AntcuFaalb said:
Why was OCP banned?
The first page of this thread explains. http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Banned-members/topic/11884/
That is amazing work for one-pass color correction.
poita said:
Oh absolutely, at any given screening there would have been extra dust and hair for all to enjoy :)
It's historical dust, dammit! ;)
vbangle said:
Maybe you could preface your comments with "IMO", otherwise you come off sounding like a self appointed authority on the subject. Some of us like what we see in the project.
No problem, not trying to come off poorly.
Most of these shots look way too over sharpened. I understand the Bluray looks like crap, but while adding sharpening makes it superficially look better sometimes, you can't create detail when there is none (and trying usually just ends up creating EE artifacts). The best results are achieved with just color correction like Harmy's.
Turisu said:
Can you link to your source? I have never heard of any studio intervention in the theatrical cut of Aliens. Cameron had final cut on all of his movies during this period and has only subsequently stated that he now prefers the special edition to the theatrical cut. He did the same thing with T2 on which he also had final cut.
Ok, I looked it up. There was no major studio intervention (he had final cut but it had to be under 130 minutes.1), but Cameron always wanted to do a longer version ('cuse he looooves long films).
From the Special Widescreen Collector's Edition LD (1992):
The concept of a special cut or edition of a film is a new and exciting development, made possible by the specialized markets created by video. The economic realities or feature film exhibition, at least domestically, demand that a commercial film not exceed two hours. Every minute beyond that magic number carries the penalty of lost revenues. Aliens pushed the envelope with its release length of two hours and seventeen minutes, and I am grateful to 20th Century Fox for supporting the film at that running time.
Now, however, it is my pleasure to release an alternate version of the picture, one which could exist only on video because of its length. Almost twenty minutes of footage has been reinstated, footage which broadens the narrative scope and enriches the emotional impact of the film.
I felt at the time Aliens was the best possible theatrical release version of the story I set out to tell, just as I believe this special edition is the best possible version of the film in absence of time constraints. I hope you enjoy it.
I like the faster pacing of the theatrical cut, but I also like some of the scenes found in the extended cut, and can watch either with no problems.
1. [From the dvd commentary]
Turisu said:
I hope you reconsider the special edition; the extra scenes kill the perfect pacing of the film and the theatrical version is Cameron's original director's cut since he had final cut of the movie on release.
Actually, for Aliens, the Special edition is Cameron's director's cut. He prefers that cut of the film and the studio forcibly created the theatrical cut. (Of course it's up to you what cut you prefer.)
In the case of Alien, the theatrical cut is the director's final cut, and the so called "director's cut" is just an alternate cut Ridley Scott did for the dvd.
Jetrell Fo said:
I got a pm from this person .... should I ignore it?
Unless you love talking to spambots.
Sorry, they both are in SD and have DNR. (they look similar)
On second thought, after looking at how badly those blacks are crushed, I think 97 footage is for the best. (Would it be possible to replace only the crushed black part with the 97se? Probably a pipe dream with the different gate weave and warping going on.)
I just finished watching the Workprint. It looks fantastic. Great job, the colors look spot on.
That sucks, although to be honest, I think I might prefer crushed blacks to GOUT footage.
n00b said:
Isn't there an way to "simulate" the GOUT by basically using material from 2004 or the blu-ray (same with the snow speeder scene)? I don't know how much alteration really is in those shots but they just look cleaned up to me in the first place - nothing the complain about, like your recreated credits of SW. So the loss of detail seems very painful to me but I trust your far better judgement and may be corrected.
These shot's have been recomposited and altered and in the SE; both in the location of the ships, matte lines, and motion bur. (compare the snow speeder in the SE and original version to see a big difference in how they look.)
I think the reason the fleet reveal shot has to be GOUT sourced is because: "The Super Star Destroyer bridge has been recomposited in this shot to cover up the Star Destroyer engine glows that were still visible."
Dang, that's good stuff. And that's just one overall color correction? Really good job.
So can VLC. I had completely forgot you could just matte in software.
Doctor M, just so you know according to zeropc, iTunes has replaced their good Sword in the Stone master with the horrid Bluray version. You might want to drop the iTunes version from your recommendations list.
This sounds great. Just so you know, the oar for Xerography (1961-1981) Disney films is variable. They were animated at 1.33:1 so that when they were seen on TV they wouldn't be pan and scan, but they were intended to be matted to a widescreen aspect ratio for their theatrical run. The compositions for these films reflect that, and look better at a widescreen aspect ratio. (When viewed open-matte, there tends to be a lot of empty space on the top and bottom of the image.) These films were often presented at 1.33:1 on DVD because most people had 4:3 TVs and an irrational fear of black bars.
