it might be worth contacting 'Trading Standards' again to point this out, as you may have just got someone unhelpful the first time.

(and it might be best to omit telling anyone that you've been using it every waking hour for the last 18 months....ahem)

Either way, both reckoned that they would certainly 'escalate things' with both the store and 'Gateway'.

Good luck, and I guess we'll all now know to query the sellers about the whole 'Warranty card'/'extra cover' scenario a bit more in future, at the point when we first pay for something.

I feel your pain Adywan.

Seems that no-one can necessarily trust any advertising or salesperson's word here these days.  And a lot of them don't seem to know what they're talking about half the time when it comes to the technical stuff, where electronics goods are concerned.  And whoever said the receipt was the 'guarantee' was obviously wrong in this case.

Sad that customers seem to need to be having to triple check info. they are given when it comes to 'warranty' matters these days.

It's frustrating for you in the meantime, but I've got a good mate who's a decent salesperson for our local 'Currys', and I'll check out what he reckons about this shop and 'Gateways' claims about all this.

doubleofive said:

I also emailed The Digital Bits directly.

I see they mentioned the site and gave a direct link to the petition.

Nice one.  I always liked that site.

Problem solved.  :)

I cleared my cache, but that wasn't it....

Turns out I'd totally forgotten that I'd 'ZOOMED IN' on some pages on my computer a couple of days ago....and this was what had 'cut off' the 2 buttons at the bottom of the 'Insert/edit image' box!  However, I decided to 'Maximize' the box after a while of staring mystified at it....and there were the 'INSERT' and 'CANCEL' buttons....

Then it dawned on me, lol.

Warbler said:

Just how effect would 3D transfer of a 2D movie look?   I can't believe it would look as good as movie shot in 3D, would it?

From what I can gather, there are 2 or 3 different companies that are busy using this new 'conversion' process on 2D movies, and that the results have been generally excellent and right up there with the latest actual 'dedicated 3D' filming.

This 'conversion' technique isn't just being used on past 2D movies, as it seems that some upcoming planned 3D features are still going to be filmed in 2D first, before being 'converted'.

Seemingly, this process can give a great deal of control as far as being able to pull various elements out into the layers of depth required.

Personally, if this means that STAR WARS (albeit not necessarily the versions I'd prefer) can be seen on the big screen again, I'm all for that.  Hopefully, the company that does the 'conversions' will do a good job of them eventually.

Here's a list of some of the many 3D-related projects that are seemingly in development at the moment -  http://marketsaw.blogspot.com/2007/04/list-of-upcoming-3d-movies.html

Warbler said:

how can he make them into 3D.   Don't movies have to be filmed that way?   If I'm not mistaken,  you film the movie with 2 cameras,  one for each eye.   That's how you get the 3D effect right?

That's just one way Warbler, but GL will be using some of the latest techniques that have been developed to turn 2D movies into 3D ones....

But this would be a better thread to catch up with the developments on that -  http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/3D-STAR-WARS-for-the-masses-anytime-soon/topic/10070

Okay, that's strange....

It was fine a couple of days ago at my end, but when I click onto the 'tree' icon now, I'm still getting the entry field options saying 'Insert/edit image' at the top, right down to the 'Horizontal space' option....but there is now no sign of the buttons that were below that in the box.

I can't remember what the button actually said that was on the very bottom-left of the box, but I know I had click on it before whatever code I'd typed into the 'Image URL' field would then show as an image in my reply box....

Any ideas on why this vital tab seems to be missing now when I click on the 'tree' icon?  Thanks.

Great to see a nice update to the look of the homepage!

I was originally hoping that Jay would go for something with a bit of colour along the lines of doublefive's proposed logo shown here -  http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Time-for-a-slight-redesign/post/370299/#TopicPost370299 ....perhaps layed out in one line across the top, and possibly with this byline layed out underneath in smaller, blue lettering as a bit of fun -  You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy....

However, it seems Jay likes the original style that was here, and the subtle, retro 'Death Star' makes for a nice simple look too.  The homepage is certainly an improvement from how it looked before, and that evocative artwork of 'Darth and Luke' looks great.

I reckon the wording for the new petition covers all the bases well, and as far as the 'width' of the pages go, it's nice to see that the option to revert back to the wider look on the forum pages is going to be given for those that wish it.  Good stuff all round.

Hi Jay, can you confirm if this is just a temporary glitch, or if you've gone ahead and done this after all?

