ray_afraid said:
MaximRecoil said:
I'm dismissed...Ok...
But M_s0 has already said everything I'd have to say. I'd just be repeating at this point.
So you admittedly have nothing to say. Why, then, did you reply to me in the first place if you had nothing to say?
m_s0 said:
By LD transfer I meant transfer for the purpose of LD. Still, that transfer was ancient in 2006 and the point isn't how good a job they've done with it. The point is that they haven't chosen a better source. And I hope you're not going to argue that there wasn't one.
It was also used for the 1995 "Faces" VHS release, and could have been used as a television broadcast master as well, though I don't know if it ever was.
Also, I've already said:
"I know, which is why I said it wasn't nearly as good as it could've been (i.e., it could have been an anamorphic 16:9 transfer from a new 4K film scan, had they invested the time and money)."
I don't know what they had for OUT sources in 2006. There are obviously various film sources, but there is no way to know if they had any better digital masters of the OUT than the 1993 ones. But either way, that's beside the point; the quality of something isn't determined based on what could have been done, it is based on what was done. The GOUT is pretty typical quality for a 4:3 DVD, and it is also better quality than any previous home video release. There is no reasonable standard by which they could be considered "terrible" or "horrible"; words which denote the bottom of the barrel. In the context of home video, the bottom of the barrel is already occupied by e.g., VCD, VHS, CED, Betamax.
ray_afraid said:
MaximRecoil said:
moviefreakedmind said:
Regardless of how horrendous the quality was, he still gave people an opportunity to see the unaltered versions; as long as they don't replace the Special Editions then he won't care.
The quality wasn't horrendous...
False.
I'm dismissing your mere gainsaying out of hand, but I will of course consider any actual arguments on the matter that you may have.
m_s0 said:
"Given the source" being the key phrase here. If we forget the whole letterboxing issue, that is.
It is going to be letterboxed on DVD no matter what (unless it is a pan & scan version), because it is a ~2.35:1 movie. On a 4:3 NTSC DVD you end up with about 272 lines of picture and 208 lines of letterboxing, and on a 16:9 NTSC DVD you end up with about 366 lines of picture and 114 lines of letterboxing. If your TV was only 480p, those additional ~94 lines of picture resolution would be a big deal (relatively speaking), but most TVs these days are 1080p, which makes the difference less significant (i.e., they both have to be enlarged a lot to fill the screen).
The complaints from widescreen HDTV owners about 4:3 DVDs mostly boil down to a convenience thing. A 16:9 DVD fills the screen as-is (even though it is enlarged a lot in order to do so), while a 4:3 DVD will get "windowboxed", meaning additional enlarging is needed to fill the screen. But either way you have 195,840 pixels of picture (Star Wars 4:3 letterboxed) or 263,520 pixels of picture (Star Wars 16:9 letterboxed) trying to swim in a sea of over two million pixels (1080p TV).
From what I've read people here generally acknowledge that considering the source the GOUT could've ended up worse, and that it's the best LD transfer available, but the reason they complain is that the GOUT should've never been sourced from an ancient LD transfer to begin with.
It wasn't sourced from a LaserDisc transfer, nor is it a LaserDisc transfer itself. It was sourced from the master tapes which were used to make the 1993 and 1995 LaserDisc releases in the first place. Because DVD is a higher quality format than LaserDisc, it can retain more of the information from the master than LaserDisc can.
The D1 master tapes have the same resolution as an NTSC DVD, the technical difference being that the D1 master has 4:2:2 uncompressed video, while a DVD has 4:2:0 compressed (MPEG-2) video. If you watched the D1 master tapes side by side with the GOUT DVDs I doubt you'd be able to tell the difference, because the DVD format is capable of retaining nearly all of the quality of a D1 tape (while a LaserDisc is not).
Not to mention that fan transfers are one thing, but an official release is a different matter altogether. The GOUT would've been great for a fan effort, but as it stands it's quite terrible. And useful for obvious reasons.
