Quote Originally posted by: skyman8081 About 2.78 hours, no sound. Using the huffyuv losseless codec.
So figure 2.7 hours with sound, on a 100gig Blu-ray DVD. I'd be happy with that. At least there wouldn't be any compression artifacts.
troy
Did you not read what I wrote? You can't play the lossless codec off a Blu-ray disk for one major reason: BIT RATE. The mechanics inside a diskdrive can only access so much information per second. Huffyuv uses a 38 megabytes per second bit-rate. That's a hefty amount of data. Bluray can only access 4.5 Megabytes per second. It is thus IMPOSSIBLE to play that strong of a codec off of a relatively slow medium.
This is why you need compression. Compression isn't necessarily a bad thing when it's done right. The new compression schemes they'll be using for the new HD content is amazing. I agree with you that MPEG-2 sucks, but when you want digital quality picture, you have to make some compromises.
Yeah, I notice those MPEG-2 compression artifacts all the time as well. I watched Carl Dryer's "Vampyr" the other night and the compression on that DVD was absolutely HORRENDOUS!
Gillean is right: MPEG-4, especially the H.264 codec, is amazing. If you want to see for yourself, get Quicktime 7 and go to www.apple.com/trailers . They have a few trailers in High-Def that you can watch (granted your computer is fast enough) and the quality is superb. The great thing is, the new Blu-Ray/HD-DVD fomats have to support it!
On the topic of using Lossless compression on the new disks coming out: I don't think that the bit-rate is fast enough on those drives. I think the peak data rate is 30Mbps on Blu-Ray/HD-DVD. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if this were true, there'd be no way you could play those films in a normal disk drive. You'd have to copy the files to your harddrive and watch them there.
Originally posted by: weapon Hey Mavimao - Did you even read over the page you just posted on?
We were discussing the problem of disc specs being spread around the 22 pages and the need for a summary page so others don't keep asking the same questions over and over.
The least you could is scan up 5 posts and start reading before you start throwing down the "banned" gauntlet.
I have now included the previous post in mine for the ocularly challenged.
Sorry mate. I just briefly scanned over the site you linked to and it looked like advertisement. Didn't mean to cause a row.
It had a lot of promise and there were parts that were good and a lot that made you roll your eyes. It wasn't a terrible, terrible movie, but it's not a classic either. I feel like in 20 years, we'll remember this movie like people remember the King Kong remake.
For me, it wasn't a straight adaptation of the book. It was Tim Burton's view of the book. I can't accept the argument that this one is closer to the book because apart from a few minute differences, it basically tells the same story. The Gene Wilder version is not so alien from the book: it's not like how Stanley Kubrick went 180 when making his adaptation of The Shining.
The one thing that killed the movie was that idiotic backstory (which WASN'T in the book for all you adaptation fanatics). It killed the pacing of the film, it weakened the mysticism that is the character Willy Wonka, and it just ruined the ending.
But I did like the Oompa Loompa songs if only because I like the Oinga Boinga feel to them...
PAL is interlaced, just like NTSC. For some reason people confuse interlacing with 3:2 pulldown. It's not the same thing.
Interlacing: a method of "drawing" images on a screen by "sketching" every other scanline first before completing it with the other half.
3:2 Pulldown: a method of converting 24fps material to NTSC framerates.
PAL uses the same interlacing technology as NTSC. They just have different framerates and color encoding. Therefore, PAL material is encoded as interlaced: because each full frame equals each frame of film doesn't make it progressive.
From what I remember, Cowclops used a MiniDV camcorder to do his first version. DV is a form of compression which is used in consumer and prosumer video cameras/editing systems. The problem with it, in this case, is the color sampling which causes a "shift" in the red spectrum.
MiniDVDs are MPEG-2 videos. Even more compressed than DV. Not a great codec to record your baby's first steps IMO (especially when hardware is doing on the fly compression)
In version 2, he used a capture card in a computer. I don't recall what codec he used though. In any case the codec he used yelds a higher quality than DV.
C-3PO was never built by Anakin. Just erase that from your memory banks. It never existed. Why George Lucas decided to do that in the PT is beyond me, but in the words of Chefelf: "I will not accept that fact that Anakin built C-3P0. I won't do it. You can torture me in a scene reminiscent of the finale in Braveheart and I will cry out 'Freedom!' rather than admit to this horse shit. Anakin simply didn't build C-3P0, end of story."
Originally posted by: Darth Chaltab But it shouldn't have to be that way.
Guy: I believe in God.
Athiest: WELL YOU'RE EVIL AND SELFISH AND GOING TO HELL FOR IT!
Utterly ridiculous.
Now you're generalizing, which I understand is easy to do, but you should avoid this as much as possible. It only hurts your argument. But let me say that not all Athiests respond in caps wanting the demise of religious establisments. This is what really concerns them:
The Declaration of Independence says that first, "All Men are Created Equal" and the 1st amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
With that in mind, athiests find it unconstitutional that their money, made from the government, should have the phrase, "In God We Trust" and that they send their kids to schools, they paid with their own tax dollars, which make them swear an allegience to a body of government under a diety they don't believe exists. Imagine if we decide to replace the word "God" with "Allah" or "Jupiter"? After all, it's a question of semantics right? At least that seems to be the argument of more moderate conservatives and conservative democrats who argue that using "god" is not in reference to the Christian God, but to the idea of god that many cultures share.
