canofhumdingers

I finally finished redoing the "manroom" as we call it. Well, I should say, my wife & I finished, as she painted the room, helped shop for & assemble furniture, and came up with the initial idea for the layout of the room.  I'm really happy with it & love the shelving system we found (thanks Ikea!).  You might notice a pic or two I took before I hung my autograph collection in there.  Also, this is obviously more than just Star Wars, but also includes lots of Godzilla and Indiana Jones, as well as some other odds 'n ends.

I saw something pretty cool on the rebelscum forums that I thought you guys would appreciate.  It's pathetic when amateurs working from home can throw together better work in their spare time than a multimillion dollar corporation like Lucasfilm can produce for market... (oh, wait, that exactly what people here at OT.com do all the time....!)  It would be better if he actually used an OT Vader suit, but you get the idea.

Darth_Engelhast from Rebelscum.com said:

 

Okay kids here is me putting up or shutting up with my own idea for the complete saga's cover art.

The blue text and logo would be printed on a clear plastic slip cover that would set above the artwork.

The cover itself would be printed in 3D Lenticular plastic that and would switch from picture to picture when tilted from side to side.








Not too shabby for a couple hours work huh? I'm sure I could do better but I really don't want to waste anymore time on it.

 

asterisk8 said:

xhonzi said:

I just don't know of any Criterion DVDs that are 'reference' quality when it comes to A/V. 

I have their entire Akira Kurosawa collection (almost 20 discs), as well as several of their Ingmar Bergman releases, and they are reference quality. Criterion is the industry leader in reference-quality when it comes to old films.

xhonzi said:

Criterion in these cases should be championed for doing "the best that can be done" but it would be a mistake to compare it A/V wise to a well done DVD of a modern blockbuster.

Who's comparing a 60-year old Kurosawa movie to Transformers? No one. Criterion is championed as the best restoration house in the business. They track down original prints and negatives, meticulously restore them, and release them in high bitrate with incredible special features including custom commentaries from the best film experts in the business. Criterion should be championed for all that. No offense, but if you're basing your opinion on their Gilliam and Anderson discs, you really don't know Criterion.

 Amen.  Their early dvds were pretty bad (the Samurai Trilogy is one I'm hoping they eventually redo, hopefully on bluray - the laserdisc ports of it that they put on dvd are pretty bad).

But the ones they have gone back & redone are fantastic.  The new transfers of Yojimbo & Sanjuro they put out on dvd & bluray look incredible.  And the newest restoration they did of Seven Samurai even blows Toho's own in-house restoration away!  And, yeah, the commentaries they do with film experts/historians are some of the best bonus features ever put out.  Ever.

Tobar said:

My friend and I were there at Disneyworld the night they decommissioned it after Celebration V, we were actually on the very last ride of the night before they shut down.

 They actually didn't shut it down until a few more weeks after that.  I made a quick trip down there the week after Celebration V so I could ride it one more time (ok, 3 more) before it potentially went away forever.  It was nice to savor one last trip to endor and say farewell to the real Star Tours, so to speak.

Then we went to Universal & got totally blown away by the new Harry Potter ride.  That thing is impressive!

20th Century Mark said:

Bingowings said:

Amanaman!

Do do do do do!

 Ha, that was great!

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wM89T74MPnE

The Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago had a Jim Henson exhibit recently (perhaps it's still there?).  These puppets were some of his original creations on display.  So awesome!

OzoneSherrif said:

I figure the Force could run strong in the Skywalker family and still be unexplained and unmeasurable.

why not

 Yeah, why can't it be just like how some families produce a line of good athletes or artists or anything that requires talent?  It's an inherited trait that's not necesarily measurable.  Doesn't mean other people can't do it, some just got lucky with natural God-given ability that gives them an advantage.  At least that's how I always thought about the Force (& still prefer to).

DuracellEnergizer said:

I'll bet it's chockful of black-garbed, 1-dimensional, red glowstick-weilding KISS rejects, too. 

HA!  I haven't actually lol'd in a while, that's classic!  And, yeah, most of the EU is absolute garbage.  I'll never understand the "if it has Star Wars on it it must be great" crowd (I'm looking at you tf.n)...  And I really am a huge Star Wars nerd!...

That was pretty awesome.  I hope my kids are that cool if I ever have them.

SilverWook said:

canofhumdingers said:

red and blue

You were subjected to an anaglyph reissue print then. That system sucks. No wonder you got a headache!

The original 1954 release used the system with the polarized glasses.

 Interesting.  I knew it had to be a reissue as there's no way an original print could've looked that new & clean....  Even if it's not as good, I was still surprised at how well the 3-d effect worked.  But I can imagine how the polrarized glasses might be better, without forcing your eyes to see different tints.

red and blue

SilverWook said:

You've actually seen Creature projected in it's original 3D format? I'm envious! 