It isn't "terrible". It contains enough quality that Harmy was able to make use of it fairly seamlessly in his 720p "Despecialized" versions. Let's see him do that with something that truly is "terrible", such as VCD, VHS, Betamax, or CED. Calling the GOUT "terrible" or "horrible" = hyperbole, considering it exceeds every OUT home video release we've ever had by a significant margin, and in most cases by a huge margin. Only some of the LaserDisc releases come close, and even then, you need a very high-end, expensive LD player for them to come somewhat close.
SilverWook said:
I admit I used to lust after some Sony broadcast monitors back in the day. The colors were beautiful.
There is an old trick to burn out a screen burn, but I don't know if you can run another video source into an arcade monitor.
The GOUT bypassed the problems inherent in an LD transfer. (A couple low rent outfits like Full Moon have allegedly released some of their films straight off an LD capture.) With a non anamorphic letterbox master, you have to take into account how many scanlines a 2:35.1 movie is actually using. Those larger letterbox bars are wasted dead space in a DVD encode.
The best CRT displays ever made still set the standard for overall picture quality. But regardless of that, I simply hate the look of digital displays; I feel like I'm looking at a glorified calculator or digital watch.
Mild screen burn can be evened-out, but it is destructive (i.e., you burn other parts of the screen to even things out). Screen-burn is a result of depleted phosphors, and it is irreversible for all intents and purposes (the tube would have to be remanufactured; recoated internally with phosphor to fix it, which isn't particularly feasible).
And yes, but the 1993 and 1995 LaserDiscs were also 4:3 letterbox, which is inherently worse than a 4:3 letterbox DVD (all else being equal), due to LaserDisc's lower resolution and inferior color separation. The LaserDiscs did have better audio, though they could have fit uncompressed PCM audio on the GOUT as well had they wanted to (and it is easy to do yourself if you have a rip of the LaserDisc PCM audio).
The GOUT was as good as it gets given the source they used (D1 tape, the same or nearly the same resolution as NTSC DVD). They didn't skimp on the MPEG-2 bitrate either; the video streams alone on all three of them are over 6 GB.
SilverWook said:
A nice sentiment, but when was the last time you saw a tv repair shop? Even replacement CRT's for vintage arcade games are drying up. The technology to make them will be lost in a few more years, if not already.
The Ms. Pac Man machine at my local movie theater looks weird with an 16:9 LCD panel mounted in the cabinet.
It was a little sad when I saw one of those Sony CRT HD sets sitting on curb destined for the scrap heap a while back.
Any classic arcade machine with a digital display = blasphemy. And I'm my own TV repair shop. When I got my Super Punch-Out arcade machine in 2006, its original Sanyo 20-Z2AW CRT monitors were in sad shape. One of them had a cracked flyback transformer, which was arcing, and both of their tubes had severe screen-burn. They both needed all of their electrolytic capacitors changed too (the Nintendo/Sanyo chassis is the biggest pain for doing a "cap kit"). I've done the "cap kit", replaced the flyback transformers (new reproductions are being made, and they work perfectly), and found like-new burn-free 510UTB22 tubes from some otherwise dead Nintendo/Sanyo 20-EZV monitors (I've since revived those monitors as well, albeit with the old tubes sporting Punch-Out screen-burn swapped onto their chassis).
My other arcade machines (Ikari Warriors, Missile Command, Street Fighter II) all have Happ Vision Pro monitors (standard 15 kHz RGB CRT arcade monitors; the same as they originally came with), which I bought new around 2007/2008, which was around the last time that you could still get them new. They are still like new, since I don't use them anywhere near as much as they would be used in a commercial arcade. The Missile Command came with its original numbers-matching Electrohome G07 monitor (a legendary arcade monitor), and it still works fine. It has severe screen burn though, so until I can find a new or like new tube for it, the Happ Vision Pro is going to stay in there.
Harmy said:
CRTs make my eyes bleed...