You might consider actually cropping (matting) the iTunes version to 1.75:1 to replicate the theatrical viewing experience. (But an open matte version would save you from re-encoding the iTunes version, so it's your call.)
_,,,^..^,,,_ said:
I'm almost finished my "The Thing" project, and result is almost perfect (using HD-DVD as video and laserdisc as color reference)... what about using BD video and WOWOW color reference to obtain the best version? I mean, we could forgive some DNR on effect shots if we have right colors (or, at least, better colors), do you all agree?
An easier way to do this (if you didn't want to completely recolor the blu) would be to to use the WOWOW as the main source, and replace altered shots with the bluray (these shots would of course be color corrected to what the WOWOW looks like).
I'm not targeting you. And I'm well aware that you could be very likely right about the whole matter.
TServo2049 said:
(There were several trailers before it, which all had a similar yellow-green cast, though still a broader color spectrum).
I would guess that the projector was projecting with a yellow-green cast, and this was the primary reason the film looked as it did. But while it might not have had a yellow-green cast, the fact that it had a reduced color spectrum compared to the trailers may indicate the it looked different in theaters then on home media.
_,,,^..^,,,_ said:
I'm almost finished my "The Thing" project, and result is almost perfect (using HD-DVD as video and laserdisc as color reference)... what about using BD video and WOWOW color reference to obtain the best version? I mean, we could forgive some DNR on effect shots if we have right colors (or, at least, better colors), do you all agree?
Eh. I can live with the BD colors, and if you want the earlier colors, just watch the WOWOW release. The WOWOW release does have some flaws (it's a little over-sharpened and it has some minor digital alterations) but overall it's an ok transfer. (and there is no DNR on the effects shots)
Plus, while the BD colors are not original (especially the teal that crops up), there is no real way to determine how accurate the WOWOW colors are. (I actually think the warmer tones of the bluray often fit the movie better, although dvdmike would disagree.)
The WOWOW does not have the CGI matte painting, but it does have more alterations then the bluray. They digitally removed a pole in the bolder sequence, removed matte lines, and "tweaked" some other shots as msycamore mentioned.
The only changes in the bluray are the removal of the glass marks in the snake pit and the new color timing. The bluray actually has the least amount of changes when compared with the HDTV's and DVD versions, although some may find the new colors hard to stomach.
The sword in the Stone Bluray looks utterly atrocious! It's like it went through about 7 stages of Photoshop filters.
Look at this!
http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/screenshot.php?movieid=44743&position=5
http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/screenshot.php?movieid=44743&position=2
http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/screenshot.php?movieid=44743&position=14
Harmy said:
The problem with the shots in the WOW reel is that most of them are incomplete.
The takeoff of the ships from Yavin looks to be the full shot, and it looks better then the sources we currently have for that shot.
Harmy said:
Please tell me that image is not from one of my encodes...
I think it's just jpeg compression to the extreme.
zeropc said:
digitalfreaknyc brought up a search for the 2002 version of the movie and that's where it clicked for me. i have to get rid of the 7.1 upmix and get the original mix. now before jump and go all nuts, the mix is included on the blu-ray as dts with low bitrate of 448kbps and it sound pretty good. but when a lossy dts can sound good, how would a fully uncompressed track from the laserdisc sound like? well, even better and you wouldn't have the problems of dts not triggering the proper surround mode, which is exactly what happens for me on the blu-ray *sighs*
so long story short: i'm requesting the untouched (16bit, 44.1khz) pcm from thx signature laserdisc.
can anyone help out a fellow e.t. fan?
thanks in advance :)
A track with a bitrate of 448kbps should sound identical to a lossless track unless you have magic ears. Plus Blurays don't support 44.1khz and you would have to resample the track, which would make it sound worse even if you use the best resampler in existence. (44.1khz does not divide evenly into 48khz).
hairy_hen said:
It will only take me a couple days to completely finish with all the new audio tracks, if that factors into it . . .
As a complete list, this would include the 70mm version newly upmixed with Prologic II, the digital copy of the stereo mix with the dropout errors removed, the mono mix with the proper fanfare at the beginning rather than the CD copy it curently has, and as a bonus my isolated score.
I haven't decided for sure, but at the moment I'm leaning towards encoding them as DTS-HD MA rather than TrueHD, since while Dolby files seem to have greater playback compatibility, they are apparently more complicated to use correctly in Bluray authoring. But I think this should be investigated more thoroughly before I make a final decision on the matter.
That is fantastic. DTS-HD MA would be easier, as there is only the need for the one file. Most software players (inculding VLC) can at least decode the DTS core.