logo Sign In

MeBeJedi

User Group
Members
Join date
10-Mar-2003
Last activity
10-Feb-2025
Posts
4,879

Post History

Post
#95541
Topic
Letterboxed Widescreen vs. Anamorphic Widescreen Discussion
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/95541/action/topic#95541
Time
It also doesn't mean that even if it is preserved that it will be publicly accessible in its original form. If you have any doubt about this -- think of STAR WARS (1977)-- and try a get a copy of that film for projection --
1997's STAR WARS: A NEW HOPE doesn't count, because it is a different film
in many respects.

Kenneth S. Weissman
Kenneth.Weissman@wpafb.af.mil
Head, Motion Picture Conservation Center
Library of Congress

That's a good point. For our Technicolor tribute 2 years ago at the
American Cinematheque, we were going to open with a British dye transfer
print of "Star Wars". The plan was nixed by Lucasfilm, who do not wish to
have the original version of the film shown publicly.

Jeff



Jeff Joseph
SabuCat Productions
E-mail: sabucat@sabucat.com
http://www.sabucat.com - http://palimpsest.stanford.edu/byform/mailing-lists/amia-l/2001/12/msg00073.html

-----------------------------------

Further Evidence: How Lucas & Lucasfilm Continues To Disrespect The Original STAR WARS & The Concept Of Cinema History!

Hey folks, Harry here... Seems I'm now getting hit with tons of emails as that screening of the original print of STAR WARS... well it ain't happening any more. Apparently THE CITY OF ANGELS FILM FESTIVAL was pursuing getting the print, but were not allowed to screen it as the only print that Lucasfilm will allow to be screened is the Special Edition.

Ok, first off, I want to be real clear about this... I wasn't going to be attending the film festival, so this isn't me being bittersweet about this whole situation. You see, this was a cool thing I was just excited to let you readers in the Los Angeles area know about. You see... THE CITY OF ANGELS FILM FESTIVAL is doing a "Century of Cinema" screening series this year where they pick a film or two from each decade in the century of cinema to screen, and show it. Here's what they were going to screen:

D.W. Griffith's INTOLERANCE (1916)

Fritz Lang's METROPOLIS (1927)

Robert Flaherty's NANOOK OF THE NORTH (1927)

Driga Vertov's THE MAN WITH THE MOVIE CAMERA (1929)

Walt Disney's SNOW WHITE & THE SEVEN DWARFS (1937)

Vittorio de Sica's THE BICYCLE THIEF (1949)

Francois Truffaut's THE 400 BLOWS (1959)

D. A. Pennebaker's DON'T LOOK BACK (1966)

Mike Nichols' THE GRADUATE (1967)

George Lucas' STAR WARS (1977)

Spike Lee's DO THE RIGHT THING (1989)

Quentin Tarantino's PULP FICTION (1994)

Baz Luhrmann's MOULIN ROUGE! (2001)

To be on that list is an honor more than anything. That's 13 films that helped to define the very century of cinema itself. That's huge. To be chosen to represent a decade of film, in particular for STAR WARS to be chosen to represent the 1970's... one of the most important decades in the history of cinema... That's gigantic. It's saying that this film is more significant than ANNIE HALL which it lost that Oscar to, more significant to the history of film than any of Lucas' contemporaries. It says that it had a profound effect on world cinema. And as a HISTORY fest, showing the original 1977 film... that's the film that changed things. STAR WARS SPECIAL EDITION wasn't made in 1977, that's a 90's flick, and if they replaced PULP FICTION with STAR WARS SPECIAL EDITION and were making the statement that Lucas' special edition was indicative of a time when artists began to revisit there films for financial gain, to re-edit, re-shoot and continue to evolve their films as a sculptor would revisit an unfinished (in his mind) work. Well, that's the significance of the SPECIAL EDITION... Although, it has nothing to do with the monumental change in cinema that the original 1977 film represented. Is Lucas so determined to bury the original work, that filmmakers, film fans and devotees of his film will not be allowed to even see the film as part of a RETROSPECT UPON THE VERY HISTORY OF CINEMA? This isn't a minor thing.