Here's a photograph of the video displayed by a Barco 909 (CRT projector) on a 12-foot screen:
http://i.imgur.com/4A6G6c6.jpg
Baronlando said:
MaximRecoil said:
If the GOUT had been released by an OT.com forum member in 2006 instead of by Lucasfilm, it would have set this place on fire, and said forum member would have been an instant OT.com "celebrity".
But why? It was essentially the same laserdisc we had for 13 years up to that point.
Not exactly. LaserDisc = 425 lines of composite video (1 channel), while DVD = 480 lines of component video (3-channel, YPbPr). On top of that, component video has enough bandwidth to support 480 lines (and more, though 480 is the most you get from NTSC DVDs) of progressive scan (~30 kHz rather than ~15 kHz), meaning 480p is possible rather than 480i.
Prior to the GOUT we only had the LaserDiscs, which were stuck at 425i composite video, or LaserDisc-to-DVD transfers, which were inherently worse than the LaserDiscs themselves, due to inevitable loss in the transfer and encoding process. The GOUT took those masters which were used to make the 1993 and 1995 LaserDiscs and transferred them directly to DVD (a higher quality format than LaserDisc).
Beatleboy99 said:
MaximRecoil said
I think the GOUT looks great on the type of display that 4:3 DVDs were intended for (4:3 CRT TV, preferably one with component [YPbPr] inputs).
Yeah It does. When the GOUT first came out I had a 4:3 CRT so it wasn't really a problem for me until I got a flat screen tv.
They'll get my CRT when they pry it from my cold, dead hands. I'll take the visual qualities of a CRT over any digital display currently on the market, any day, even if the CRT is lower resolution and a smaller screen.
There are only two display technologies that look right to me: CRT (direct-view, and especially rear projection; Barco 909 and Sony G90 being the ultimate examples) and projected film. It sucks that SED displays (the same visual qualities as a direct-view CRT) never happened.
moviefreakedmind said:
Sure, but because of the resources Lucasfilm has available the laserdisc was the worst source available for an OUT, and was completely outdated.
I know, which is why I said it wasn't nearly as good as it could've been (i.e., it could have been an anamorphic 16:9 transfer from a new 4K film scan, had they invested the time and money). However, it was still a lot better than anything else we had at the time (in terms of the video stream, which is the critical part, because better quality audio streams have long been available and are easily added).
I think the GOUT looks great on the type of display that 4:3 DVDs were intended for (4:3 CRT TV, preferably one with component [YPbPr] inputs).
moviefreakedmind said:
Regardless of how horrendous the quality was, he still gave people an opportunity to see the unaltered versions; as long as they don't replace the Special Editions then he won't care.
The quality wasn't horrendous, it just wasn't nearly as good as it could have been. The old homespun LaserDisc transfers ("TR47", etc.) used to get nearly universal praise on this forum, even into 2006 just before the GOUT was released. In fact, people here were still gushing about the recently-released (at the time) Cowclops/TR47 v.2, right as the GOUT was being announced. The GOUT blows all of those LaserDisc transfers out of the water, at least in terms of video quality (its 192 kbps AC-3 audio is nothing to write home about though).
The GOUT was the ultimate "LaserDisc transfer" (so to speak), given that it skipped the LaserDisc and went straight to the masters that were the source of the most commonly transferred LaserDiscs ('93 Definitive and '95 Faces).
I loved the original "TR47" when I first discovered it in '05. However, I played it side by side with the GOUT the other day on my PC and it was horrible in comparison. Not only is the TR47 less detailed/clear, but the brightness and borders of the letterboxing constantly and rapidly flicker in it as well.
If the GOUT had been released by an OT.com forum member in 2006 instead of by Lucasfilm, it would have set this place on fire, and said forum member would have been an instant OT.com "celebrity".
point5 said:
Definitely no singing. I mean with Disney you never can be 100% sure that there won't be any campy singing and dancing. The very thought of Darth, Yoda and the Emperor singing a show tune is enough to send a cold shiver up my spine. Brrrrrrr!!! Well they have rehashed Aladdin as a main character for Rebels, so who knows what Disney is capable of. I trust them not.
