logo Sign In

Mielr

User Group
Members
Join date
15-Jun-2006
Last activity
27-Dec-2024
Posts
2,805

Post History

Post
#259452
Topic
Has technology accelerated that much?
Time
Originally posted by: Obi Jeewhyen
Um, not that Vigo can't defend himself ... but if we are going to communicate over the internet with people all over the world, we'd better get used to the fact that Americans have developed a very, very bad repuation over the past couple of centuries. Recent history isn't helping.

While it's dumb to make vast generalizations, it's also absurd to expect that Americans be held in high regard as a nationality.

That's HIS problem, (and yours too, apparently). I guess civility is too much to ask here.
Post
#259439
Topic
Has technology accelerated that much?
Time
Originally posted by: Vigo
I have no problem if someone corrects my spelling, but he didn´t do that. He simply suggested that I am dumb or something because I used the wrong spelling, and yesterday, I was really upset by this, because I was in a very bad mood. I hope at least you notice that I wrote Asshole, not Assholes .

Concerning insulting countries, well, I´m sorry if you felt that I have insulted you as a person. I didn´t. My whole anger was mainly directed towards him, as I already said, I´m sorry if I offend anyone. Nevertheless, there is at least small truth in everything.

Americans tend to be ignorant of the world around them, and I can partly understand that, because it is a very big and wealthy country. You don´t have to understand the rest of the world. You don´t have to acknoledge international laws. You can anonymously torture people, and no oher nation has the guts to stand up against this. You don´t have to acknowledge international agreements to decrease pollution and stop earth warming. You still have the barbaric death penalty. Power corrupts, and leads to decay. And the frustrating thing is, if you go down, you are going to take us all with you.

I know that by saying "you", I mainly refer to your administration. But then again, who voted for them to be elected TWICE?


...Umm, unless I got something serious wrong, Canadians also live on the American continent. Technically, you are a citizen of the USA. Yes, people mainly call you Americans, but technically, I could also call a Canadian an American. As you can call me an European.


........No, you are not an ignorant American. You are a non-ignorant American. See the difference? I never said that all Americans are ignorant. But many of you guys take a lot of things for granted. You are not used to be critized by others. You can´t handle it, because you don´t have to... ...yet.

Again, I´m sorry if I offend anyone personally. Perhaps I´m kind of ignorant, too now. Maybe, there is perhaps more in common than I thought. At least, I am somewhat able to reflect on this.
Sorry Vigo, but you don't get to say things like "You are probably American, and will most probably never set foot on another continent besides your own. And if you do, the first thing you will do is heading to the next McDonald´s, avoiding exposure to too much foreign culture mixing up your precious little brain." and then try to avoid responsibility for what you've said by saying something lame like "sorry if I offended anyone".

You made a gross generalization about Americans, and my response to you was way more polite than it should have been, and yet instead of apologizing, you went on to hurl some more insults at Americans?

I don't assume that all Germans are Nazis, (and I've been to Germany, BTW, and my Grandfather was of German extraction- although he still fought in WWII to defend Europe against the Nazis), and I find it as offensive for you to call Americans "ignorant" as I'm sure you do for someone to refer to Germans as "Nazis".

(Also, yes, you got something "serious wrong". Canadians are NOT referred to as "Americans" they are "Canadians". Mexicans also live in North America, and are referred to as "Mexicans"). Maybe if you had ever set foot in Canada or Mexico you would know that.

It's too damn bad if you don't like George W. Bush - what he has to do with someone correcting your spelling I guess makes sense only in your own brain.



Originally posted by: Vigo
Well, telling a fat lady that she is, in fact, fat, is an insult, correct. A honest one, though.
...and would be extremely cruel and rude.

Originally posted by: bigmonkey20
I guess in Vigo's mind, we're all fat, lazy and ignorant.


Originally posted by: Vigo
Statistically, you are in fact the "fattest" nation on the planet. Everything concerning food coming from your culture is "fat fat fat". Does this say that all of you are fat?

Someone who comes from the country that invented bratwurst has a lot of nerve criticizing "fat" American food. Originally posted by: VigoDid I say that all Americans are ignorant? Now YOU are being ignorant. An ignorant American. See what I mean?
And you are an ignorant German. See what I mean? Don't be offended, though!
Post
#259200
Topic
Has technology accelerated that much?
Time
Originally posted by: Vigo
Originally posted by: canofhumdingers
Originally posted by: Vigo
...restaurated...

wow...

