Sign In

skeg64

User Group
Members
Join date
14-Sep-2004
Last activity
9-Sep-2005
Posts
41

Post History

Post
#137742
Topic
Adobe Illustrator CS
Time
This info comes from your printer driver. Your printer tells Illustrator how many pixels are on an A4 page. This amount is usually smaller than A4 to avoid printing over the edge.

I can't find how to change the defaults, but to change where the origin is each time, click in the box that lies between the vertical and horizontal rules, then drag to where you want the origin.
Post
#95539
Topic
.: The Zion DVD Project :.
Time
maestro can also import bmp files as subs.

You can make them yourself in Photoshop, just make a 720x480 24-bit BMP using only red, blue, white and black.
You can then arrange them easily in the timeline.

I have done the exact thing you are talking about, I matched a dvd subtitle file to the original text and aligned it perfectly for both widescreen and 4:3 tvs.
Post
#79482
Topic
Censorship of the original films
Time
it doesn't offend me, but I know that it will offend someone else. If that is part of your argument then that's not an argument you should be making.

You are not qualified to psychoanalyse any individual here, nor the country they were born in as a whole.

oh and capitalism has nothing to do with censorship, control or beliefs. It is simply an economic system of a country. Quit calling it that.
Post
#79477
Topic
Censorship of the original films
Time
Daniel,
All of those things may be true. I am not putting my opinion up about any of it.

Here's my point:
If you start making racist comments, people quickly get offended by them. Then the argument is over. No-one will want to stay in a discussion that becomes personal. How does that help whatever cause you are arguing?

I think you should just drop it with the anti-US stuff.
Post
#79469
Topic
Censorship of the original films
Time
I agree with Daniel. At least I think I do. Sometimes I can't tell though.

I just don't think he's very good at arguing, that's all.

Daniel, don't even start to make this a racial thing because that is a)irrelevant b)deconstructive and c)offensive.

-edit-

Their argument crumbles anyway. MBJ and Zion both agree that 1. you can't notice the changes, and 2. they don't matter. They seem to use this argument in the sense that we should therefore accept the changes. But in doing so it raises two counter questions. 1. if you can't notice the changes, why put them there? and 2. if they don't matter than why does it matter so much to have them edited?


This, however, is a good point, and one that MBJ and Zion have not presented an argument against.

@MBJ:
I'm not saying you hate the films. I agree that spending time, money and effort on them is showing how you love the films. But if you feel the need to change them, that is showing you don't like them the way they are. Perhaps I'm missing something - why else would you change them?

And I didn't realise you were going to work on a theatrical version, that's certainly great news.
Post
#79463
Topic
Censorship of the original films
Time
Daniel, you have a way of going off on tangents that don't really relate to this argument.

This debate about what the OT actually is is not worth arguing. It is just pedantics.

The point is that any copies should be made in the pursuit of representing the films' true forms. We can all agree that no-one knows what the the true forms of the films are. But at least the different transfers should be pursuits with this goal in mind! To represent the true forms, which is open to interpretation.

But an "interpretation of the true films" does not extend to fixing up the special effects. Anyone doing this does not have the goal of preservation in mind!

Can we stop that line of argument now? If you don't understand how this post completely nullifies that argument then please read it again slowly.


Now, what the debate actually is is about morals. DanielB and I believe it is morally wrong for you to change the films. Zion and MBJ disagree, and that's fine, that is their opinion. DanielB and myself use terms like "should", and "have no right" in the moral sense. Next someone says "Of couse they have the right to do whatever they want with the films" - this is changing the argument to rights in the legal sense, and yes, I agree that no-one can stop them from doing it. Please don't mix up our words, nor create arguments about our use of the words 'should', 'shouldn't', 'right' and 'wrong'. We have the mentality that is shared by historians and scientists - that history should not be changed. Zion and MBJ don't have this mentality and that is the opinion we are arguing.

If editing the films shows contempt, then Lucas must not love Star Wars at all..

That's exactly my point. He does not love the original trilogy, and he edited them out of vanity.
We do love the OT and that's what we're all here trying to preserve! But editing the films again shows that you do not love the films, because you see the need to change them. Like it or not, the dodgy effects are a part of the original films, and to "fix" them shows you hate the films the way they were originally!

I fail to see how touching up a few frames of post-production special effects shots is grounds for calling this a completely different movie.


