Quinnsey

User Group: Members
Join date: 5-Jun-2003
Last activity: 9-Aug-2003
Posts: 10

Post History

Post: #138343
Topic: .: The X0 Project Discussion Thread :. (* unfinished project *)
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/138343/action/topic#138343
Time: 13-Sep-2005 9:54 AM

Around 172,800 for each film, right? I bet there are people out there who are dedicated enough! You could probably scan about 20 frames in one go on an A4 scanner…

Post: #138337
Topic: Info: Well yes, it's another OT project. (* unfinished project *)
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/138337/action/topic#138337
Time: 13-Sep-2005 9:23 AM

Is there actually any point in including both Dolby Digital 2.0 AND PCM Stereo considering the Dolby is just an inferior version of the PCM?

Post: #138328
Topic: .: The X0 Project Discussion Thread :. (* unfinished project *)
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/138328/action/topic#138328
Time: 13-Sep-2005 7:09 AM

Interesting… thanks for that info. It ages since I’ve seen 8mm projected, didn’t realise it was up to those standards. Most of the 16mm dupes of Star Wars I’ve seen on ebay were scope. Seeing as not many people have access to professional telecline equipment I wonder what it would look like if someone attempted to scan the frames with a regular scanner…

Post: #138327
Topic: Info Wanted: Blade Runner - number of English versions? And differing sound mixes?
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/138327/action/topic#138327
Time: 13-Sep-2005 7:04 AM

When they showed the 70mm workprint, they thought it was just a standard release print. They didn’t realise until I was actually being projected to the audience that it was a completely different version.

Post: #138222
Topic: Info Wanted: Blade Runner - number of English versions? And differing sound mixes?
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/138222/action/topic#138222
Time: 12-Sep-2005 7:14 PM

There’s only ever been the Dolby 2.0 Surround on home video although the initial release had Dolby Six-Tracks (probably 4.2) on the 70mm roadshow prints. The recently broadcast HDTV version apparently had Dolby Digital 5.1 that was less active than the stereo DVD.

These are the versions as far as I remember:

The only two really important versions are (1) The International Theatrical Cut (2) The 1992 Director’s Cut.

For fans there’s also (3) The incomplete Workprint version (4) The censored US Theatrical release (5) The censored US TV master with additional line of dialogue.

Post: #138121
Topic: .: The X0 Project Discussion Thread :. (* unfinished project *)
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/138121/action/topic#138121
Time: 12-Sep-2005 8:34 AM

Anyone know what the percieved resolution of 8mm is? Would it really be superior to laserdisc? I would have thought you'd have to go to 16mm to get DVD quality.

Post: #137756
Topic: Something that's always bothered me about the Prequels
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/137756/action/topic#137756
Time: 9-Sep-2005 7:29 PM

The thing that annoys me about the prequels is… the prequels.

Post: #135633
Topic: aspect ratio
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/135633/action/topic#135633
Time: 3-Sep-2005 9:05 AM

Why would they shoot the Holiday Special with an anamorphic squeeze? As far as I know it was shot on Video and back then I’m pretty sure anamorphic lenses were not manufactured for video cameras. And I can’t understand why they would even consider shooting for widescreen considering 1 – Widescreen TV sets did not appear until the 90’s 2 – A theatrical release was out of the question having been shot on video.

What you’re doing is stretching the actual image, which aesthetically is horrible.

Post: #135074
Topic: aspect ratio
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/135074/action/topic#135074
Time: 2-Sep-2005 12:59 PM

Most likely the clip in question was simply cropped to fit the 16:9 ratio of the actual feature. There were no wide screen TV sets in 1978 so the special would have been composed for the standard 4:3 ratio and hence that’s the way it should be presented. I can think of no logical reason why there would be an anamorphic squeeze on the cartoon segment.

Post: #5678
Topic: Attention web site owners: please lend your support and link to us!
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/5678/action/topic#5678
Time: 5-Jun-2003 11:56 AM

Just to let you guys know I posted a link here on the imdb (No. 50)