NeverarGreat

DuracellEnergizer said:

Yeah, I can’t take that guy seriously anymore.

I thought their whole point was that even THEY don’t take themselves seriously.

TV’s Frink said:

I don’t know that I like the idea of adding Scarif. I think I prefer my A New Hope…sans Scarif.

…

I’ll show myself out.

I wish that were so.

JEDIT: All these broken DurEnergizer links make me sad. Most of the thread is gone!

DuracellEnergizer said:

So twoface is actually Tommy Lee Jones combined with Charles Kraudhammer? Chilling.

Also a big fan of NammaN & NibbiN

Exactly 24 hours until I see Rogue One. Just have to avoid spoilers until then…

JEDIT: Does it annoy anyone else on this forum when the markdown abbreviates 4-dot ellipsis into 3? I guess you could manually insert a space into it . . . .

Slotches

pleasehello said:

I read that article earlier this year. It’s pretty disturbing.

He describes Lucas’ scripts for Attack of the Clones and Return of the Sith as “Shakespearean”.

Well I DID hate the Anakin/Padme love plot about as much as the Romeo/Juliet one, so…maybe?

He looks cold.

There’s one particularly telling example of the over-use of camera movement in Maz’s Castle. Rey approaches the lightsaber chest, and there are about 3 different shots each with different camera moves that establish the chest. There is no need for 3 ‘dramatic’ shots that convey what a single static shot will accomplish. In this way the cinematography distracts from the ‘real world’ aesthetic of the original film. Lucas was a fan of documentary filmmaking, and his minimalistic style of locking down shots on tripods did allow for a ‘fly on the wall’ feeling in certain scenes. This is something that TFA really lacks.

So I just watched ‘I Am Your Father’ (2015) and for that documentary they filmed David Prowse for his death scene. I am wondering if that scene has found its way online. Also, one of the biggest unanswered questions from the doc is whether they filmed Prowse in Jedi robes against a blue screen for the final shot of the film.

The doc itself is somewhat interesting, though there’s a lot of padding to bring it up to an hour runtime.

I remember when my DVD collection looked like that, and it contained most of those movies as well. It’s the Early-Twenties-Male Movie Starter Pack™.

Granted, I don’t buy a whole lot of DVDs/Blu-rays so my collection is only about 3x that size now, and a good portion is taken up by the VHS, 2004 DVD, 2006 DVD, and Blu-ray releases of the 6-film Star Wars Saga.

Yes, I have AOTC in all 3 formats.

Yes, it’s very hollow. It was physically painful to my ears.

Perhaps it’s just my completionist attitude towards SW, but I should probably sit through those movies at some point.

Aren’t there horses in the Ewok adventures? Camels seem to be a similar case - a compromise due to budget constraints whereas an imagined creature such as a Tauntan or a Bantha would be preferred. It’s hard to imagine keeping a camel in the movie when it’s so easy to alien-ify it.

No, keep it, it looks good on him!

It sure is quiet around here.

Anyway, here’s one extremely arduous method of tackling the problem of errant grain due to multiple print generations:

For Star Wars, the best non-technicolor prints we have are apparently release prints. This means that they are probably 3 generations removed from the negative.
O-neg
Interpositive (IP)
Internegative (IN)
Release Print

Since Star Wars was so successful, there were several Interpositive prints struck over its lifetime. From these, many more Internegatives were struck, since they would get worn out during the production of release prints.

Now if we had access to a good IP or IN the work would be greatly reduced, though these prints were usually too worn out to be much use. Barring this, we have to use release prints. Dye cloud mapping of several release prints should produce an accurate image of the Internegative that produced them. Since there were probably several internegatives made of each interpositive, the release prints would have to be organized by the internegative that made them, and the process applied to those groups separately. Perhaps you can see where this is going. Say you need four versions of a single frame from prints generated by a single internegative to correctly recreate the internegative grain. In order to recreate the interpositive grain, you’d need to have four fully recreated internegatives, and to recreate the grain of the o-neg, you would need four fully recreated interpositives. All told, 64 release prints from the various IPs and INs would need to be correctly identified, scanned and mapped. It’s quite absurd.

There is one potential problem with my theoretical technique, which has to do with errant grain.

With an original negative, the center of the dye cloud will correspond with actual image detail almost 100% of the time. However, when a print is made from the o-neg, the dye clouds are the basis of the new image. The 2nd generation print will have the o-neg grain and a further dye cloud pattern. If you were to trace the centers of these clouds, some of them would perfectly overlap the grains of the previous print and retain all the detail of the o-neg, but most photons would have struck some other place on the o-neg dye clouds. These new clouds would have slightly incorrect value and placement in the image. This is what I’m going to call ‘errant grain’. If a print reaches something like 4th generation, which is about right for most prints of Star Wars, then this problem could be quite severe, and despite this precision the image will be somewhat soft. I’m still thinking of how to correct this issue.

Flattening is definitely a problem when applying a sharpening filter to an image, for example the 2011 Blu-ray has such severe sharpening that blurred background elements become as sharp as foreground elements.

This shouldn’t be a problem with the technique I’m describing, since it SHOULD increase the sharpness of all parts of the image equally, rather than sharpening blurry areas only. The reason it should do this is because it is the focus of the lens which creates the illusion of depth of field, and more accurately pinpointing the photons actually preserves innate blurriness where the lens is out of focus. A basic super resolution technique of averaging several sequential frames may cause a loss of depth of field due to a slight softening of the parts of the image which are in focus, especially if these areas are in motion. I have described earlier how sharp edges can be blurred through frame averaging.

Will the wonders never cease?

The yellows are a bit green, and the skin tones seem a bit desaturated, though that’s more a matter of personal preference.

Thanks! It occurred to me right after creating the project that this might be a better place for it…

It may be historical truth, but Obi-wan Lives! This is my personal truth!

Yeah, there are a few shots that are quite desaturated compared to surrounding shots, and in quite a few shots there is a discoloration on the right hand side of the frame, no doubt from the Grindhouse footage. It’s only distracting in a few instances though.

I know this is a tangent from a tangent, but why is it that Obi-wan and Yoda dissipated as they died? I know the official explanation is that they are now in the ‘netherworld of the Force’ and can only appear as ghosts to those they knew, but that netherworld doesn’t require their physical bodies to allow them to project ghost bodies, otherwise Anakin wouldn’t have been able to do it in ROTJ.

Conspiracy theory: Neither Obi-wan nor Yoda is actually dead, instead they teleported via the Force to another location in the galaxy and only appear occasionally in ghost form to other people. It makes some sense, since Luke assumes that Yoda is too strong in the Force to actually die, and Yoda seems to imply that it is possible. If it is the Force that prolongs life, Obi-wan could still technically be alive - it even looks like he aged a bit in ghost form, a highly suspicious activity for a ghost.

😉