I wouldn't mind seeing a CGI Ethel Merman and Bea Arthur belting out "Everything's Coming up Roses".
Do any of you have Epson inkjet printers? A couple of years ago I ran out of the genuine Epson ink that my Stylus Photo 1400 came with new, and of course, genuine Epson ink cartridges are hilariously overpriced (about $20 each and I needed 6 of them). I've heard/read horror stories about aftermarket ink, and even that is usually $35 or more for 6 cartridges, and I didn't want to take the gamble. So my printer has been collecting dust for 2 years.
Recently I went to watch these DVDs I made and printed back before my ink ran out, and all of them have glitches now (e.g., freezing, not wanting to load). I checked to see what they actually are, and they are "CMC MAG-D03-64", and Google tells me that they are not beloved. In fact, it seems that reliable double layer DVDs are few and far between. So I bought some inkjet printable Verbatim DataLifePlus DVDs ("MKM-003-00") and burned them; so far so good. However, I had no way to print the labels on them.
On eBay I found some ink for dirt cheap ($7.69 for all 6 cartridges, free shipping), and the seller sells a lot of it. That was cheap enough to be worth the gamble, so I ordered some. Amazingly, they worked. My printer falsely believes that they are all genuine, and shows that they are all full. But the truly amazing part is that the print quality was better than with the genuine Epson ink that came with the printer. Here is a comparison:
You can see that the Epson ink printed out "bolder" than it should have, and with the tiny text and closely spaced lines in the CBS Fox logo, you lose some of the fine details and separation that should be there.
The disc I printed with the cheap ink is the same type as the disc printed with the Epson ink ("CMC MAG-D03-64"), which was a coaster I used for a test print after installing the new cheap ink cartridges, so the printing surface can't be blamed for the difference in print quality. The printer settings were the same in both cases as well.
The reason the block of text on the bottom of the cheap ink disc is shorter is because the Verbatim discs I bought don't have a printable hub area, so I had to get rid of some of the empty space in the block of text to make it fit on the Verbatim discs (but I didn't change the text at all). I've already printed labels with that cheap ink on all 3 of the Verbatim discs, and they came out just as good as the test disc.
I can't speak to how well this cheap ink would print out a color photographic image, because I haven't tried that with it yet, but it does a great job with black.
doubleofive said:
Deleted scene? That's a blooper.
So that must have been the unfortunate incident that resulted in them hiring Alec Guinness to re-shoot all of the original-actor-who-played-Kenobi's scenes, on the condition that they'd stop playing with real lightsabers.
http://youtu.be/RIefj6dOhnM?t=2m22s
I like the idea of that scene better than the actual scene, though the special effects are a bit hokey. If Kenobi's torso didn't just hang there for a moment before falling like Wile E. Coyote after stepping off a cliff, it would look a lot better.
I've always thought the actual scene was strange, even as a kid. Kenobi seems to just disappear before Vader's lightsaber even makes contact. So what was that supposed to be? A "force-assisted suicide"? Plus, Vader's lightsaber doesn't seem to harm Kenobi's clothing whatsoever, even though it clearly makes contact.
Was the deleted scene considered too graphic?
canofhumdingers said:
Perhaps the old x-wings were already just that - old - at the battle of Yavin? It would make sense that a rag tag band of rebels fighting the government doesn't have access to the latest and greatest military technology and instead has to scrounge whatever old junk they can get their hands on.
According to "Wookieepedia", the X-wing was first used at the "Battle of Turkana", the year before the events of the original Star Wars movie ("1 BBY"), after stealing X-wing prototypes at the "Battle of Fresia" (also in "1 BBY"). "Wookieepedia" also says that the X-wing remained in use for over 40 years.