Several years ago when I was presenting my own CENTURY OF CINEMA program at the Smithsonian in 1998, I chose my own series of Short films, Trailer, Cartoons, Making ofs, News Reels, etc... One from each decade beginning in the late 1890's with El Spectro Rojo. I included the original 1977 teaser trailer for STAR WARS, the one with the heart beat soundtrack behind it all... the non-colored Light Sabers, and it was a bleached out shitty FUJI stock copy, but the Audience was jazzed to see it projected, because this was what Audiences first saw. This was the beginning of it all... That line, "A FILM LIGHT YEARS AHEAD OF ITS TIME!" If we heard that about a modern film in its own trailer we'd feel it was the most egotistical display of hyperbole ever...BUT... it was true. It is the only STAR WARS trailer to not be scored by JOHN WILLIAMS... no hint of "THE THEME" and it gets you jazzed, pumped and ready to dream about a boy, a girl and a galaxy. THIS type of event, is about HISTORY not revisionism. With the YOUNG INDIANA JONES, Lucas was always so strict to try and bring history to kids, what about preserving his own history and allowing it to be told?

Personally, I've always wanted to see that original test screening print of Star Wars that had old WW2 Dogfight footage inserted where the space ships were supposed to go. I've wanted to see... would I think like DePalma that Lucas had made a disaster, or like Spielberg that it was going to be genius? That's HISTORY! Giant HISTORY! The same way that if you go to the Prado in Madrid and you see the Hieronymus Bosch triptych of THE GARDEN OF EARTHLY DELIGHTS... not only is the final version exhibited, but the pencils/charcoal roughs and the pre-painting that he did as well as the finished one. Lucas likes to draw the parallel to being a painter, well historically... the evolution of the art is seen, studied and considered. What's he got to be insecure about... this festival is saying... STAR WARS IS ONE OF THE MOST SIGNIFICANT FILMS IN HISTORY!

I love Star Wars, but I'm ashamed of George Lucas, he's really quite a little man when you come right down to it. - http://aintitcoolnews.com/display.cgi?id=16282
Post
#95442
Topic
Letterboxed Widescreen vs. Anamorphic Widescreen Discussion
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/95442/action/topic#95442
Time
" I guess that I'm not quite "smarter than the average bear" when it comes to video formats."

Don't worry. DVD terminology can be difficult to understand. In fact, technically speaking, "anamorphic" DVDs are actually the opposite of what "anamorphic" really means, but it's not a terrible important distinction.

"So this has led me to another question...shouldn't all new transfers of the OT be in anamorphic seeing how the "powers-that-be" are pushing the 16:9 sets?"

The official discs are, but if you are referring to bootlegs - again, it depends, as was explained in the anamorphic thread.

The problem is, regardless of what method you use, you still lose resolution when you "zoom in" on the letterbox transfer in order to make it anamorphic. It simply isn't the same picture, though it can come very close if one is very careful. It really depends on what looks good on your television.

This is why I say people with 4x3 tvs shouldn't get the anamorphic DVD. You lose resolution by blowing up the image to anamorphic, and then you lose resolution again when your DVD player removes 1 of every 4 lines to get the once-anamorphic picture to fit on your smaller TV screen. If you want an anamorphic transfer of the SW LDs, you'd better have a widescreen tv or else you screw up the picture (ironically, though, if you don't have a high-quality tv, you probably won't notice the difference anyways, so those people shouldn't bitch. )

"Also, with the emergence of inexpensive DL DVD burners and media that is rapidly falling in price, wouldn't the preferred primary format for the new DL projects (fingers crossed) be 16:9 anamorphic? I'll put it this way, on my 32" 4:3 I can't see much difference between pretty much all of the better transfers, but on the 54" 16:9 the differences are very apparent."

Well, since the anamorphic version takes up more space, a DL version would seem the no-brainer, but if it isn't done well, it can actually look worse. How the video and disc is prepared makes a much bigger difference than you think. Making DVDs ain't like dusting cr.......er, isn't like making music CDs.

"League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen (snore)"

Hey! I liked that movie!
Post
#95441
Topic
<strong>The &quot;EditDroid&quot; Trilogy DVD Info and Feedback Thread</strong> (Released)
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/95441/action/topic#95441
Time
" I guess that I'm not quite "smarter than the average bear" when it comes to video formats."

Don't worry. DVD terminology can be difficult to understand. In fact, technically speaking, "anamorphic" DVDs are actually the opposite of what "anamorphic" really means, but it's not a terrible important distinction.

"So this has led me to another question...shouldn't all new transfers of the OT be in anamorphic seeing how the "powers-that-be" are pushing the 16:9 sets?"