After you touched on this yesterday, I wrote these points here in the hope that this great function would be retained, but don't know if you saw them or not -  http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/New-Forum-Layout/post/388266/#TopicPost388266

Will be very interested to hear what's happening with this, as it's a bit restricting without it at the moment.

adywan said:

i've done a bit of tweaking to the latest preview shot, so here is the final version

Adywan's new 'avatar' seems to show a new shot....just and no more....  EDIT - well it did, until he changed his avatar again....  :)

Here's a preview from nearer the start of the same shot from earlier in the year.  If you look at Adywan's 'avatar' (just click onto page 1 of this thread) you can get an idea of the cloud-car's movement.

It will be good to see (and hear) it back in this shot.

Yeah, I was meaning that as we didn't get a decent updated transfer of the OOT on an anamorphic DVD the first time around, that only a good Blu-ray of it is acceptable for any future release now.

I too would hope that if that does come about, that it will of course be included as part of a comprehensive package.

Oh man, I just clicked on the 'insert/edit image' icon to 'embed' a small something....but it seems to be 'disabled' now.

Can you confirm if this is already the case Jay?  Kinda makes my points concerning that a bit of moot point now if so....

Bingowings said:

Images that illustrate a point should (in my view) be largely discernible at a glance.

It brakes the flow of a discussion if you have to click on an image to see it at all.

I'd prefer to have a reasonable standard size limit which can be clicked on to get a better look so people following the thread can make out what the postee meant without clicking but if they want to put the effort in they can make the effort to open up the full sized image.

Having a row of in thread links might speed up the loading times but it may slow down the flow of appreciation of the ideas presented on the page (an image can sometimes be worth a thousand words and the extra loading time).

Archived images from early on in older posts could also be adjusted to meet the new size limit.

Jay, thanks for confirming that you'll be giving the option of a 'wider' page look in the forum for those that prefer/are still used to that layout.  Options are always welcome.

As far as the 'embedded images' thing....while I agree that needlessly large images are annoying, I also have to strongly agree with Bingowings point that being able to show direct, 'at-a-glance' images is a very welcome and useful function to have in many instances.

I'd be sorry to lose the option to show 'reasonably'-sized photos/screenshots directly in a post, for the very reasons Bingo has said about that.

But I wonder how many posters actually know how to 'shrink' the size of certain images here?  Being the computer-illiterate heathen that I am, it was only last week that I personally discovered how to do this.  ( for those that don't know yet:  say you come across a random image on the net that you want to post - if you right-click on it and then click onto 'Properties' at the bottom of the pull-down menu that appears....as well as seeing the 'image URL' code in the info. that appears, you'll also see the size dimensions of the image too.  So when you go to show the image on the forum, when you click the 'insert/edit image' tree icon at the top of the 'reply' box to enter the 'image URL' code....you can also enter your own size dimensions just underneath....  For instance, if the image seems large to begin with, just enter size dimensions that are HALF or QUARTER of whatever the image size is of the picture you want to show )

Perhaps a 'sticky' with some info. along these lines could be put up?....followed by 'strong encouragement' for offenders to 'quick edit' any extreme examples they post?

Something that does bug me is when someone's 'too-large' image is needless 'quoted' and re-shown again by someone else, just so that they can inanely post something like 'that's cool' underneath it, or something equally trivial. That kind of thing should definately be bitchslapped out of here with a much protest as possible!

Loving the new petition wording by the way.  And the new logo too.  Very 'retro'....and very subtle.

Good stuff Jay, and I really like the final wording you've come up with for this latest petition requesting a decent Blu-ray release for the OOT.

Whether GL decides to tinker even more with the colour/sound/'creative choices' of his 'Special Editions' for their Blu-ray debut or not, or even if he adds a couple more extra bells and whistles to them for their eventual '3D conversion' release....an anamorphic, cleaned-up release of the original, unenhanced theatrical versions is definately long-overdue.

I'm 6ft and slim in reality, but always liked this artwork I came across on the deviantart site by a guy called Joe Wight -

He may be a little short to be a Stormtrooper, but I like his attitude.

Wow xhonzi, that's one mean-looking teletubby, lol.

Anyway, at last I have revealed myself....

adywan said:

I may be eliminating that shot

I reckon your 'composite' shot of Vader approaching the front of the Bridge was a truly awesome new 'camera-angle' which looked great in the context of this preview sequence of (partially unfinished) shots you showed a while back -

The addition of the 'wide' shot of the Bridge along with the 'composite' angle added greatly to this 'Executor' scene I thought.  They really helped to clarify Vader's movement from his last position in the 'alcove' on the right (where we then cut to aboard the Falcon)....to him then going to the front of the Bridge.