I don't know where any of that information actually comes from (and it is all new to me as of a few minutes ago), but even just going by the movies, the X-wing seems to have been introduced at some point between Revenge of the Sith and Star Wars, because we don't see any X-wings at all in RotS, but we do see a precursor to the X-wing.
Also, it doesn't matter how old they were, because they were on par with the Empire's TIE fighters, and more advanced in some respects. It wasn't a case of Rebel biplanes vs. Empire fighter jets. This indicates that the OT X-wings represented the current state of performance/capabilities/technology, unless the Empire didn't have access to the "latest and greatest military technology" either, which would raise the question: Who did have access to the latest and greatest military technology, if not the Empire or the Rebels?
I'm not disagreeing with you in the fact that I, too, would love to see the classic x-wings in some capacity alongside the new ones. I'm just pointing out that there are some very valid counter arguments to your reasoning and that the new x wings do have a reasonable explanation using "real world" logic.
I never claimed that there is no reasonable explanation using "real world" logic for the new X-wings in the upcoming movie. I maintain that there would be nothing out of place with them still using OT-style X-wings, as opposed to the idea that everything should look different simply because it is 30 years later. In the real world, that idea tends to be true for many things, but it tends to be more true for consumer goods and fashion than it is for commercial and military stuff. It makes logistical and financial sense for the military and the commercial/industrial sector to stick with "tried and true" hardware (which they often own in multiples of hundreds or thousands, making it a much bigger ordeal to switch to something new than it is for a consumer who wants e.g. a new car), only going to newer designs when the older designs can no longer meet their needs.
You seem to be saying that their appearance should remain unchanged in the thirty or so years between the OT and episode 7 b/c that's what happens to aircraft in the real world. I'm saying that, one: that's not entirely accurate and aircraft (commercial and military) DO have significant modifications to their appearance over time - even if the old models are still hanging around when the new ones come out;
See above.
and two: you're implying by your first assumption that the rebels' ships in the OT were relatively new which I think is a very poor and illogical assumption for the reasons I already stated and this is backed up by the fact that they look freaking old, beat up, and worn out already at the battle of Yavin.
See above. And also, looking "freaking old, beat up, and worn out" is irrelevant. They were still functioning properly, which means they weren't "beat up" or "worn out" in any meaningful way. They were just dirty and/or had "carbon scoring", which is to be expected of ships that are used in battles. The only thing which can logically be gleaned from that is that the Rebels didn't place a high priority on washing and waxing their ships.
RicOlie_2 said:
However, it's also possible they build their spaceships like we build cars--not well enough to last over a decade (although my dad's work van begs to differ :P). If they've had the technology for space travel for thousands and thousands of years, chances are they can make spacecraft fairly cheaply. Larger ships, like Star Destroyers, would definitely be built to last longer, however.
Alternatively, spaceships are actually expensive in the Star Wars universe and they are built to last, as you think should be the case.
Whether or not the individual ships are built to last is a different question. I believe the designs would last, based on how commercial and military aircraft designs last here in the real world.
Each individual ship is probably well-built too, considering the critical nature of their application. Plus, they can be repaired.
canofhumdingers said:
I disagree with your idea that aircraft don't change appearance significantly in their lifespan.
What I said was:
"Here in the real world, well-established aircraft designs don't change their outer appearance very often."
On top of that, even when they do change their appearance, the older versions don't necessarily stop being used. In other words, there would be nothing out of place with them using X-wings and other OT air/spacecraft that still look the same 30 years later. I wouldn't mind seeing both the OT style and the "new" McQuarrie style in the movie.
The 737-200 was in commercial service for 40 years by the way: 1968-2008. And as I mentioned earlier, the longer a society has been technologically advanced, the more long-running designs they are likely to have, and their long-running designs could have run for far longer than any of ours. For example, 50 years ago, there were no 40-year-old commercial jetliner designs in service, because the technology wasn't old/mature enough for any design to have been in service for that long.
