captainsolo

Does Anthony Daniels get to do anything non Star Wars PR related?

I believe this is what you were looking for:

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

Could be a lens flare or some kind of light source that was starting to come in on the end of the pan. Or it could be a planet of some kind due to its round shape.

No one would like the prequels if they saw them in Omnimax. Still makes me feel sick thinking about it.

I noticed that DS ring too. It's noticeable when you're scrutinizing youtube test samples but not sure how it would be in the final version.

As far as what people said previously about trying a 5.1 mix with all the elements of the mono mix, why not try to use hh's 70mm? I kinda like the idea of a 70mm mono mix.

The SE VHS docs are just excerpts of the single doc on the LD. Oddly the narrators seem different between the two.

Definitely the trailers. They're some of the best ever done imo.

The only other extra I could think of is maybe throw in the PCM LD track.

July 27th.

21. woo.

Is there a way to easily see the original version of Eraserhead?

And how did no one say it? FLASH! AHHHHAHHHH!

They should have advertised Flash Gordon this way: "From the director of Get Carter!"

What happened to Batman wearing light materials that would tear under stress? To me that would be more interesting and realistic than a dude in body armor that happens to have pointy ears.

I just really hope that they don't try to shoehorn in elements of the Knightfall story arc. That needs to be its own full story.

And why does Catwoman have Batman's cycle?

As far as Supes goes, they'll never understand that the Fleischer serials are definitive.

Ah. I've only seen it once or twice.

ray_afraid said:

captainsolo said:

ray_afraid said:

TV's Frink said:

 

Screw you, Lynch!

Best post eva! /Internets!

You beat me to it!

...

Oddly though, I like David Lynch as a person. He seems like a pretty cool out there sort of guy.

Truth! Also, some of my friends lurk here and always think your posts are mine because they think your avatar (which I'm assuming is you) looks like me. It ain't easy being handsome, is it?

 

Nope tisn't. My avatar is still me stuck at a barely working Steenbeck.

I hated Mulholland Drive, thought Blue Velvet was overblown for what it was and generally disliked the others of his that I have seen.

EDIT: I noticed Lost Highway in my pile of LDs someone gave me so looks like I might post in here again...

But wasn't that only in the Donner cut?

Just remembered one of my favorites: In Superman II when Zod and Co. are terrorizing Metropolis, Superman finally shows up to do battle. But he had just stripped himself of his powers in a way that was supposedly irreversible! Nothing is explained as to how they magically came back.

Your caps look quite good for a DVD recorder. I like some of the coloring on the SWE edition. The blown out whites can also be a part of that particular disc and transfer. As msycamore pointed out the snowy mountains in the background of the Falcon-Luke shot are blown out and non-distinguishable in the first clip and more defined in the SE clip. Then again there are about 5 years difference in their pressing, so these things really improved with time due to better technology and quality control.

Just wondered what would cause things like this. I don't think it was the film source on the two titles that I noticed the noises. (North by Northwest Criterion CLV edition, On Her Majesty's Secret Service) The noise in N by NW is just after the credits and sounds more like an error in the video transfer. The whole audio track has what sounds like a quick skip. On OHMSS, about 3 to 4 times in Side 3 there were pops on the digital track.

For which cable to use it depends on your player and viewing/capturing equipment. Standard composite video allows for your TV or capture device to do any filtering and because it is likely that it is newer and better at doing this than your player then you should go that route. S-video is typically reserved for units older than your player because that makes your player filter the image though its own processors. It's all your own preference though. You have to see for yourself which gives you a better image with the equipment you have.

I don't think keeping the PCM is a bad idea. In fact the lossless audio was one of the things that got me interested in the big shiny discs. If you're burning back to DVDs though it might cause some space issues. When I did some transfers I eventually had to go back to 448 kbp/s ac3 in order to not cut back on the video bitrate. I think it really depends on if you enjoy the sound fidelity. Some don't care whether audio is lossy ac3 or a lossless codec so it's really up to you or the disc size.

Since you're capturing straight to a DVD recorder, I don't think there's much more you can do to improve things. From what I always understood there's only so much that those can handle. Originally when I set out to capture VHS I had looked at this method but then ran into Macrovision issues. Then I found a DV bridge and began using a computer to capture LD footage. So I'd say if you find a way to do things that works for you then keep at it.

As far as your player is concerned, looks like you've got one of the Pioneers that was designed for Karaoke. I don't think there's any significant difference from a regular player, save for if you really like Karaoke. From the ldarchive photos it looks like it's from the early to mid 90's judging by the parts and buttons. In my experience, be sure and stick with Pioneer for players. As long as the picture is relatively clear and there's a digital audio out you should do pretty well. It has no relation to the earlier V8000 which was a real workhorse. The first player I used was a lesser version (V4400) which was built like a tank and had a giant brick remote. There are always better players out there, so keep an eye out for something local. I got my Pioneer D702 for $25 on craigslist two years ago. It's got an auto flip for side changes which is something you might enjoy.

