logo Sign In

doubleofive

User Group
Members
Join date
4-Mar-2008
Last activity
16-Aug-2025
Posts
11,899
Web Site
http://www.doubleofive.com

Post History

Post
#1016394
Topic
Last movie seen
Time

DominicCobb said:

Jeebus said:

SilverWook said:

I didn’t think Brendan was that old. 😉

lol

I’ve heard conflicting reports about which movie this one’s based on; I’ve heard that it’s a reboot of the 1932 Boris Karloff Mummy, but I’ve also heard that it’s a reboot of the 1999 Stephen Sommers Mummy.

If Wikipedia’s to be believed, the 1999 Mummy was already a remake of the 1932 Mummy. So this new one may be a reboot of both.

Or maybe its a reboot of the 1959 Mummy.

It’s probably just Universal making a movie with the title “The Mummy” because they own the rights to it and are wanting to create a shared Universal Monsters universe (of which “Dracula Untold” was supposed to be the first).

Post
#1016148
Topic
Lurkers Name suggestions (Come On Lurkers JOIN IN!)
Time

Jetrell Fo said:

TV’s Frink said:

Jetrell Fo said:

suspiciouscoffee said:

TV’s Frink said:

Dish Fo

If Fo is Dish, does that make you DirecTV’s Frink?

Dish was meant to be “this”. Fo was meant to be “for”. Done purposely to be taken out of context no doubt but not very solid “Lurker Name” material. I really wanted to laugh but it just isn’t that funny.

If I’m no longer allowed to post a picture of Ric Olie for the first two sentences and point out the irony of the second two sentences, even in off-topic, Jay might as well go ahead and ban me right now.

All I’m saying is it wasn’t funny. If it was an accidental typing that would have been hilarious. There are other lurker names that, due to the source mistakes, are down right rib-snapping funny. There is no reason I can’t say that it wasn’t funny, yeesh.

But there was no point in saying it wasn’t funny. We’re not rating names here.

suspiciouscoffee said:

TV’s Frink said:

Dish Fo

If Fo is Dish, does that make you DirecTV’s Frink?

This is funny though.

Post
#1015155
Topic
Info: The Ultimate Super Resolution Technique
Time

jedimasterobiwan said:

doubleofive said:

jedimasterobiwan said:

No, Google is not going to upscale Adywan’s edits to 4k. When the source is 1080p downscaled to 720p then upscaled to 4k, you won’t gain anything.

Then what is this thing here exactly do then in this topic

It’s for cleaning up film scans for preserving the original movies. Wait, do you think this entire forum is just for Revisited?

Post
#1014835
Topic
Info: The Ultimate Super Resolution Technique
Time

jedimasterobiwan said:

really no one has an answer i don’t mean to be pushy at all i’m really serious. but anyway what about adywans edit of star wars saga? can they use this or the google raiser upscale method to go to “4k” please answer this i’d really really appreciate it.

No, Google is not going to upscale Adywan’s edits to 4k. When the source is 1080p downscaled to 720p then upscaled to 4k, you won’t gain anything.