logo Sign In

Mielr

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

Post History

Post
#257588
Topic
Where do I go from here as a SW fan?
Time
Originally posted by: lordjedi

I snipped most of it because I've read it before and didn't feel the need to requote everything. All I can say is that I've honestly never seen gate weave to that extent on any other DVD I own. It may be there, but I've never noticed it. I also didn't have to have it pointed out to me on this release. As soon as I started up a sample, I saw it. I honestly couldn't believe my eyes. It was like someone was shaking my monitor. I don't have any other DVDs that do this.

I've also never seen this happen at a theater during any movie. I've noticed a slight shake in the beginning on some films, but never to this extent. Again, it was like someone was shaking the monitor.

If that's something that can be corrected, as zombie said it was, then again, there is no reason to release a DVD like that in 2006.
Originally posted by: zombie84
Gate weave is most definitly not part of the film. If you see Casino Royale and it is shaking all over the place--that means the projectionist is a fucking moron and hasn't threaded the film correctly. Watch another film on DVD? Do you see gate weave? Probably not. Gate weave is an artifical flaw introduced in the projection stage due to inadequete equipment. In the case of the GOUT, its a flaw created through the piece of shit transfer--the 1993 telecine didn't hold the film steady as it passed through the scanner, and so the image wobbles. A modern scan would yield a rock-solid image--such as the 2004 dvd.

And yes, the gate weave on the GOUT is pretty bad. Older movies and older telecines had more noticeable gate weave but this problem has been mostly overcome in recent years, although you still see a telecine from time to time (the dvd of Troy is hidious and features many video exposure flaws as well as lots of gate weave).


I'm sorry but gate weave IS part of the film. It is part of the process of a strip of film running through a projector, and the slight side-to-side movement that occurs as the sprocket holes for each frame are taken up.

Perhaps you are watching the DVDs on your computer and sitting too close to the screen? Like I said before, if you LOOK for gate weave, you will see it. And yes, you will usually see it at the beginning of a film because it is more noticeable when you are reading text- it's still there during the rest of the film- it's just not as apparent.

Try sitting further away from your screen I think you'll be surprised at how the gate weave appears to lessen.

I think it hurts our cause to complain about flaws that aren't flaws. There are so many other flaws to complain about- the non-anamorphic issue being the biggest, the aliasing being 2nd.....I can understand how others brush us off as fanatics, when we start complaining about gate weave, film grain, color breathing and other issues inherent of motion picture film.

But again- that's just my 2 cents. Do as you will.



Post
#257514
Topic
Where do I go from here as a SW fan?
Time
Originally posted by: lordjedi

Originally posted by: Go-Mer-TonicLast night I popped in Star Wars on my PC and got fairly close to the monitor. I can certainly see what you guys are saying about the resolution and the jaggy lines and the graineyness. But at the same time I think the colors and general sharpness is pretty good. One thing I love the most about this release is the way you get the image instability. To me that instantly nails that feeling I had watching the originals in the theater, where it all looks so real, but has that twitch to it that your brain adjusts to, but still gives you that slight feeling like you are hallucinating or something. Like this "reality" is slightly off the tracks.


Dude, the "image instability" is the worst thing about this release. Based on what I've seen, that shake is very noticable and just nasty. I really don't want to feel like I'm hallucinating when I watch Star Wars. I want to be drawn into the movie. That shake completely drops me out of the movie it's so noticeable. Not to mention all the scratches and other things I notice.

lordjedi, I've agreed with most of what you've said so far, but I have to disagree with you here. The "image instability" Go-mer referred to is just gate weave, which is not generally considered to be a flaw. It's an inherent part of the film process- if you go to see Casino Royale in a theater today, you will also see gate weave (if you look for it- generally, if you don't seek it out- you won't notice it). You will also see gate weave on at least 90% of all DVDs released today (most noticeable during the opening and ending credits). Any film that is run through a projector or a telecine, will have some gate weave. Only films that have been scanned frame-by-frame for DVD release will not have it. Most DVD movies have not been scanned this way, because the process is more expensive than using a telecine. However, just because a telecine has been used to make a DVD transfer doesn't mean that the transfer can't be excellent. In fact, there are some who are critical of using the scanning process because they feel it makes the transfer look more like video than film. Personally, I don't really have a preference either way.

These DVDs do have flaws and the true flaws do deserve criticism, but I don't think it's fair to criticise them for something that technically is not a flaw. I don't know if you've watched all three of the DVDs in their entirety, but I've watched all three of them 2 or 3 times each so far, and to me, the gate weave is no worse than on any other DVD I have, or any movie I've seen theatrically. In fact, they're better than some DVDs I have (ie-the Rocky Horror 25th Anniversary DVD has some scenes where the gate weave is far more apparent).

Anyhow, just my 2 cents.



Post
#255677
Topic
A New Hope HDTV screenshots
Time
Are there any captures of Luke? I'd appreciate it if someone could point them out to me. I was clicking the links randomly last nite, and I couldn't find any. I thought they were in chronological order, but apparently they're not.

The detail is amazing- but that shot of Han and Ben in the MF cockpit really show how crappy the skintones are due to the botched color-timing.

Damn shame these are the SEs. Oh well.
Post
#253674
Topic
Letterbox looks like CRAP on a widescreen HDTV :(
Time
Originally posted by: hanakin Dual Layer DVDs usually look better than an old 4.7gb DVD movie. Most movies at this point in time are being released in Dual Layer or similar formats (DVD 9 for example). These discs have a larger capacity to store data, and will look a little better than movies from 5 years ago........

