logo Sign In

Johnboy3434

User Group
Members
Join date
13-Dec-2006
Last activity
19-May-2013
Posts
407

Post History

Post
#311191
Topic
How many pixels to crop in order to fill a 16:9 screen?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/311191/action/topic#311191
Time
My grandfather is a huge Star Wars fan, and he loves to watch the films, but he has that same pet peeve anyone not knowledgeable about aspect ratios has, and I quote:

"When I buy a widescreen TV, I shouldn't have to look at those black bars all the time!"

Well, for his birthday this April, I want to give him what he wants: Star Wars movies that fill up the entire screen without stretching. The zoom feature on our TV is Godawful, plus it cuts off the subtitles, so that's not a viable solution. Problem is, I'm not sure exactly how many pixels to crop off each side of the picture (I'm using Womble). I'm not going to pretend to know how many pixels are in a DVD image or which way they go, so try not to laugh when I give these figures. Corrections are expected and very welcome.

The resolution of an NTSC DVD (that's what I'm using) is 720x480. Since an anamorphic image is wider than it is tall, I assumed the 720 is horizontal resolution (again, please don't hit me). The Star Wars films were shot in a 2.39:1 aspect ratio (43:18 is a more exact figure). After some math, that means that a 16:9 TV is ~74.42% as wide as a theoretical 2.39:1 TV would be. So, I figured cropping off the offending black areas and then cropping off ~12.79% of the picture from the right and left. Since a 16:9 TV and the theoretical 2.39:1 TV would have the same height, the height minus the black bars on a 16:9 TV would hold the same size comparison to the height of the 2.39 TV that the width did (~74.42%). So the black bars take up ~12.79% from both the top and the bottom. So, that's 12.79% from all sides. If the width is 720 pixels, that's 92 pixels from the left and right, and 61 pixels from the top and bottom.

Okay, I screwed up, didn't I? Please enlighten me.
Post
#311182
Topic
Help Wanted: PAL/NTSC hybrid transfer query
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/311182/action/topic#311182
Time
To be quite frank, if you're going to go through the trouble [read: cardinal sin] of cropping it, you might as well crop a full ~12.79%* from both sides so it will completely fill out a 16:9 screen. The screen shot above will please no one: You've violated the director's vision of the film and the black bars are still there.

*I'm not sure how many pixels that translates into.
Post
#310585
Topic
Official: 'THE CLONE WARS' movie in Theaters 8/15/08
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/310585/action/topic#310585
Time
Because I'm bored, I decided to look up some numbers on how well the Indy films have done, to see what the new film has to live up to. I've applied a basic formula:

Gross - Budget = Unadjusted Profit

I say "unadjusted" because there are undoubtedly other expenses (marketing, etc.) that come into the equation, but sometimes the information just isn't there. To make this applicable to the current time, I've also adjusted all numbers for inflation.

Raiders of the Lost Ark
Budget: $44,158,273.38
Gross: $588,462,276.46
Profit: $544,304,003.08

Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom
Budget: $56,833,333.33
Gross: $365,093,823.88
Profit: $308,260,490.55

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade
Budget: $82,458,438.29
Gross: $338,718,316.60
Profit: $256,259,878.31

Stiff competition. I wonder if the downward profit trend will continue.
Post
#310362
Topic
How much longer will the format war last?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/310362/action/topic#310362
Time
Originally posted by: lordjedi
Looks like the format war could be coming to an official end even sooner than we thought:

http://thedigitalbits.com/#mytwocents


O_O

WEEKS?! Holy crap! Well, that settles it. I'm putting a PS3 on my Santa Claus list. As soon as the HD-DVD honchos throw in the towel, no more newly-released DVDs for me.

EDIT: I just realized while browsing Wikipedia: with the exception of the Dreamcast (which didn't make it to the endgame like its competitors), the PS2 was the weakest of the sixth generation consoles, yet it sold far away the best. Now, the PS3 is the most powerful of the seventh generation consoles so far, and it's getting its ass kicked. What's up with that? [/Seinfeld]
Post
#309981
Topic
Official: 'THE CLONE WARS' movie in Theaters 8/15/08
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/309981/action/topic#309981
Time
Actually, if you want to go with the "original" sequel plan (as expressed in Bantha Tracks circa 1978), then there would be nine movies set after RotJ. The original plan was to have a 12 movie saga, with ANH as the first episode, not the fourth. I agree with you, though. A full, 15-episode saga would be a thing of beauty, CGI or not. Unfortunately, I doubt GL would let them use the "Episode" moniker for fear of violating his precious "vision."