Advanced technology seems to have been around for hundreds or thousands of years in the Star Wars universe.
lpd said:
^I doubt very much that thats Mr Prowse in the costume I'm afraid.
You're probably right. I didn't watch it very closely the first time, but if you watch closely it doesn't look anything like Darth Vader from the movies. For example, at the 5:00 mark, he looks too short and too small-framed, and his stance is weird. Those sleeves are hanging off his arms like drapes. He almost looks more like Dark Helmet than Darth Vader in that shot.
Wolfman said:
Last time I saw Kenny Baker and Dave Prowse, they were both in wheelchairs.
I don't think David Prowse is in a wheelchair or otherwise has any trouble getting around (unless it is a very recent turn of events). I saw him in a YouTube video from last year where he puts on the Darth Vader costume and has a "lightsaber duel" with a fan:
Are you sure you're not thinking of Peter Mayhew? He needs a cane to walk and is sometimes in a wheelchair.
unamochilla2 said:
Force for Change Update: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWBGrkc360M&list=UUZGYJFUizSax-yElQaFDp5Q
Nice to see the next generation of the X-wing in finished form. Is the mouse droid a hint of the Empire being in Episode VII?
I'd rather the X-wing and other OT aircraft/spacecraft didn't change in appearance at all. Here in the real world, well-established aircraft designs don't change their outer appearance very often. For how long has the F-16 looked the same? Or the "Huey" helicopter? Or the 737 airliner? Or the Cessna 172?
Frequent changes in appearance is mostly a consumer automobile thing, even though it is entirely unnecessary (the classic VW Beetle is a good example). Military and commercial vehicle/aircraft manufacturers tend to not fix what isn't broken. The Humvee has looked the same for 30 years.
Given that the Star Wars universe technology is far more advanced than real-world technology, they've had a much longer time to perfect things, and it follows that they would have even longer-running military/commercial designs than we have in the real world. The PT was way out in left field in this respect.
On the plus side, if they must change the X-wing's appearance, at least they didn't go overboard with it. In fact, the one in that video clip looks closer to the Ralph McQuarrie concept art than the OT X-wings did.
pittrek said:
What lines? Do you mean interlacing lines or what? I downloaded the sample but I didn't see any problem
No, not interlacing. Dark horizontal thin lines. In the first screenshot I originally posted in the first post of this thread, you can see them. That was a screen shot taken with PowerDVD version 4.0. Media Player Classic version 6.4.9.1 (revision 114) also produces those same lines. On the other hand, Media Player Classic Home Cinema version 1.7.6 (ebc29cf) does not produce any lines.
This wouldn't be a problem if I only intended to watch these on my PC; I'd simply use Media Player Classic Home Cinema. It also wouldn't be a problem if the actual discs played perfectly in my standalone DVD player that's connected to my TV, because there are no lines that way either, but they don't. It is a problem because my WD Live TV hardware media player that is connected to my TV also produces those lines when playing the ISO images of the DVDs from a flash drive.
As I said, it is bizarre and I've never seen anything like it. What is so special about the GOUT MPEG-2 video streams which makes them produce lines on some playback hardware/software but not on others? I've never encountered any such weirdness with any other MPEG-2 video stream in my life.
MaximRecoil said:
MaximRecoil said:
That's weird. I was using an old copy of PowerDVD that I've used for years and I've never gotten any lines on a movie like that before. I just tried the GOUT discs with Media Player Classic and no lines at all; thanks.
I wonder what is unique about the GOUT discs that makes the lines happen in this old version of PowerDVD.
I watched these DVDs again recently, and after looking closely, the lines are still there even with Media Player Classic, though less noticeable than with the old copy of PowerDVD. They are also noticeable when I play the DVDs on my standalone DVD player connected to a standard resolution 4:3 CRT TV, and they are noticeable when I extract them to ISOs, copy to a flash drive, and play on a WD Live TV media player connected to the same TV.