The official discs are, but if you are referring to bootlegs - again, it depends, as was explained in the anamorphic thread.

The problem is, regardless of what method you use, you still lose resolution when you "zoom in" on the letterbox transfer in order to make it anamorphic. It simply isn't the same picture, though it can come very close if one is very careful. It really depends on what looks good on your television.

This is why I say people with 4x3 tvs shouldn't get the anamorphic DVD. You lose resolution by blowing up the image to anamorphic, and then you lose resolution again when your DVD player removes 1 of every 4 lines to get the once-anamorphic picture to fit on your smaller TV screen. If you want an anamorphic transfer of the SW LDs, you'd better have a widescreen tv or else you screw up the picture (ironically, though, if you don't have a high-quality tv, you probably won't notice the difference anyways, so those people shouldn't bitch. )

"Also, with the emergence of inexpensive DL DVD burners and media that is rapidly falling in price, wouldn't the preferred primary format for the new DL projects (fingers crossed) be 16:9 anamorphic? I'll put it this way, on my 32" 4:3 I can't see much difference between pretty much all of the better transfers, but on the 54" 16:9 the differences are very apparent."

Well, since the anamorphic version takes up more space, a DL version would seem the no-brainer, but if it isn't done well, it can actually look worse. How the video and disc is prepared makes a much bigger difference than you think. Making DVDs ain't like dusting cr.......er, isn't like making music CDs. )

Oops, just saw the bottom of your last entry. I'll move this post over there as well.
Post
#95419
Topic
<strong>The &quot;EditDroid&quot; Trilogy DVD Info and Feedback Thread</strong> (Released)
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/95419/action/topic#95419
Time
"And another thing: There is an easter egg in the ESB disc (In the bonus features screen, go to "main menu" button and then press right). That easter egg provides nothing extra to the spactator, it just mocks him (you'll understand when you see it). So I'm thinking.... Why would someone who made a disc only for himself, as the creator of this set claims he did, put an easter egg like this in his creation?"

1) The creators obviously gave copies to some friends.
2) No one in their right mind would expect this version to never get out.
3) Why not?

"I understand that solid black is easy to compress, but how can there be more actual picture information on anamorphic format as opposed to letterboxed format? Is it simply that the resolution is that much finer on anamorphic?"

Set your DVD player to 4x3 mode, and play an anamorphic DVD. The picture will be stretched vertically, almost - if not completely - to the top and bottom of the screen. (Again, depending on the ratio of the film.) Everyone will look tall and thin.

If you play a non-anamorphic DVD, it will take up the same space regardless of 4x3 or 16x9 mode, because there's nothing to alter.

Without getting too technical....When the DVD player is set to 4x3 mode with an anamorphic DVD, lines of video are removed, so that the picture is small enough to fit in a 4x3 screen. If the DVD player is set to 16x9 with an anamorphic DVD, the picture is stretched horizontally, and now all those "tall & skinny" people are the correct width for their height.

This site has many excellent examples...

http://www.widescreen.org/dvd_anamorphic.shtml

http://www.widescreen.org/images/st4_43_nonanam.jpg

If we looked at this as a letterbox transfer, then we would see that a lot of the 720x480 frame is taken up by black space. Now, if we looked at this as an anamorphic transfer...

http://www.widescreen.org/images/st4_43_anam.jpg

Notice how less space is taken up by the black edges! The more variety of video information you have in the frame (different colors, high action), the less you are able to compress the video. Still scenes take up very little space, whereas scenes with movement are harder to compress. Explosions and such do not compress well. MPEG works by studying differences between pixels between frames. If there's no difference from one frame the next, then the same video information can be used for two frames. If the pixels between two frames are different, then the video information for each pixel of each frame must be stored - double the storage space.

The black bars above and below the image are (for all intents and purposes) the same black throughout the film, thus out of roughly 200,000 frames (SW is @178,000), the same video information can be used for all the black pixels. Since the anamorphic video has less black area, there's more actual changing video that must be analyzed and compressed.

I hope that made sense.
Post
#95290
Topic
Letterboxed Widescreen vs. Anamorphic Widescreen Discussion
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/95290/action/topic#95290
Time
"This is partly true. If you set your DVD player to 4:3 mode, then it will downsample (decimate) the active image and add black bars to the top and bottom. I've no idea if this an actual scaling process, or simply removal of every 4th line."