You know what really "wow" is? Learn to speak 3 different languages like myself. Oh wait, you don´t have to. You are probably American, and will most probably never set foot on another continent besides your own. And if you do, the first thing you will do is heading to the next McDonald´s, avoiding exposure to too much foreign culture mixing up your precious little brain.

I´m sorry if I offend anyone, but ignorant posts like this drive me nuts.Asshole!
Whoa nelly!

I agree that he probably shouldn't have corrected your spelling, but in turn you decide to insult my country?

I'm an American (I have no idea if canofhumdingers is or not- he may be Canadian, he may be British or Australian....) but I was one of the Americans on this board who came to your defense and still you decide to assume that the one person who offended you is American while none of your defenders are?

Sounds like a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

....and if you'll notice, even though I'm an ignorant American, I managed to write this post without insulting your homeland.

Post
#259196
Topic
See, George, This is how it's done ...
Time
Originally posted by: Obi Jeewhyen


To this day, I have never purchased the Back to the Future set because I don't think it's my responsiblity to purchase a DVD, then call to have a replacement sent, and then wait for that replacement to arrive. Universal has, as far as I know, never issued corrected sets to retailers.

They have issued correct sets. The boxed are labeled differently so you can tell which one is the new release. There's a website that discusses the whole thing and shows you what to look for on the box. I can't find the site right now, but I doubt if any of the older sets are still on store shelves.

Post
#258726
Topic
Will you buy the OOT again ?
Time
Originally posted by: Vigo
Originally posted by: SW

For example you might say the pic quilty is abit crap but dont forget Star wars is a 30 year old movie !!


Look at Wizard of Oz on DVD. And this is a 65 year old movie. The original 1937 Robin Hood (released on HD-DVD now in gorgeous quality). 30 years is not too much, there are movies MUCH older and MUCH less popular than Star Wars released on DVD in great quality.

Yeah, I just got the new OZ DVD and it is stunning.

It will be a cold day in hell before I buy the Star Wars 2007 Anniversary DVD set (unless it contains the remastered/anamorphic OOT -which it won't- and even then I'd still sell Episodes I-III on eBay!)
Post
#258725
Topic
Question about Outtake/Unused Star Wars Music...
Time
LOL! I keep meaning to as well (I've wanted to do that since I first got the CDs). It would be easy enough to just cue up the DVD and the CD, and turn down the sound from the DVD, to just get a sense of how the scene would play with the alternate music.

Unfortunately, I don't have the correct gear to make my own DVD dub with the alternate music added.
Post
#258541
Topic
Question about Outtake/Unused Star Wars Music...
Time
The 2-disc editions of the soundtracks (released by RCA in 1997 and then by Sony a few years later) have most of the music from the anthology (except for the music that was deleted from the SEs- like Lapti Nek and the Ewok Song) plus some music that wasn't included in the anthology.

BTW- your signature pic is WAAAAAAAY too big- it stretches out the page horizonally making it difficult to read your post.
Post
#258450
Topic
Where do I go from here as a SW fan?
Time
Originally posted by: zombie84
Star Wars was filmed on Panavision Platinums by a top-notch crew. Panavision Platinum's are the most rock-solidly registered cameras that you can buy--the film literally does not move.....

....And the GOUT weave is not just the slight weave created through less-than-steller camera gate registration--its very pronounced, and obviously due to factors in the equipment made to telecine it. These factors may include human error, poor print conidition and poor equipment used. Perhaps because it was from the 1985 IP the print already had lots of weave built into the print itself since it is third generation to begin with, faults which were then built upon by the actual 1993 telecine.


So....the camera equipment they used in 1975/76 was great, but the telecine equipment they used in 1993 was crap?

How come nobody complained about the gate weave when the DC/Faces laserdiscs came out?
Post
#258446
Topic
Has technology accelerated that much?
Time
Originally posted by: generalfrevious
I have a silly question, but I think it could clear things up for me, and its about the change in video technology. How can the best laserdisc transfer from the 90s end up being the most visually unwatchable DVD today? And, are the 2006 SW DVD's analog?

It does seem like we've gotten pretty spoiled sometimes, doesn't it?

I remember when I got my first VCR and my first VHS tape of Star Wars in the early 1980's, and how thrilled I was. The fuzzy nature of VHS didn't bother me then- I was just in awe of the ability to play my favorite movie on my TV- whenever I wanted to! WOW! It was a pretty neat thing back then. I watched that old VHS tape a million times (or, at least it seemed like it).

