asterisk8

Why would Vader's chamber be so isolated like it was specifically built into the ship? Vader was not the leader of the Empire. He wasn't even necessarily respected by his inferiors. They feared him, but as we saw in ANH, some even mocked him and his beliefs. Only after the prequels do we now consider Vader the most important person in the entire galaxy, but that is not how it originally was meant to be. I think it makes more sense for his meditation chamber to be just a room where they put his life-support pod, close-at-hand because he needed it. But they didn't build the entire Executor around it.

Well, based on the film, we've seen that when you enter the meditation chamber, the pod is directly in front of you, but the ramp does not face the doorway. If the doorway is on the Eastern wall, then the access ramp to Vader's pod faces the south. That's why Piett walks around the pod to talk to Vader. When Vader uses the viewscreen to strangle Ozzle, he spins his chair 180 degrees, placing the viewscreen on the north wall. The area where the Emperor's hologram appears can only be south of the pod.

Sluggo said:

No, no.  You are clearly blinded by the love of the number 8.  It has even infected your screen name!

If you are only going for an 'internal' answer to this non-conundrum, the room could have been shaped like an oval.  Or the letter B.  Or maybe the meditation chamber retracted into the wall while it was off screen.  Or into the floor or the ceiling.  Or it could have transformed into a autobot named kenobus prime and is out fighting the evil forces of the decepticons.

 

As for the viewscreen, my 'external' answer (which I will ALWAYS prefer over the 'internal' ones) is that the screen was behind the Emperor hologram as in the picture below:

 

I don't see this viewscreen

in this picture or in the following full-face shot of the Emperor.

Am I missing it?

Sluggo, I realize that the actual set was flipped to save space and materials, but the fictional room they created by reusing the set in that way, is shaped like an 8. If you look at the wide shot of Vader and the Emperor (5 in Imp's sequence), there is clearly a gap between the pylons on the left side that is the "waist" of the 8.

HotRod said:

Ok...So where's the view screen Vader uses to choke Ozzle?..Where's the door the officers come through?

 

 

I don't get it?  This never made any sense to me (the whole scene thing, not the diagram above :)

I haven't studied the film with the rigor of some, but from what I can tell, the room is shaped like a vesica piscis with the emperor's projection room being slightly larger than the meditation chamber. When Piett and other officers enter, they circle clockwise and stand just to the right of the kneeling platform.

1anakin said:

I don't know how to say this without sounding critical, so here it goes. When Yoda says, "Judge me by my size do you?" Yoda now has a weird off the corner of his eye stare at Luke. Otherwise everything looks perfect, great work Adywan!

Have you never seen someone looking out the corner of their eyes? It's typically done in a playfully suspicious way, which is exactly the effect ady has given this scene. Yoda gives Luke a sideways glance and goads him, "Judge me by my size, do you?" It fixes what was otherwise a blank stare into nothing into something that supports the meaning of the sentence in a typically playful Yoda fashion.

nightstalkerpoet, I recommend investing in a BluRay player that upconverts DVDs. I know that's not what you're looking for, but hear me out.

Software upconversion is a permanent change. It will introduce artifacts that are not present in the DVD9 and you'll be stuck with them. Five years from now, your new 60" LED flatscreen will reveal every little defect. On the other hand, five years from now, a new player will upconvert that DVD9 much better than any software could today.

In short, stick with the DVD9, and let future hardware advancements do the heavy-lifting.

Just my two cents.

Bingowings said:

The bottom of the two mockups does draw the eye more to Vader than the ceiling

Maybe moreso than the first mockup, but both of Monroville's mockups draw the eye to the ceiling more than the original unaltered screenshot.

Why? Why do we need to draw the viewers eye up to a meaningless area of the bridge and away from what's important?

Lemonstein said:

 

Because the OT wasn't HD...

Why are you being so difficult? It's clear what he meant to everyone but you. He was talking about GOUT, as in the crappy, blurry transfer of the OT included with the Special Edition DVDs. The version that inspired the creation of this webforum.

He obviously meant that the Revisited shot has the atmosphere of GOUT, but the clarity of HD. Best of both worlds.

Auggie, I agree that adywan shouldn't lengthen a shot just to include something cool. And I guarantee you he will never do anything of the kind. He's a stickler for pacing.

adywan has made changes that last for mere frames, so I don't think the length of a shot is a determining factor.

adywan said:

I have the mindset that anything is possible and that you don't know what you can achieve until you try it. I would rather this edit takes another 3 years to complete than rush things and discard things just because it may be a little too difficult or would take a lot of time to achieve.