Yeah, on halloween last year, no less!  It was a beautiful 35mm print that must've been struck fairly recently (or at least not shown much since it was struck) as it was in really good condition.  It was a real treat that we barely found out about in time (thank goodness the theater ran a few tv ads on local channels for a few days before the show)!

Yeah, one of the reasons I really don't care for 3d is the fact that it puts noticable strain on my eyes to look through those lenses for a full length movie & the artificialness of it (for lack of a better word) gives me a headache after a while.  I had a mild headache by the end of Creature from the Black Lagoon by the time it was over.  It's not bad enough to keep me from seeing a 3d movie if that's really what I want to see, but I can definately feel the effects of it.

My wife on the other hand, who has long been prone to motion sickness, really can't stand 3d movies b/c they really give her headaches & make her feel miserable by the end.

I also see 3d as a one trick pony.  Sure it's fun at first but the novelty (for me) wears off very quickly and I find I'd enjoy the film much more if I wasn't distracted by the 3d effect and those uncomfortable glasses (which I have to put on over my normal glasses).

I guess 3d doesn't enhance my film viewing experience and is really more of a novelty for the shear spectacle of 3d as opposed to actually adding something valuable to the movie.  It's like a flashy summer FX film that has no plot and cardboard characters.  It's shiny & colorful & pretty to look at (I'm being figurative here) on an occasional basis, but it's not something I want to be a regular part of my movie habit.

twooffour said:

I don't think it stands, because "artificially forcing a 3D simulation with multiple images and GOOFY glasses" sounds like a horribly biased and contemptful way of describing the simple fact of what's happening.

Somehow you think that stating the fact of the 3D effect in Avatar being an artificial illusion and pairing it up with manipulative assessments like "goofy glasses" will actually MAKE it sound goofy?

So yea, it's a simulation. An illusion. What's wrong about THAT in itself?

We all realize it's not an actual projected hologram (and I don't mean that kind of flat holograms that deceive you by having each pixel send slightly different signals to your eyes), the action still takes place on a flat screen. SO WHAT?

The "goofy glasses" still make you actually see things in 3D, by having your two eyes receive different images. This effect differs from an appeal to "natural interpretation", because even if you forget about it when watching 3D animation or actual footage (although I admit to even forgetting about it when watching 2D cartoons sometimes), you'll still see a FLAT IMAGE, no matter how many "shadowings" there are. You won't see a 3D image.

Which gives the "goofy glasses" an actual point and purpose. It's not redundant. And it's not "dumb".

 I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.  And you're right, i'm unabashedly not a fan of 3d movies in general (although I did recently get to watch a 35mm 3D print of The Creature from the Black Lagoon, which was fantastic fun*).  And come on, whether they work or not, you have to admit the glasses are goofy!  They fit awkwardly, they look silly, they're goofy!

I did find the quotation from Nolan.  You can read the rest of the ariticle here, but the bit I was thinking of follows.

"The truth is, I think it’s a misnomer to call it 3-D versus 2-D. The whole point of cinematic imagery is it’s three-dimensional. … You know, 95% of our depth cues come from occlusion, resolution, color and so forth, so the idea of calling a 2-D movie a ’2-D movie’ is a little misleading"

*I was actually quite surprised at how well the classic red/blue effect worked.  The newer 3d stuff isn't really much better from what I've seen (granted, I haven't seen Avatar).  And while I'm generally not a fan of "3d" movies, I certainly make exception for the chance to see one of my favorite classic horror films in the way it was originally released!

twooffour said:

canofhumdingers said:

 I agree with Chris Nolan who basically said that the lighting/shadows/focus/depth of field/etc ALREADY replicate the 3d world & making the movie "3d" is redundant and kind of dumb.

Probably one of the stupidest opinions I've read about anything in a long time.

Hey, can I ask you a question: have you ever tried shutting one of your eyes (or blocking it with your hand if it's too difficult) and looking at your environment that way? The lighting, shadows and shapes, already make it appear 3D! Pfft, why need two eyes then?? Evolution was kinda dumb... but then again, it was blind, hahahahahahaa.

Hi, if you paint a cube on paper, it'll already look 3D without any fancy shadowing or whatever. If you take a picture of your room with your cheap 19$ steadycam, it'll still look, guess what, 3D. Shadowing is already provided by reality.

     ___________
    /                    / l
  /                    /   l
/_________  /     l
l                   l       l
l                   l      /
l                   l    /
l                   l  /
l_________ l/

 The point (that you obviously didn't get) was that they're both simulations of real 3d.  When you look at something real, yeah, two eyes allow you to perceive the depth b/c the thing is actually in 3 dimensional space.  When watching a movie, it is NOT actually 3d & the 3rd dimension is being implied or simulated either with the clues that allow us to interpret real 3d naturally, or by artificially forcing a 3d simulation with multiple images & goofy glasses.  My point still stands.

