Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda

When the blu-ray comes out, there might be a desire to make an example out of someone or something to dissuade pirating. This site is an obvious such target, and every time someone posts casually about pirating we draw a great big target on our site's back.  We need to be extra vigilant around that time if we want this forum to continue.

Molly said:

If it works it's definitely worth a try.  Isn't that how the WorkPrinter scans 16mm reels, take a shot, advance one frame, take another?

Yes, at about 6 frames per second. It would be the understatement of the century to say that doing that by hand would take take a lot of patience.

Harmy, you have a PM (with a link to the uncompressed PG flyby).  Keep in mind that it is BEFORE anamorphic stretching.

I've finally updated the Puggo website, adding a page for the Stjarnornas Krig and with some 16mm frame grabs both for the Grande and the Krig.  See my .sig for the link.

I like that a lot!

It's not that it's impossible, it's just to what degree it is worth the effort. I've already transferred a 16mm print, and while the Derann might be better, it also might be worse (judging from the resolution of the super8 Ken films I transferred). Projects this length take quite a bit of time (PG took an entire year, because I'm squeezing this stuff into the nooks and crannies of my schedule), and I have a queue of other interesting SW films on the way (not the least of which is ESB Grande). Doing a Derann print just didn't seem as pressing, especially since I'd have to figure out some way of actually making it work, without damaging something.

Also, keep in mind that the WorkPrinter isn't going to make the best possible transfer of a film.  Yes it will be better than a typical transfer house (especially since I care about it). But the very best transfers, such as a rank HD transfer, will beat it. But I'm still not even sure if the very best possible transfer of a Derann could compete with the GOUT.

Yes I have all of the original captures, plus the versions after my corrections, as DV .avi files.  If all you want is the strip of the flyby with the "blob", that should be easy to put up.  Let me know exactly which of the two versions you would like (heck, I could upload both in a single .avi).  I'm not entirely sure how it will help you (since it's on reel2, the reddest of the three reels), but if it can, great.

Right now, my favorite version of the OT to watch are Harmy's. In my opinion, it is the closest to what I remember experiencing in 1977.

As far as the PT, I haven't found a fanedit that makes any of them watchable. So I don't have a favorite, and only watch out of morbid curiosity.

EyeShotFirst said:

My regular old DVD burner burns em just fine. Just use IMGburn and it should work on a regular DVD burner. I figure it should, because mine is 6 years old and was a lower quality one.

I'm assuming you mean a DL burner, right?

I feel like a luddite for not yet having a BD or even DVD/DL burner yet.  Can anyone recommend a particular burner for burning disks such as these? I can tell I desperately need to upgrade.

zombie84 said:
In the old days, 200 years ago, if you were a composer, the only way you could make money was to travel with the orchestra and be the conductor, because then you’d be paid as a musician. There was no recording. There were no record royalties. So I would say, “Try to disconnect the idea of cinema with the idea of making a living and money.” Because there are ways around it."

But by the same token, if people wanted to hear your music, they had no choice but to come to your concert. There was no recording that they could download instead.

When suggesting that the colors in the 97 version were improvements over the original, remember that you're comparing 1997 video against older video versions.  There has never been a decent video transfer of the original FILM using today's video technology. To me, the 97 version isn't an improvement on the original, it is just a better quality copy of the original, with some unfortunate changes.  In fact, watching the 1997 version in the theater was the closest I ever saw to what I saw in 1977 in the theaters, because everything I saw between 1978 and 1996 had degraded.

The ideal version would be a modern high quality copy of the original film, which in my opinion would look better than every version out there today, including the 1997 SE and every fan version.

Wow, this all looks fantastic.  Not only am I impressed with how good of a job you did, I'm also struck by just how much more realistic the scenes look without all those ridiculous cartoony distractions.  Mos Eisley is supposed to be a dusty, dreary spaceport... not a zoo.

twooffour said:

Obviously, you missed the fact that TheBoost was criticizing the retconning and reframing WITHIN THE ORIGINAL TRILOGY.

A sentiment that I share, FWIW.

TheBoost said:

Katie,

Lucas's biggest changes aren't visible. It's not about Han shooting first, or CGI X-Wings. While I think those suck, and it's good for you to see the OOT when you can, but  it's the change in context he created that most deeply effect the films.

I hope you've read "Secret History of Star Wars" that goes really in depth into this. But the next time you watch "Star Wars" keep in mind all the things that AREN'T in the movie. Vader isn't Lukes dad. He isn't even the main villian. There's no Prophecy, no Sith Lords, Obi Wan isn't lying. It's about a farm boy on a quest to save a princess.

THAT is the movie that shattered box office records and changed lives. Good luck with your paper.

Very well stated.

generalfrevious said:

He's not warming up to anything. He just wanted to twist the knife in our hearts by releasing the product we want but making it so shockingly substandard we would not want to buy it.

I don't think it was meanly aimed at us.  I think it was released that way so that the throngs of idiots that make up most of the population would believe that is the way the OT looked, and provide proof that his SE was an improvement. He knew that most people would be stupid enough to believe it, and unfortunately he was right.  It was strategically aimed at everyone else, not us.

bkev said:

Some people need to understand these are just movies, even if we'd like to see them the right way...

No, they are not just movies.  That's like saying that the Mona Lisa is "just a painting".  Both are major cultural artifacts.

As you watch the "GOUT", you'll need to keep in mind that the lousy quality video quality you are seeing is NOT how it appeared in theaters.  It was a stunning 70mm film.  But at least with the GOUT you'll see the scenes that were in the 35mm release - albeit a very very poor quality transfer by today's standards.

Wonderful!

When I was a kid, "The Tingler" really scared me.

We really REALLY need an FAQ.

steb74 said:

Uranus, the Magician from The Planets by Gustav Holst.

That was quick!

skyjedi2005 said:

I LOL'ed at the maniac.  Like a bad slasher flick from the eighties John Carpenter style, only funnier.

Would be pretty cool to find out who actually made these and interview them.

One of the three shorts (the detective one) actually includes placards that say "starring" and "co-starring" and two of the kids' names.  I am still debating including them on a future edition, as I'm not really sure if distributing videos of kids with their names is even legal (although they aren't kids anymore). It's also obvious that there are at least three kids involved, judging by the faces in this and the other films (and that someone has to be behind the camera).  And honestly, I'm not entirely sure that the "MD Productions" goes with these films, or with the Easter picnic that was also on the reel :)  But it made it look more complete.

I'm glad you liked the maniac.  The more times I see it, the more funny I think it is, and in some sense the more impressed I am by it.  The camera angles are really rather good.  Who knows, maybe it'll go viral and they'll become famous movie producers.

So, quick contest - what's the music I timed for it?

msycamore said:

Another thing, in the broadcast, the channel logo appears in the corner of the frame five or six times, I don't remember exactly, the first appearence is in the black border so that one is easy to mask out, but the other instances we will have to live with, as it was broadcasted in pan & scan.

You could always try to splice in fullscreen footage from another source to get rid of them, but I don't think the logo is that disturbing. Thoughts?

 

There are several logo-removing filters for VirtualDub that might be worth trying, depending on what is behind it.  I've used them on occasion.

luke.the.darkside.is.fun said:

Well im sorry i dont spell right or whatever, i have that thing where u get words backwords in your mind.

By the way, I think your spelling is fine (it's just a forum... c'mon guys, lighten up!).  And I like your user name.