Here is a 1-minute clip containing the scene I posted in the original post (1:1 copy, no recompression from the GOUT source):
https://app.box.com/s/oyuzhr23zgn8rw36p6ph
Can someone watch that and see if they can see those horizontal lines? Also, can someone cut that scene from their copy of the GOUT and post it, so I can see how it compares?
Since I made this thread over 2 years ago, I guess I'd forgotten what version of Media Player Classic I'd used when I said:
"I just tried the GOUT discs with Media Player Classic and no lines at all"
Because with the regular Media Player Classic there are still lines, as I mentioned in my post from a couple of days ago. However, in Media Player Classic Home Cinema, there are no lines at all. Also, if I open the VOB in VirtualDub, there are no lines in the preview window.
This is bizarre. I've never encountered anything like this before, and I've been working with and encoding video files for over 10 years.
I checked again to see if there are lines when playing the actual discs in my standalone DVD player connected to my CRT TV, and there are not. However, these DVDs don't get along very well with my old DVD player, i.e., they briefly freeze in certain spots, which is why I made ISOs of them to put on a flash drive and use in my WD Live TV media player. They never freeze that way, but they show the same lines that PowerDVD and regular Media Player Classic shows on my PC.
Since the lines don't show up in VirtualDub, I assume they wouldn't show up if I encoded these DVDs to AVI files. If I used enough bitrate to avoid macroblocking in motion scenes, I'd probably never notice the difference on my standard resolution CRT, plus I could fit all 3 of them onto my flash drive instead of one at a time (8 GB flash drive). I might have to burn in the alien language subtitles for SW and ROTJ, which is something I haven't done in years (I don't know if the WD Live TV player will recognize a subtitle text file in the same folder as an AVI or not).
MaximRecoil said:
That's weird. I was using an old copy of PowerDVD that I've used for years and I've never gotten any lines on a movie like that before. I just tried the GOUT discs with Media Player Classic and no lines at all; thanks.
I wonder what is unique about the GOUT discs that makes the lines happen in this old version of PowerDVD.
I watched these DVDs again recently, and after looking closely, the lines are still there even with Media Player Classic, though less noticeable than with the old copy of PowerDVD. They are also noticeable when I play the DVDs on my standalone DVD player connected to a standard resolution 4:3 CRT TV, and they are noticeable when I extract them to ISOs, copy to a flash drive, and play on a WD Live TV media player connected to the same TV.
Here is a 1-minute clip containing the scene I posted in the original post (1:1 copy, no recompression from the GOUT source):
https://app.box.com/s/oyuzhr23zgn8rw36p6ph
Can someone watch that and see if they can see those horizontal lines? Also, can someone cut that scene from their copy of the GOUT and post it, so I can see how it compares?
Anchorhead said:
And again, today.
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/08/the-star-wars-george-lucas-doesnt-want-you-to-see/379184/
Well, check us out; ;-)
There are huge lists of these inconsistencies online at places like SaveStarWars.com and OriginalTrilogy.com, where fans dissect the films and point out discrepancies.
camroncamera said:
Also reprinted for Yahoo! Finance:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/star-wars-george-lucas-doesnt-150000465.html
And reprinted on MSN News too:
http://news.msn.com/pop-culture/the-star-wars-george-lucas-doesnt-want-you-to-see-1
TV's Frink said:
No, that's not what happened.
http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Crazy-Number-of-Page-Views/topic/10968/
Okay, well, whatever happened there is bizarre. I don't think that's happened in this thread though. This thread has roughly 100 followers, which isn't unusual for this section of the forum.
SilverWook said:
canofhumdingers said:
You know what the worst thing in this whole thread is? All these people calling the Brachiosuarus in JP a brontosaurus (which doesn't even exist!*)
*http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BrontosaurusSo, The Flintstones have been lying to me all these years? ;)
The critter formerly known as a Brontosaurus will always be a Brontosaurus as far as I'm concerned, just as Pluto will always be a planet. I tend to dismiss attempted retcons of my childhood out of hand.