...

We'll just have to wait until the old bastard kicks.
Post
#309943
Topic
Official: 'THE CLONE WARS' movie in Theaters 8/15/08
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/309943/action/topic#309943
Time
Err... why would we boycott it? This is just what I was waiting for: the opportunity to show GL as a huge liar (as if I was really needed for that, but...). He said RotS was the last of the films, then he goes and does this. I just knew it. In Hollywood, "The End" really means "I'll Be Back." It happened in '85 with Caravan of Courage, now in '08 with The Clone Wars. We can look forward to Star Wars films for years to come, I'm sure.
Post
#309737
Topic
How much longer will the format war last?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/309737/action/topic#309737
Time
I spoke too soon. Initially, Betamax was the superior product. It held 250 lines of horizontal revolution (as opposed to the 240 lines of VHS), as well as less video noise and crosstalk. However, with the release of VHS HQ, all these advantages were leveled out, to the point where the formats were essentially identical in technical regards. Again, you are NOT talking to an expert. If someone can correct any major errors I might have made, feel free. Of course, from a technical standpoint, LaserDisc kicked both their asses.
Post
#309732
Topic
How much longer will the format war last?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/309732/action/topic#309732
Time
DAMN. I was rooting for the Blu-Ray anyway because of the overall higher technical specs (even though they rarely see use), but I had no idea it was kicking ass like this. I was afraid the technically inferior product was going to win out like it did in VHS vs. Beta, but apparently not. Yay, consumers! I wonder what a Blu-Ray player will cost come Christmas-time.
Post
#309721
Topic
How much longer will the format war last?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/309721/action/topic#309721
Time
I've been wanting to upgrade to a new video system (either Blu-Ray or HD-DVD), but not until there is a clear winner between the competitors. For those of you "in the know," I have a couple questions:

1.) Is either format suffering on the market? If so, how bad?
2.) How exactly will we know when it's over? I read that Beta tapes were produced well into the late 80s/early 90s, long after their share of the market was negligible..
Post
#309466
Topic
The Angry Video Game Nerd…
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/309466/action/topic#309466
Time
Originally posted by: bkev
God, the TMNT 3 movie review ending was SO priceless.


"It's hammer time!"

Seriously, though, he's a good shot with a katana to slice that tape clean through the middle in one chop. Or are they that frickin' sharp? Four videos not linked on his website are his AVGN Movie Quote of the Week segments from July '07 on YouTube. While it's note exactly creative, my favorite AVGN quote comes from his review of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde: "This game is ****ing horrible!" It just sums up the entire show so nicely. However, it seems "AAAAAAAASSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!" has become his catchphrase.

Am I the only one who noticed that they toned down the language for the AVGN/Captain S crossover? The only time he curses, it's bleeped out, and he uses many pseudo-swears ("buttload of crud," "a bag of poop," etc.). Is Captain S supposed to be more "family friendly?" Another thing I noticed is that, although the crossover is supposed to be non-canonical (at least it says so in the title), it leads directly in to the Angry Nerd Christmas Carol, one of my favorites. His "review" of Boogie on the Wii had me on the floor.
Post
#309373
Topic
The Angry Video Game Nerd…
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/309373/action/topic#309373
Time
Are there any fans of the Angry Nerd on here? I just recently discovered his videos on YouTube, Revver, and GameTrailers, and I have to say it's the funniest thing I've seen since Chad Vader. Being something of a video game fan myself, I can relate to all the problems he talks about in the games, even though I've never played some of the older systems he reviews (like the Atari 2600). However, the real enjoyment comes when he totally wigs out and spews foul language left and right. Usually I don't like humor like that, but he spits the words out in such a twisted, nonsensical fashion that I can't help but laugh. If you don't know who he is or haven't seen any of his videos, you should check out his website. Even though he has links to all his videos for free, he also sells them for better quality on DVD, so I don't know if posing a link could be considered advertising or not. Just Google it. It should be easy to find.
Post
#308517
Topic
Info: When does fullscreen show more than widescreen?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/308517/action/topic#308517
Time