........If you try to zoom in, you are only making those pixels bigger, you are not really zooming in. Bigger pixels looks like lower quality. Any movie that you do this to will give the same results every time. Zoom in and the quality does not look like it did before the zoom. Its just common sense. HD-DVDs and BlueRay DVDs might have less pixelization when you zoom in, I don't know. But for regular DVD movies, zooming in is gonna give a picture that is more blurry than the native image. Well, fortunately these new OOT DVDs are at least dual-layered and flagged progressive. Another thing to take into consideration when you try to zoom in on them is to find a DVD player that performs the zoom after the processing chip(s) (rather than before). DVD players that do this provide a much better image quality of non-anamorphic DVDs on widescreen sets.
Originally posted by: hanakin
I would strongly recommend that you wait. Next year is the 30th Anniversary of Star Wars, there is no way that George Lucas does not plan to capitalize on this party. I fully expect every edition of all 6 movies to be re-released again on both HD-DVD and BlueRay DVD, maybe even as a deal with a new DVD player and/or TV package depending on the Retailers.

I admire your optimism, hanakin, but I've lost hope that we'll see anamorphic transfers of the OOT in the '07 boxed set (much less blu-ray or hd-dvd). We'll definitely see HD versions of the SEs, because those are the only versions of the OT that exist in GL's mind now.

Personally, I have no interest in an HD SE trilogy, nor any boxed set that doesn't contain new anamorphic transfers of the OOT, so the current non-anamorphic DVDs will have to suffice.

Post
#253468
Topic
Addresses and contacts for various media outlets go in here
Time
Originally posted by: fedtho
P.S. I got curious and looked for said thread:

it's at least interesting to read Mielr's strong statement in favour of the new release on page 7 (and then small comments on the following) of this thread: First Impressions of the OOT ...

...oh, and I finally found the thread announcing the end of the writing campaign: DVD WRITING CAMPAIGN - WEEK TWO - "Sound & Vision" Magazine

there, you have some reading for the week-end......

Hey- in my own defense the DVDs looked pretty damn good to me after everyone was saying that they were going to look like old, beat-up VHS tapes!

I STILL want anamorphic transfers (and will be thrilled if they ever materialize), but I think there comes a point when it's time to admit that it's over and you've lost, and I'm afraid that ol' Georgie boy just had a better team this year. Sorry!

Post
#253467
Topic
Addresses and contacts for various media outlets go in here
Time
Originally posted by: fedtho
Hi Mike,

I hadn't visited the forum in weeks; you might notice the last post before yours here is from the end of August... I learned in another thread from Mielr (a thread I have unfortunately lost track of...) that until further notice, the writing campaign is off, due to a lack general of enthusiasm. There seem to be only a few of us who took part in the first two or three attempts.
Furthermore, several Forum-members seem to agree the OOT released in September isn't that bad, some stating it's better than their original laserdiscs...

If you do a search on Mielr's posts, you might find the thread I'm refering to...

All the best
fedtho

The writing campaign really went nowhere- even some of the OOT's most vocal supporters here failed to write letters (or even post in the campaign's thread, for that matter) which is why we gave up.

But like I said- there's still nothing to stop individual members from writing their own letters.

Post
#253078
Topic
.: The XØ Project - Laserdisc on Steroids :. (SEE FIRST POST FOR UPDATES) (* unfinished project *)
Time
Originally posted by: Knightmessenger
I was wondering if any of you has had a look at the new dvd's. How do they compare to your X0 raw uncorrected capture of the Definitive Collection?

Laserman said that there were going to be some comparison caps between the official DVDs and the X0 pretty soon.

EDIT: The X0 site seems to be down.....?
Post
#252764
Topic
Letterbox looks like CRAP on a widescreen HDTV :(
Time
So far, I haven't been blown away by the plasma and lcd TVs I've seen. Until they can match the PQ of a CRT, they can keep 'em. Some of the 30" widescreen CRTs have a beautiful picture- even when not calibrated perfectly. The Sony set in particular has a gorgeous picture. The main drawback of CRTs though, is of course the limited screen size, and the fact that they're so heavy and deep.
Post
#252149
Topic
The Merits of the Prequel Trilogy and the "Saga"
Time
Here's the AFI's top 20:

1. CITIZEN KANE (1941)

2. CASABLANCA (1942)

3. THE GODFATHER (1972)

4. GONE WITH THE WIND (1939)

5. LAWRENCE OF ARABIA (1962)

6. THE WIZARD OF OZ (1939)

7. THE GRADUATE (1967)

8. ON THE WATERFRONT (1954)

9. SCHINDLER'S LIST (1993)

10. SINGIN' IN THE RAIN (1952)

11. IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE (1946)

12. SUNSET BOULEVARD (1950)

13. THE BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI (1957)

14. SOME LIKE IT HOT (1959)

15. STAR WARS (1977)

16. ALL ABOUT EVE (1950)

17. THE AFRICAN QUEEN (1951)

18. PSYCHO (1960)

19. CHINATOWN (1974)

20. ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST (1975)
Post
#251681
Topic
Star Wars: The Stupidest Quotes!
Time
Originally posted by: garethxxgod
Originally posted by: Mielr

Probably the best line of the trilogy.


I disagree....but I have no problem with the performance....I realize they were just struggling to get him to say SOMETHING that worked as "I love you too" didn't work. I just don't think it works at that particular moment and should have been done differently (with perhaps Leia doing something instead of saying something like reaching out for Han). Then again I'm probably in the minority of this opinion.

You're definitely in the minority, there. It totally encapsulates Han Solo's personality with two simple words- a guy who's in love with himself even when facing certain death (not to mention a bit of perfectly placed comic relief at one of the most tense moments in the film).

.....and it sure beats the line that was originally scripted:

LEIA: I love you.

HAN: I love you too.