logo Sign In

ronlaw

User Group
Members
Join date
4-Jun-2004
Last activity
1-Nov-2011
Posts
83

Post History

Post
#245421
Topic
Waiting for Episode VII during the lean years (1984-1998)
Time
I remember being kind of surprised that there were new movies coming out.
Sitting in the theatre seeing the Star Wars logo come up... pretty exciting.
First few scenes, a bit dodgy but the light sabres melting through the bridge door was cool! These Jedi were a bit stilted but showed signs of fun teamwork and kickassery.

And then shortly after that we met a certain floppy-eared alien, and I can't remember thinking anything after that ...
Post
#245109
Topic
Greedo subtitles outside the 16:9 frame
Time
Apart from the general low quality, I was breezing along pretty fine, until the Greedo scene. And there's these critical subtitles of what Greedo is saying. Only, I can't read half of them!

I have a 16:9 projector, so I zoomed in to use the full width. But this leaves half the subtitles invisible.

So in the middle of a key and very entertaining scene, I have to get out my projector remote and fumble around with aspect ratio, get back the postage stamp letterbox version to watch this scene, and later change it back.

Pure genius! If anyone needed any MORE evidence of the extreme laziness of this release, here it is.

What's other's thoughts on this?
Post
#245107
Topic
POLL: So Who Bought Them & Who Didn't? (the 2006 GOUT DVD release)
Time
I bought them based on reviews here, and I regret it. Besides the known anamorphic issue, they are not that much better than the PAL transfers, the packaging is crap (I mean really budget), the DVNR smearing is still there, and FOR **** SAKES the subtitles go off the bottom of a widescreen when zooming in to use full width! Hello? Hello? This is hugely jarring and basically wrecks that entire scene. How amazing, they found a new way to destroy this previously destroyed scene.

I appreciate that some Lucasfilm employees appear to have forced George to agree to a basic release, but it's not very good.
Post
#244139
Topic
Star Wars Limited Edition Screen Captures.
Time
This grain issue is really odd. That shot of the back of the stormtropper makes it very obvious.

Speculation:
- this is too much grain to be film grain
- it looks like single-pixel noise, "as if" added in post
- my guess is that the Telecine was quite crappy, and added this noise for one reason or another
- and that the LD mod-demod smooths out the fine noise because it can't resolve single pixels from the D1 master.
Post
#243929
Topic
First Impressions of the OOT ...
Time
mverta: There is a lot of evidence for deliberate image-quality reduction in the 2006 DVD. It's not a fact; it's an informed opinion.

mverta: In any case, the degradation of the imagery isn't an opinion, it's a quantifiable fact.

Nice flip-flop there. Which is it?

These are two different statements, Boris. If we take the second statement first: "The image has less quality". THe other statement says "there is evidence the loss of quality is deliberate"

More grain is revealed simply because the DVD's are encoded from a higher resolution source than a laserdisc.

I think you've hit the nail on the head there.


The 2006 DVDs are NOT encoded from a higher resolution source than a laserdisc.

But Mike, Lowry Digital was told to do the highest level of grain removal for the 2004 SE.


But this is not talking about the 2004 SEs.
Post
#242673
Topic
Info: Anyone Got A Spare 1300 Bucks? Star Wars 16mm on ebay...
Time
Karyudo: some of the equipment on that site is 700 line broadcast cameras. Thats a lot better than SD, no?
Yes, I was referring to the Sniper/SniperPro, at $3000. It's hardly prohibitive. Nearly anybody could raise that kind of cash if they were enthusiastic enough.
I'm sure it would be difficult and relatively expensive, but why all the negativity? I think we are being pretty realistic here. It just needs someone (or a group of someones) to organise it.

Only the legal part is really scary, and to be honest I don't think that Lucasfilm will go after an anamorphic SD scan if they don't bother with all the transfers already done.
Post
#242494
Topic
Info: Anyone Got A Spare 1300 Bucks? Star Wars 16mm on ebay...
Time
And here's a guy selling hand-built 16mm telecine equipment, for a few thousand dollars.

http://moviestuff.tv/16mm_telecine.html

No, it's clearly impossible. Can't be done.

Nice article on the resolution of 16mm here:
http://www.cinematechnic.com/super_16mm/resolution_of_super_16mm.html

Selected quotes:

"The image resolution of a Super 16mm film negative, using available prime lenses will be at least equal to the maximum possible resolution of uncompressed 1080p HD video" [ideal]
"We do know, however, that resolution of the Super 16 film negative far exceeds that of the NTSC digital video system." [reality]
Post
#235754
Topic
ROTS in the IMDb top 250!
Time
IMHO ROTS has just the same problems as the other two prequels: crappy acting, stupid script, and ridiculous characters. It also adds a fresh problem, overkill on original trilogy cameos, and even has some problem finishing cleanly.
There ARE a few good scenes - like the scene with Anakin and Padme thinking about each other and starting across the city - but the first two also had a few good/fun scenes.
I think the deliberate, clumsy linkups to ANH make people nostalgic and thus they overlook the crap.