But athiests don't believe in a diety at all! They believe they have the right to live in a country where one's religion is practiced at home/church/temples,etc.
As we all know there are a lot of gray areas when it comes to religion and politics in America, and people don't give up traditions easily. After all, our most famous holidays are based on Christian events: Christmas and Easter. So are we supposed to get rid of this? No.
Religion won't be razed in our government offices anytime soon, but its a philospohical question that deserves some thought on the issue.
Quote Originally posted by: ricarleite Well, it's a cinerama movie. If a regular 16:9 movie, when showed in pan scan, loses about 30% of it's picture, what's the lose ration in a cinerama flick shown in 4:3 pan scan? 75%?
I think it's more like 60%. It also depends on how much your television overscans an image. It could make it worse!
Warbler: I agree that I'd pick widescreen films over Pan and Scan anyday of the week! The distortions are just inherent to the technology of the day. Just like bad SPFX, you've gotta deal with it.
I hate 117 page threads written by the same 5-6 people about stuff they hate.
(I have to admit I skipped pages 8-115)
By the way, this was talked at the beginning of the thread and maybe no one remembers it now, but "under god" wasn't originally in the Pledge. It was added in the 1950s by Eisenhower during the hey day of the cold war. Along with "In God we Trust" as the Nation's motto (it used to be In Pluribus Unum - Out of many, One - which in my opinion is more appropriate for the strengths of the American people. Whenever religion is expressed in a government/public context, it just causes rifts)
Quote but a lot of filmmakers prefer to shoot flat because of greater flexibility in low light situations.
...because there is a bigger variety of spherical lenses than anamorphic lenses. Don't forget that anamorphic lenses distort images differently than spherical images. This creates a "look" that people would call epic or "surreal". Older films shot in Cinemascope had some weird distortion issues which is why there are very little close ups in these films. It got better with Panavision but you still notice some weird issues, especially at the edges of frames. Look at ANH on the Tantive IV and look at people on the left and right sides of the frames for the medium and wide shots. Or better yet, 2001 when Dave climbs down the ladder to get to the pod room to get the other guy HAL tossed into space. There's a pan shot that reeks of scope distortion (mixed with a really wide lens).
Still a lot of directors like to shoot in scope and use wide lenses to create this weird look. Wes Anderson is a prime example.
Quote Originally posted by: Gaffer Tape To be perfectly honest, I didn't notice that none of the sets were real in Attack of the Clones until I got the DVD, and they told me it was all fake. Sad, but true. I noticed them all in Revenge. Could be because I already knew ahead of time they were going to be, but I'm hoping it's just because I've developed a more discerning eye for CG.
Well, it's normal that you see things more in detail the more you view a movie.
I felt that AOTC/ROTS had its issues not only with CG but with the camera used. The most obvious shot where it just reeked of video was the opera scene. Look at the flesh tones on Anakin and Palpatine. Then look around their edges. It had this "video" look to it that's attributable to the medium used to record the movie on. It was really annoying.
(yes I know it's 24p HD 4:4:4 cameras, but it's still just a CCD trying to convert light into 1s and 0s)
But getting back to the CG topic, there are several reasons why the live actors and full blown CG backgrounds have a hard time of mixing correctly together. There's the obvious statement that's been brought up before that CGI isn't "real", it's just a 2D image trying to look 3D (so is film essentially - but for the sake of the argument, let's forget film theory). But there's one major issue, IMO, that really makes it look fake: the cinematography.
The most important thing to remember is that everything in your environment affects how the light will look in that space. Light is reflected, diffused and bounced off many objects which affects the final look. Just inserting a green chair will subtily change how the light in your space looks. Why? Well, light bounces off the green chair and creates a green hue around it. Because the two last PT films were shot mostly in greenscreen (at least in TPM they tended to build sets and create CG environments around it), it's hard to light the shots as realistically as they would had they actually acted on a set. I look at the before shots on the star wars sets and it's mostly just a simple three-point lighting scheme with some really harsh backlight. Look on their shoulders and heads. There's a constant bright halo around them. While backlighting is important when lighting a film (you don't want your characters to blen in the background), I feel the dullness and sterility of it in the PT just makes the human characters pop out more than usual. It's backlighting for backlighting's sake. The DP probably had an idea or a sketch of what the set was going to look like when the animators inserted it, but had to play it safe.
Another issue that bothered me was some weird issue going on with the focal length distortion. Basically, a wide lens distorts straight lines, making them curvy, objects seem further than how they really are and you have a large depth of field. A long lens "flattens" the image. Objects seem closer than they are in life and the depth of field is shortened. It seems as if in a lot of shots, someone got the focal length wrong when doing the special effects shots because the distortions between the human actors and the backgrounds were somewhat off. A good example of this are the medium closeups of Anakin and Obi-Wan swinging on those cables on Mastafar. Another one, in The Phantom Menace is when Obi-Wan and Qui-Gon are just about to fight Darth Maul and there's this weird medium shot of them jumping into frame as both of them attack Darth Maul.