Also: 35mm anamorphic is 2.35:1 whereas 70mm is 2.21:1. When 2.35 films like Star Wars were blown up to 70mm print sizes, the edges were slightly cropped but had better image fidelity. Still, it does not match up to a true 70mm shot film. And on Ben-Hur they added an anamorphic lens to the 70mm camera which then squeezed the ratio to an awesomely wide 2.76:1.

Sound-wise, 70mm wasn't limited to mono and stereo optical tracks like 35mm. 70 used a six track stereo magnetic audio system up until the Dolby version which changed two channels into a set of two "baby boom" giant subwoofer units. This was essentially the first LFE channel, and the format became 4.2 sound. This was then refined over time (and carried over into 35mm as a stereo matrixed 4.0) into the now standard 5.1 surround sound that debuted with Dolby's mix on Batman Returns in 1992.

The difference between IMAX and 70mm is very slight. Technically they are different formats, but I think this is only in numbers/measurements/ratios etc. Unfortunately very few theaters exist in the world that can actually present 70mm.

Damn-I forgot about no chapter stops. That annoyed the heck out of me.

At least one can say that his films try to present different ideas. I will give him that.

Despite all of the correct criticisms of TPM and RLM's spot-on review, TPM still works as a movie. That's it. It's not particularly great or bad just a really good dose of meh.

Violator-Depeche Mode

Yes I know-not a song, but I can't ever choose just one track.

On Her Majesty's Secret Service on LD. It gets better every time. The Lazenby purrs in PCM. 5,000 Big brawny Australian balls.

I watched The Untouchables for the first time in ages. Was flipping channels and landed on AMC's Mob week where they were showing this pan n' scan with a bunch of smearing and crummy audio. So I realized I had an LD floating around of it in a stack I picked up from someone who was throwing them out.

It's a lot better than what I used to give it credit for, but the ending is just so empty. It really leaves the viewer hanging. You want more but it just never gives the plot depth you're looking for. 3 of yoursh in the hoshpital out of 4 of theirsh in the morgue. The PCM track did show a nice mix and good soundstage-good ol' Dolby Stereo. Ennio Morricone always shines. And watching this reminded me once again of how talented Connery is and how sad it is to think of him as retired.

ray_afraid said:

TV's Frink said:

 

Screw you, Lynch!

Best post eva! /Internets!

You beat me to it!

Can we seriously turn this into the "We hate David Lynch"s films" thread? I haven't yet seen a Lynch film I didn't loathe. I don't usually loathe movies unless they are completely mindless or terrible. But I can't help it. Mullholland Drive is one of the worst films I have ever seen. I really don't get it's reputation. People must like Lynch's work for simply being weird or uneasy to understand.

At least with 2001 it makes sense at some point. You make up your own interpretation. It's meant to be non-committal. Reading the book gives some more background information and what could be construed as a partial answer maybe.

Oddly though, I like David Lynch as a person. He seems like a pretty cool out there sort of guy.

Odd, I don't know how 10 second clips could be a preview.

Well, wouldn't they have to recrop anyway due to PAL having a larger frame size than NTSC?

I always rate films out of 4 stars. (well out of 5 on mubi.com but that's just because they're being trendier) SW and ESB have different aims and they both exceed these so much that I can't choose between them.

SW: 4 out of 4 stars.

ESB: 4 out of 4 stars.

ROTJ: I know it's not as strong a movie, but it is supposed to be a serial adventure, so I have to say 4 out of 4 stars.

TPM: 3 out of 4 stars. It works well as a standalone movie. It drags in parts, has very bad attempts at humor, odd plot strands and odd pacing-but it isn't a bad film.

AOTC: For some reason I feel as if I should stick up for this one somehow. Also not a terrible film but not good either. It just floats by...you may want to like parts of it...but you don't. It's just some cartoon colors with people wandering around. I had to see this for various reasons about four different times in theaters-once in an omnimax dome. The horror. Oh dear oh dear. 2 out of 4 stars.

ROTS: This is where I gave up entirely. Just plain unwatchable, tedious, mindless, boring, un-involving crap. The whole time I just wanted it to end. Nothing is a surprise, nothing is interesting, nothing is memorable and the end result makes you feel disgusted with yourself for even trying to watch this piece of crap. Oddly enough, I enjoyed the novelization-but oh that's because it had characters instead of cardboard cutouts and some actual thoughts going on in people's heads instead of memorized pointless dialogue. An over-generous 1.5 stars out of 4.

The Clone Wars-You forgot about this one didn't you? But just why was this made? Why? and even more, why was it theatrically released? 2 stars out of 4.

That's an actual idea that would give both tension and weight to the story. That isn't allowed in ROTJ.

I guess it could be argued as part of Palpatine's ego that he would have to build another DS in order to repair his standing in people's eyes because the first one had been destroyed. Or maybe it was all a MacGuffin to get the Rebels all in one spot to get them completely wiped out and that is the reason why it is "tied" to the planet Endor.

But I don't think so. The destruction sequence does look great-but when Wedge and Lando get to the reactor it's just in a big empty chamber and sounds like a broken plate of glass when destroyed??