After the Falcon scenes in the original, we just cut from the top shot of the 'Executor' and TIEs here, straight to the back of Vader's helmet, then to the bottom shot.  Even though the background in the bottom shot is being amended to match the established layout, I'd still be sorry to see either (or both) of those additional Bridge shots go now.

A couple of other things -  I'm pleased the 'interference' of the viewscreen is being kept, but it'll take a little getting used to not seeing those brief AT-ST moments anymore....  Oh well, I guess any enhancements to the AT-AT shots we may get will more than make up for their loss. 

And as far as the colouration throughout 'ANH:Revisited' goes, I was blown away by the 'stylized' look of the DS interiors especially.  Considering the awful base colours of the 2004 version, the overall new look of 'ANH:R' was truly a revelation.  'ESB:R' seems to be shaping up to look equally fresh where it's colours are concerned.

Great news that your mother has improved, and that exclusive lengthy 'asteroid' clip sounds a great preview to start off the New Year with, for those that can help out.

Ghost said:

I'm getting ready for the focus to change from ESB to ROTJ.  I know it won't happen now but hopefuly sometime soon.  I can't wait to see how good an average SW movie can get.  

Well I hope any focus on ROTJ is kept to the likes of the 'ESB/ROTJ Wishlish' for the time being, as I think it's gonna be a while before the 'ROTJ:Revisited' thread comes along.

There's still plenty to do on this present edit, and I know there's quite a bit of 'Empire'-related stuff to come on here yet that hasn't been covered so far, but will be eventually.

vaderios said:

Sure, and it sounds great, but it would entail showing several AT-STs from various angles in several shots of the battle sequence....and I just don't know how Adywan can achieve that.

Thats an awesome idea! 3d?

Well that possible technique goes without saying, but actually expecting Adywan to achieve that amount of matching movie-quality 3d into various shots throughout the battle is a bit unrealistic surely?

By the way vaderios, I always liked that old Yoda poster, and love what you've done with it!

Monroville said:

6 to 12 (or 2 for every AT-AT: one to cover each side) ... the idea is to show an actual task force.  5 AT-ATs alone could get taken out easily by ground troops; having a good squad of AT-STs would be akin to blitzkrieg tactics used by the Nazis, as well as account for taking out any troops trying to get underneath. 

If the Empire is sending in a small group to rush the rebels, I can understand only 5 AT-ATs being there, with said group of fast moving vehicles to cover said AT-ATs ... even so, it would be nice to see a more realistic depiction of military behavior.

Sure, and it sounds great, but it would entail showing several AT-STs from various angles in several shots of the battle sequence....and I just don't know how Adywan can achieve that.

Perhaps other AT-ATs (and AT-STs) have been deployed to approach the Rebel Base from other directions too, unseen by us....

Monroville said:

I still wished Ady would add more vehicles.. even if it was more Scout Walkers just to show that the Empire has an actual army.  Even if there still has to be only 5 AT-ATs, to see a good 12 AT-STs around them would be impressive.

12 of the devils? 

I agree that more would be impressive, but given Adywan's previous comments here on all that, I'll just be glad if he decides to keep even that one in the AT-AT shot at all....

Sevb32 said:

Anyone else with me on the idea i proposed above?

Have to say an emphatic no on that.

Not that it wouldn't have been great to have won the single 'workprint' at the time, but I doubt that Adywan would want to feel pressured into releasing more unfinished versions out there.

As far as any May 'deadline' that keeps cropping up, I'm not expecting that, and can happily wait to see if the fully completed version does appear next year at all.  And with Adywan's latest announcement, things are naturally on hold for now anyway.

In the meantime, there is already an ongoing 'donation drive' on, and anyone that can spare even a little to this project that will give them so much in return, should be doing so as it is.

It'll be ready when it's ready, and patience is required for it to be done properly.

I had a feeling you may have been tied up with something recently Adywan....  Sorry to hear your mum has been poorly, and everything else can take a back seat in the meantime. 

I can understand how those extra postal charges from abroad must have been frustrating too.  Seems we get gypped here every which way these days.

Nice clip.  I especially like the shot that 'pans upwards' from the AT-AT's legs to a 'close-up' of it's head.