Prehaps I should try to find the actual quote as Nolan put it much more eloquently than I can.

I want to go to there!

http://www.fayettevilleflyer.com/2011/03/31/coming-soon-hammontrees-grillenium-falcon-food-truck/

Hmm, do all three of these guys strike you as quite out of touch with normal people/filmgoers?  Maybe it's just me who's so out of touch with what's popular in the mainstream.

But, Polar Express?  Really?  A bland movie with creepy cgi that really turned me off.  & "who wouldn't want to see JP in 3d?"...  me.  And as if people weren't rude & obnoxious enough with their calling and texting and spilling soda or popcorn everywhere in theaters, now you want to serve them full meals?  And, yes, i CAN eat a meal while sitting on my couch & watching a movie at home but I personally choose not to b/c I like to pay attention to the movie, not eating my meal.   And I'm so freaking sick of all this 3d crap.  I agree with Chris Nolan who basically said that the lighting/shadows/focus/depth of field/etc ALREADY replicate the 3d world & making the movie "3d" is redundant and kind of dumb.

If these guys are right about the future of cinema, then I fear cinema may not be in my future too much longer.  (Which really saddens me, as I LOVE movies & the theatrical experience.  I have a WONDERFUL arthouse theatre nearby that's been open since 1926 and has been fully restored with beautiful chandelliers, curtains, etc.  They even have a wurlitzer organ that rises out of the stage before each show.  And they show lots of classic films, all in 35 or sometimes even 70mm film!  Maybe I'll just be going there more, & to the regular AMC type chains less...  Which is really happening for me already anyway..)

Wow! Now THAT'S what lightsabers should look like!  That clip was great.  It does strike me as surprisingly blue (as did the previous preview).  I can't help but wonder how much of that is accurate & how much is due to the age/condition of the print...

Still, absolutely can't wait for this!

Perhaps I should make a thread on it in the technical section (i did a search but came up empty) but is there a way to put out a an HD version that can be burned to disc and easily watched on any standalone bluray player without having to actually burn a bluray (to my knowledge blu ray burners still aren't all that common, or cheap)?  I've seen the term avchd or something mentioned here before & get the impression that might be what it is, but I really don't know.

you don't have to join to host images on imageshack...  But joining is free and it allows you to do things like set up albums and make pictures private and such... (probably the most important reason for joining whichever image hosting site you use is the ability to keep track of the pics you've uploaded & being able to find them again easily)

hmm, I have Vista so I guess that's the problem.

how are people playing this in windows media player?  I checked to make sure mine's current but it still won't play the sample.  I don't really want to dl yet another player just to see it.

Man, this is so exciting.  I finally sat down & watched Puggo Grande in it's entirety & it was so great!  I can't wait to see this.

Since you asked, I for one would ask that you pay attention to the lightsabers, particularly in the duel shots.  We don't want another bubble-gum pink saber fiasco like in 2004 (not that I expect that would happen here anyway).

Wow, I just got included in the private msg (thanks, btw!) and was just knocked off my feet by what I saw...  Then I come here & read this news. :(

Ah well.  It still gives me high hopes for the future based on what's already been accomplished.  Even if these materials won't yeild a full movie, the bits & pieces they do provide are well worth the effort.  And I can't help but feel it's only a matter of time now when we'll see the entire OT captured and restored from 35mm prints.

Wow, those ESB shots are amazing (& quite a surprise).  So is this actually a project transfering ALL 3 films?!  You guys are crazy!  And awesome! 

I'm curious, though.  (& I fully understand if no one wants to answer some of the following questions).  Is this the same project that mverta posted about on his site (with the one frame from '77)?  If so, is this going to be made available to insignificant grunts (like me) unlike his last project? 

I guess the mention of mverta kind of surprised me.  I remember when he was a member here, then he kind of disappeared.  Then I joined the replica prop forum and could swear I remembered seeing him over there but he seems to have dissappeared there too.

Anyway, regardless of who's working on it, it looks like an incredible project & I hope you're able to complete it & also that you consider eventually making it a little more widely available.

ChainsawAsh said:

Yes.  Don't get too excited too fast, though - the print kinda looks like shit.  It's going to need a lot of restoration work to make it acceptable for general release.

 That is incredible.  Even with the amount of work it might take, it's a huge glimmer of hope.  Just a few years ago the very idea of doing our own transfer from 35mm seemed a pipe dream that was utterly unattainable.  Now, with someone out there making the first attempt, it's only a matter of time before we have something truly stupendous.  I mean, look at the evolution of the fan preservations based on home video sources...  This is likely our very big "first step into a larger world"...  Color me thrilled (and very patient).