 

SO SAY WE ALL!

(Whoops, wrong franchise.)

Lemonstein said:

 

See, if we argue something long enough he gives us a new pic ;-)

Now, let's discuss new Cloud City mattes. :-)

Oh, asterisk8, you're quite mistaken about the ferry pic you posted. When I say "haze" I don't necessarily mean literal haze, like the air isn't clear. But if there is no change with distance, then you're saying the distinct blue tinting and contrast reduction seen on the mountain lines and trees suddenly stops before it reaches the ferry. It doesn't, it's just less obvious.

And it looks to me like in Ady's finished pic there is mostly definitely adjustment to the blacks in the distance, both the ships and the hangar entrance.

I understand that it doesn't just stop, Lemonstein. I'm a graphic designer by trade, so this is not a new area to me, but I was resisting the urge to get too technical. My point has always been that at the distance the transports are from the camera, the light scattering, luminance and contrast veiling, and desaturation should be minimal. They are not miles away, but only a couple hundred meters. And furthermore, atmospheric perspective in a shot like this depends greatly on the physical camera, optics, the camera's settings, and post-processing.

Great work on the new shot, adywan. Can't wait to see it in motion with people walking around and behind the transports.

Lemonstein, yes the camera is static, but it's not a still image in the film. The people in the foreground are moving, the x-wings are flying, and snow is blowing. Here is a shot with a similarly-sized ship approximately the same distance from the camera.

No haze.

Keep in mind you're also looking at a still image. It's hard to even see the x-wings in that image, let alone any light blowing snow that is passing behind the pilot and in front of the transport. Also, adywan has opted for a much clearer day in this shot than the original. On a clear day, especially in winter, a giant ship 200 meters away is not going to appear hazy.

Darth Lars said:

I agree. The transports need to be further up in the picture, or the men in the left side of the picture need to be removed. The relationship between those men and the men in the foreground sets a scale that clashes with the scale between the foreground and the starship. There is no way to convince me that the starships are located at a lower elevation than the pilots.

The transports are not at a lower elevation. They are at the same elevation, but a few hundred meters away in the background, sitting on the ground. I do not see anything wrong with the scale, personally.

Darth Lars said:

A background element should never have better focus than the foreground.

You can find many, many examples in cinema where the background is in focus while the foreground is not, or the background is equally in focus as the foreground. It has to do with depth of field and focal length, if I'm not mistaken. Akira Kurosawa, for example, was famous for positioning his camera far from the action and shooting with a telephoto lens to flatten the depth of field. This brought background elements right up against the foreground elements, creating almost a 2-dimensional effect. With the right positioning and focal length, a person in the background can be made to look larger than a person in the foreground. Cinematographers use a variety of such tricks to create or eliminate depth in a scene.

Angel, I believe adywan already stated that he is not adding effects like reflections and glare to glass. But I could be wrong.

"I think you should just give up on this" and "I don't think it's going to look any better than the one already there" have to be the worst ways to get an update that I can think of. You need to seriously reconsider your approach to suggestions on this board. If Adywan says he's going to do x, y, or z, it's because he has every confidence that he can execute it as well as, or better than, ILM did in 1980. Maybe you're young, so I'll give you that you have a lot to learn about tact. Compare:

"Adywan, I think you should just give up on this Wampa. It's taking too long and you don't even know if this is going to work? I thought the one in the movie sufficed. I think you should have just edited using that."

vs

"Adywan, I think the Wampa is the boldest change you're making to this edit, and I'm really curious how you plan to execute it. Do you have any experience with puppetry or animatronics? If you got to the end and it didn't look right, would you scrap it after all the work you put into it?"

This has been a brief lesson in tact by the Official Wampa Comber of the Revisited Project.

Ghostbusters, you're beginning to remind me of a troll, and I doubt I'm alone in that.

Sounds like some gravel in Jones' throat to me.

The Golden Idol said:

Ghostbusters said:

I never liked Han's "I know" line after Leia says "I love you" either. I think George Lucas was right having Han say "I love you too." "I know" is too cheesy. I heard the line was filmed, do you have access to that line Adywan? Perhaps you could replace it with that?

By the way, if you believed what I just said, you just got punk'd.

Haha, nice try recovering from the suggestion you gave earlier. Don't worry, we all forgave you for that... mostly.

LOL, it's like tripping on the sidewalk and trying to turn it into a little dance. ;-)

Lord Grievous, you realize that rebel is not under the ship, right? He's nowhere near it.

No offense, Ghostbusters, , but that is the single worst suggestion for Revisited that I have ever read.