By the way - I was told that at last the Prequel Trilogy of STAR WARS would actually have some space battles in it... but there was only that brief and cheesy-animated-robot-riddled flying sequence with the two Jedi. Some proper space battles would have been nice!
Post
#235752
Topic
The definitive list: changes you can and can't stand...
Time
I also enjoyed some of the scenic additions. Bespin was quite a limited creation in the original movie and benefitted a lot from the capabilities of CGI. Mos Eisley, good idea but too much distracting animation.

Hated Hayden - not just because it's a big jarring change, but because he has this really creepy smirk on his face! That is weird. (Like him in Life as a House and Shattered Glass, though I think he might have a limited range).

I also liked the ROTJ new ending music. It was sadder and made the ending more bittersweet, which is fitting with the scene of Luke saying goodbye to his father - Yub Nub (really the name? good lord) is just too cheesey and silly.

Every so often I get taken back to my childhood when Star Wars was an amazing dream, and then I get angry that Mr Lucas and a bunch of cheesey CGI animators are fooling round with it in a clumsy fashion.


Post
#228145
Topic
Lucas: I can make just as much money with less effort
Time
Yeap, reading Mr Kurtz's remarks is very interesting, he is a lot more modest and reasonable and honest than Mr Lucas, and it seems fairly apparent that he was a lot more than just a producer in the modern term (financial/project manager).

More reason to transfer most of the remaining respect to the other people involved. George Lucas an auteur? Don't make me laugh!

It was particularly galling to read about the original plans for Return of the Jedi - very bittersweet and adult. God, that could have been a great film.

Post
#228136
Topic
Lucas: I can make just as much money with less effort
Time

Sums it all up really.

Gary Kurtz:

‘George and I had many, many discussions about that [Raiders of the Lost Ark], but it boiled down to the fact that he became convinced that all the audience was interested in was the roller-coaster ride, and so the story and the script didn’t matter anymore.’

‘Now Raiders is not a bad film, but the script actually was much better than the finished film […] it’s just that this idea that somehow the energy doesn’t have to be put into getting really good story elements together. One of the arguments that I had with George about Empire was the fact that he felt in the end, he said, we could have made just as much money if the film hadn’t been quite so good, and you hadn’t spent so much time. And I said, “But it was worth it!”’

From the IGN interview with Gary Kurtz, Star Wars producer:
http://filmforce.ign.com/articles/376/376873p2.html

Thanks to whoever posted it earlier…

 

Mod Edit: a working link to the above article can be found below:-

‘An Interview with Gary Kurtz’ - https://www.ign.com/articles/2002/11/11/an-interview-with-gary-kurtz - 2002 article

Post
#225391
Topic
Making our own 35mm preservation--my crazy proposal
Time
Boris, why do you keep saying that a scan of the prints will be no better than the DVDs being mastered from the D1 laserdisc masters?

The D1 masters were scanned NON-ANAMORPHIC at laserdisc resolution only (so something like 300 lines of picture), and then stored digitally.

A scan of half-decent 35mm print, whether manual or automated, can be done at a very high resolution - better than 1080P for instance. I seem to recall that digital film projection is around 2000 lines, and that 35mm film actually has better resolution than that.

So - if we are conservative and say 1000 lines - how is that not better than 300 lines?

Post
#212311
Topic
Idea: Combine some prints with color from LD !
Time

Just a crazy idea to make the most of what is available to us.
Supposing you take some of these faded prints that are held privately. Scan them in. Convert to black and white - use that as luminance data.
Now take a LD scan, and use it’s colour data - combine it with the luminance from the print scans.
Since colour resolution doesn’t need to be as high as luminance, maybe you get a decent result.

Then maybe the fact that the prints have faded or gone green or whatever, doesn’t matter.

Post
#212307
Topic
HOLD ON a second...
Time
There is a misconception a few people have fallen for ...

When they telecined (scanned) the film for the masters, they did it separately for widescreen and pan and scan.
For P&S they therefore use the full vertical resolution.
For widescreen, it is scanned only to fit the width, the unused area is just stored as black.

So, there IS NOT a full-resolution widescreen transfer which is then selectively cropped to P&S, or scaled down for letterbox. (Indeed scaling was something avoided in those days I think). The master resolution is exactly the same as the output, i.e. the same as laserdisc for letterbox widescreen. The ONLY benefit we get is that we don't suffer the loss of signal in storing and reading to/from the laserdisc format.

Actually that could be a significant benefit in some cases, because laserdisc players CAN be quite poor at getting the original signal back. However with state of the art player like an X0, I think it is pretty close. It's possible there is less noise (especially in colour signal) but the main limitation of the X0 output is the resolution of the format, rather than the signal-to-noise ratio.

At least that's how I see it.