In the past, I know that Toshiba and Sony players did it differently. Toshiba removed 1 of 4 lines, and Sony did something else that I can no longer recall.

"Now when you process the video to create an anamorphic picture, you use a process called upsampling (or interpolation) to generate additional lines of video. The upsampling algorithms used - bicubic, lanczos, etc. - are much more sophisticated than simply doubling up certain lines or using linear interpolation. The aim is to increase the size without blurring the edges too much or producing jaggies, and these algorithms do this sucessfully (lanczos is said to be sharper, but I don't really notice a difference between bicubic, lanczos, Mitchell, sinc or any of the advanced upsampling filters).

So when you watch a letterboxed DVD, you see a stretched out picture. When you watch an anamorphic DVD, you see an upsampled picture. I don't need to tell you which looks better."

Hopefully, people won't confuse this with an anamorphic picture made from film, which doesn't require this upsampling. Anamorphic video made from a letterbox transfer looks nowhere near as good as anamorphic video made from a film source. Does anyone know what "algorithm" Dr. Gonzo used when he made his transfer?

In any case, the few anamorphic transfers I've made from the SW LDs always show the inherent flaws much clearer than a straight letterboxed transfer I (and I've recently seen that there are many more than I originally knew of, and they actually get worse as the quality of your player improves. )
Post
#95254
Topic
.: The Zion DVD Project :. (Released)
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/95254/action/topic#95254
Time
I'll have to check out those links...

In other news, I just ordered my NEC ND-3520A from NewEgg. I'm looking forward to burning more DVDs much faster (and DLs as well. )

[EDIT]

http://www.u-m-l.com/basicfea.htm

Multiple language subtitling

DVD-Video discs store subtitles as separately recorded sub pictures and can contain up to 32 separate channels of subtitles. These can be different language versions of the dialogue or other information, such as song lyrics. The user can select which, if any, subtitles are to he displayed. Subtitles are normally selected by the user when watching foreign language movies. However the disc can also 'force' subtitling on. For example in a scene with a French speaker in an English dialogue movie, English subtitles can be automatically displayed even if the subtitle option has not been selected by the user.

Because each character is stored on the DVD-Video disc as a small picture, subtitle characters can include any form of lettering or be used to display small logos or other non-text pictures.


Curiouser and curiouser...
Post
#95218
Topic
.: The Zion DVD Project :. (Released)
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/95218/action/topic#95218
Time
"Zion, the subtitles in a DVD are not in a txt format, they are images. By that I mean you could transfer the exact same picture used in Greedo's subtiltles."

But they are images created from a txt file. I've not seen a program that can create non-text subtitle-like images, such as the "rabbit" from the Matrix DVD, or the familiar "MST2000" outlines (I forget what DVD that was on.) If such a program exists, that would be great!

My dream scenario would be to have Greedo's english (basic? ) subtitles burned in, and foreign subtitles that overlay the english when selected (I've recall making some subtitles that were white-on-black.)
Post
#95209
Topic
<strong>The &quot;EditDroid&quot; Trilogy DVD Info and Feedback Thread</strong> (Released)
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/95209/action/topic#95209
Time
Exactly. There has to be video information throughout the 720x480 frame. An anamorphic transfer fills as much of this space as possible with actual video, whereas a letterbox format shrinks the picture and increases the size of the black spaces. Technically speaking, the letterbox transfer would actually take up less space because, as Karyudo said, the black is easier to compress (all the same color.) Many movies, like Star Wars, aren't exactly 16x9 (1.78:1), so they still have some black area, though not much.)

As to the X0 transfer - it might come in a variety, but specifics haven't been nailed down yet. Different transfers work better for different displays, but some people want certain transfers regardless (i.e. a person with a 4x3 television set should not get the anamorphic version. It's a double-whammy on the video.)
Post
#95196
Topic
Jokes thread : Reloaded
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/95196/action/topic#95196
Time
Those jokes remind me of others...

A middle-aged woman is sitting by a public pool. A young, beautiful girl gets out of the pool after swimming a few laps.

The middle-aged woman watches as the young girl walks to a lounge chair next to her, pulls out a cigarette from nowhere, and asks the woman for a light.

After lighting her up, the woman asks the girl, "Where did your cigarette come from?"