To answer your question, the 2006 DVDs are indeed digital (like all other DVDs) and they were made from the 1993 LD masters (which are also digital) but the LDs themselves were an analog medium (at least in terms of the video- the sound was digital).

Post
#258321
Topic
Final Consensus On 2006 OOT
Time
Originally posted by: Knightmessenger
Does anyone know the last widescreen movie that was released non anamorphic before these?
I don't know what the last one was, but I used to own the non-anamorphic DVD of "The Pink Panther Returns" (which I've since traded up to the anamorphic version), and I still own the non-anamorphic version of "Young Frankenstein" (which I won't be trading up for- since it looks really nice, and I hear the anamorphic version is cropped too much on the top and bottom). The non-anamorphic YF DVD came out in '98 I think, and the non-anamorphic TPPR DVD came out in '99.

Also, the "Yellow Submarine" DVD is non-anamorphic (and also now out-of-print). It came out in 1999.

Post
#257757
Topic
Where do I go from here as a SW fan?
Time
Originally posted by: zombie84


No, gate weave is not part of the film--its a by-product of the projection stage, and its visibility is dependent on human and technological factors, including how well the film is threaded through the projector and how well the projector is built. On lower budgeted formats and projectors there will be some slight weave--ie, 16mm film only has one perf for frame--but it should never be visible. In fact, the most essentially testing phase of the camera prep before a crew shoots a movie is called a registration test, and its the first thing that is done in order to eliminate gate weave being built into the film by making sure that the movement of the camera gate is rock-solid.
Inevitably, when you see a movie in theaters there will be some very minor weave that is only noticeable if you look for it--this has to do with the fact that you are seeing less than ideal prints that are getting a bit banged up, and run by a projectionist that likely is not doing his job to the best of his ability because its just a mutiplex screening that gets done ten times a day. However, if you were to watch a carefully made and thoroughly examined transfer on dvd, you will notice that gate weave is totally absent--in fact, many now use stabalising filters to eliminate even the most subtle of weave to make sure that the image is perfectly still and natural, as it should be.
I don't agree. The "stabilizing" filters you speak of are not part of the usual film process, which is why such tampering is sometimes criticized by videophiles. Like I said, I personally don't have a preference, but many videophiles dislike anything that deviates from the movie theater-like experience.

Even waaaaaay back in the dark ages (1993) I'm sure they knew how to properly load the film into the telecine (if their fingers weren't too scabbed up from their knuckles dragging on the ground) and the transfer was state-of-the-art at the time, with plenty of $$$ to buy top-notch telecine equipment (even by today's standards), and I'm sure they did a much better job than the average projectionist at today's local multiplex. The quality issue I think resides not with the telecine process itself (or the equipment used) - but with the fact that the resulting masters were made for a much lower-resolution medium (laserdisk).

Your quarrel seems not so much to be with the exessive gate weave you perceive, but with the film medium itself. I'm guessing you would prefer that all movies were shot digitally, completely devoid of film-related anomalies?

Seeing a movie in a theater is still the zenith that every home-theater buff strives for- and yet movie theaters still use plain-old 35mm film and (*gasp!*) projectors, WITHOUT "stabilizing filters", and WITH sometimes inexperienced projectionists with heavily-used prints and projectors. I wonder why it is that so many are willing to accept a bit of gate weave in a movie theater, but not at home?

In any case, I didn't mean to create acrimony. You see excessive gate weave- I don't. I only see aliasing (in SW- not as much in the other 2) in non-anamorphic DVDs. Guess I'm the lucky one then?




Post
#257590
Topic
Where do I go from here as a SW fan?
Time
Originally posted by: lordjedi
To be honest, gate weave is a minor issue to me since I do only seem to notice it when I'm watching it up close or on the computer. My biggest beef is in fact the non-anamorphic issue. We are in agreement there.

I also noticed the gate weave when those first few clips leaked out (the "new" crawl, the Jedi finale, etc.), and I was surprised to see it. It turns out that I had just never watched the SW films with my face 12 inches from a computer screen before. I checked my Faces LDs and sure enough- the gate weave is present on them as well, but I just never noticed it because I watched them several feet from my TV.

When I finally brought the DVDs home and popped them into the player, I didn't notice the gate weave at all.
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
I think from here, everyone should get a Nintendo Wii.
I think everyone around here is tense enough already- are you trying to start a riot?