I’ve always been a fan of widescreen, not because of “the director’s intentions” or any of that sentimental bunk, but because of the “more bang for my buck” principle: I was always under the impression that you saw more of the picture. I even did the math (being fond of numbers). I figured this was a constant in the DVD market: fullscreen cuts off 25% of a 1.78:1 film, 28% of a 1:85:1 film, and about 44.19% of a 2.39:1 film. Now I read about films shot in Super 35, where the widescreen version is the more seriously cropped one, and the fullscreen actually displays more of the picture. Is this true? What other film formats do this? Would I be better off getting the 4:3 versions of all my films that were shot in Super 35? Is Super 35 the same as 35 mm?

Post
#306875
Topic
RIP: Bobby Fischer
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/306875/action/topic#306875
Time
I was afraid to speak ill of the dead in public, but since someone else broke the ice, I'll say that I'm certainly not crying. The man was a spoiled brat who thought far too highly of himself just because he could beat the ass off of any chess player on Earth. If I had been alive in '72, the Cold War factor would have been the only thing keeping me from rooting for Spassky. I'm never happy to see someone die (with some notable exceptions), but I can't say I'm sad at Bobby's passing.
Post
#306709
Topic
Film grain is not your enemy.
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/306709/action/topic#306709
Time
Originally posted by: Arnie.d
There is no way to remove film grain without having bad side effects. It's as simple as that. Some may take that for granted, I think it looks stupid.

Let's say you could make King Kong look like it was shot today with a digital camera, it would just look silly with the old "special effects" and in color (which btw would be just a guess of what it would have looked like).

Newsflash, dude: King Kong looks silly without all those enhancements. Decreasing the grain could at least impress people when you tell them it's 75 years old.

Originally posted by: Arnie.d
Or Gone With The Wind with it's beautiful typical Technicolor colors. You want to color correct it to todays standards? You will destroy the film!


The whole point of colorizing a film is so you won't have to watch it in monochrome. Recoloring an already colored film would be a waste of money.

Originally posted by: zombie84
Your assumption that grain is an undesireable "fault" of the filmstock" is incorrect.


Which is incorrect: that it's undesirable, or that it's a fault? If the former, that's simply artistic preference. If the latter, then I'm afraid you're the one that's incorrect. When people make film, they don't go down the list saying "Celluloid? Check. Sprocket-holes? Check. Grain? Check." Grain is a side-effect of the use of film, caused by imperfections in the film itself. From an engineering (read: purely technical) standpoint, imperfections are inherently undesirable. Does that mean nobody likes it? Of course not. Some people are only attracted to those in the 300+ pound range, as well. Doesn't mean the object of their desire is in good shape. You like lower-grade film (not the movie itself, but the film), and I respect that. You just need to admit it.
Post
#306701
Topic
Film grain is not your enemy.
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/306701/action/topic#306701
Time
Originally posted by: ChainsawAsh
So you're in the "make old things look like they were made last week" camp.

Sí, señor (yay, my Alt key works again!).

Originally posted by: ChainsawAsh
Thomas Edison, one of the major innovators of motion photography, wanted to call his recording/projection device a "time machine" of sorts, as it captured everything about the time in which it was made, preserving it for (he thought) all eternity.

I happen to agree with this viewpoint - films are a capture of the time in which they are made, and that INCLUDES what they were made with (film vs. video, color vs. black-and-white). So when you, say, rid the image of all film grain, colorize a black-and-white film, or add a whole bunch of CG alterations to the image, you destroy the "time capsule" aspect of the film. I have no problem with this being done IF THE ORIGINAL IS PRESERVED COMPLETELY, i.e. "Blade Runner"'s five-disc box set, or the 3-disc "Close Encounters" box.


I agree with the original being preserved completely (although I enjoy watching people tinker with it, as well), but I think you and I disagree on the meaning of the word "completely." I believe that, unless it was added intentionally, grain is not part of the movie. It is the result of imperfections in the films stock and is thus undesirable from a purely technical standpoint. In my opinion, the movie is what happens on-screen. Nothing more. And I want to see that as clearly as is technologically possible.