"Oh, it's a new trick I learned. I put the cigarette in a condom, and hide it underneath my swimsuit. It stays nice and dry, so I don't have to carry it around in my purse when I go swimming."

The woman thinks this is a neat trick, and decides to give it a try. She leaves to go to the nearest drug store. She cannot find the condoms, so she goes to the counter for assistance. Finding a pharmacist, she asks for help finding a condom.

The pharmacist smiles and says, "Well, there's quite a variety of those nowadays. What, exactly, were you looking for in a condom?"

The woman thinks about it and says, "I need one big enough to fit a camel."


------

Two friends run into each other coming out of a movie theater. One of the friends has two black eyes.

The first friend asks the second, "Dude, what happened to your face? How'd you get those black eyes?"

The second guy explains. "I was sitting in the theater, waiting for the lights to go down, when this gorgeous woman comes over to sit in the seat in front of mine. She was standing there waiting for something, when I noticed her dress was getting wedged in her butt crack. She had such a nice ass, that I reached over and pulled the dress out, so I could get a feel. Well, what I didn't know was that she was one of those body-building women, and after she screamed, she turned around and slugged me in the face."

The first friend laughs and says, "Okay, that explains the first black eye. How did you get the second?

The second friend admits, "Heh, well...it was stupid of me, but I was kinda pissed, and couldn't help myself. I tried to explain to her what I was doing, and she said, "I don't need your help fixing my dress!" I figured that that's how she wanted it, so I pushed it back in....
Post
#94965
Topic
<strong>The &quot;EditDroid&quot; Trilogy DVD Info and Feedback Thread</strong> (Released)
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/94965/action/topic#94965
Time
"the fact that it's not anamorphic makes it almost useless. The drop in image quality from zooming on my TV renders non-anamorphic DVDs unwatchable for me"

As opposed to "zooming in" on the LD video in one's video editing program? That's all that was done for Gonzo's version.

Sounds like your TV is the problem, not the video transfer.
Post
#94691
Topic
Riddles
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/94691/action/topic#94691
Time
Quote
Your Score: 10 out of 11
Your Rating: Wow! Come to work for us!

Now Here's the Twist;
Your answers not only can tell your current intelligence,
but the combination can also forcast your upcoming love life:

Your Projected Love Life: Your love life is mediocre
Remember you must pass this page on to at least 5 people.

0-4 People: We know you have no friends, don't look for anything good in your life
5-10: Your life will take a sudden turn for good in the next 2 weeks
11-20: Your love life now multiplied by your score
20 or more: Your life is guaranteed to get much better in the next week or less!


I goofed on the pills question. Oh well.
Post
#94616
Topic
Easy part done - Now 29.997 &gt; 23.976, the hard part
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/94616/action/topic#94616
Time
"the screenshots all look very similar except for offsets 3 and 4 which had obvious scan lines and seemed to be introducing parts of the surrounding frames"

That is what you should not be seeing. If you see that, then you have the wrong setting. Don't use 3 or 4 for that segment.

As to your capture and the settings. The reason you are having a problem is because the raw capture frame itself doesn't need IVTC. If the raw frame looks like 3 or 4, then it needs IVTCing. That's the kind of frame you should be referring back to to check your IVTC setting.

Also, you are losing enough frames to start creating an audio sync problem, and that's a bad thing. PM me your e-mail, and I'll send you the program I use. We'll lick this thing yet.

"the screenshots all look very similar except for offsets 3 and 4 which had obvious scan lines and seemed to be introducing parts of the surrounding frames"

That is what you should not be seeing. If you see that, then you have the wrong setting. Don't use 3 or 4 for that segment.

As to your capture and the settings. The reason you are having a problem is because the raw capture frame itself doesn't need IVTC. If the raw frame looks like 3 or 4, then it needs IVTCing. That's the kind of frame you should be referring back to to check your IVTC setting.

Also, you are losing enough frames to start creating an audio sync problem, and that's a bad thing. PM me your e-mail, and I'll send you the program I use. We'll lick this thing yet.

BTW, I found this forum and this faq (since I don't personally know your hardware.) You might want to peruse through them.

http://www.pixelmagicforum.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=7&page=2&sort=lastpost&order=&pp=25&daysprune=-1

http://www.pluggedin.tv/sweetspot/support/faq.html#5d

BTW, just out of curiosity, are you in NTSC-land or PAL-land?