It is a completely different movie in historical terms. It is a copy that was not made to try to represent the original films, but one that was purposely edited to make it something else.
Post
#79409
Topic
Censorship of the original films
Time
I believe that it is fully within their rights as owners of the original trilogy in any form, to adjust the movies as they see fit. Why would should anyone try to tell them that what they are doing is wrong?

You are confusing the arguments. Forget legal rights for a second. What we are arguing is the morality of making the changes. People here have different morals/ethics/values whatever, about this. That is what the debate is about.

Which version of the film are we petioning for? etc...


This argument is lame. Any of those versions are better than someones hack job. Or Lucas's SE hack job. If you can't see the difference I can't help you. And why shouldn't we whine about it in the thread that was created especially for just that?

Would anyone really spend the kind of time and effort restoring, editing, and preserving these films if they didn't really care about it?


If people here love Star Wars so much, why change it?

Editing the films in fact shows contempt for the films, not love. Think about it.
Post
#79372
Topic
Censorship of the original films
Time
That's a good idea of yours Zion about the subtitle track. I think it is a fair compromise if you guys mention it somewhere on your discs that changes were made and what they were. Maybe you could just do a menu screen that explains it. That way there will be no misconception that these are straight transfers. Because the wider they get distributed the more chance there is that someone will get the wrong idea about them.

See I'm a reasonable guy and I think that is a fair compromise.

The other option would be to make a seamless branching disc with both versions on it. I can help you out with how to do this in Maestro. The extra space taken on the disc would be extremely small because (I gather) you are only making at most a few seconds of changes. It's really not much extra work at all.
Post
#79347
Topic
Censorship of the original films
Time
Then let me be more blunt, I have the right to do whatever I want with my transfer on my computer. Please point out where your or DanielB's beliefs affect that in any way

Take this example: in 10 years or so you decide to show Star Wars to some kids who have never seen it before. What version do you show them? The LD's have all rotted away by now. GL never did release the OT on DVD. So do you show them the Special Editions, and say, "kids, this is Star Wars", or do you show them a direct transfer like TR47's set, or do you show them your edited versions?

If you show them your edits (or GL's SE's for that matter) and say "this is Star Wars", you have showed them a lie. You have denied film history and shown them something that has no meaning. And you have changed their perception of the films. You have altered the way the next generation views the films.

There has always been fun to be had in going through the films and spotting all the dodgy effects shots. But these kids will have no such fun because you went through and airbrushed them all out. To me the films are more endearing because of the bad effects. They are a part of film legend by now.

The reason it can actually be offensive that you are doing this to the films, is every time you make a copy, you spread this version and may influence someone's perception of the films. Some kid in the future may find your version on DVD and to him or her this is what Star Wars will be. People may not know what you have done to them, and think they are direct transfers. So you are changing film history and that is why our beliefs affect what you are doing.
Post
#79306
Topic
Censorship of the original films
Time
@consumer_x:

What if the original Picasso was destroyed in a museum fire?

Then wouldn't the truest reproduction be the most important thing to preserve?

I can make this comparison because, as far as GL has indicated, the OT prints are locked away, never to be released again. The LD's are the truest reproductions of how the movies were.

The rest of your argument agrees with this. All the reproductions are made in the pursuit of creating a true copy. It doesn't involve making any changes to the piece. Just clean-ups.


@MBJ: true about the rights to distribute it, but that's a different argument. You didn't really make a point against my Ark thingy.

Yes the other versions are named by their creators, but that's only to us. To the general public, or the "world" they are still the original movies that have been transferred (to varying degrees of success). Edited versions could not be viewed by the "world" as representations of the original films.

@Zion:

That's a terrible argument. If digital technology had existed in 1934 then surely King Kong would have been done digitally. Therefore we should edit King Kong and replace it with the digital version from Peter Jackson's new version....
As cliche as this sounds, that is the exact reason Lucas gave for his 1997 SE's.
Post
#79294
Topic
Censorship of the original films
Time
Of course you can do it, you can do whatever you want with your version. But then it will never be anything except that, your version.

But you have the chance to do something important, something with a historical purpose. Something greater. To preserve film history. That's a cause that is more "noble", shall we say, than editing someone else's work. The original Star Wars movies are great, and have a place in history. But these edits are just some things that some guys made on their PC's.

To quote Belloq in Raiders of the Lost Ark (defying Indy to blow up the ark):

"We are simply passing through history. This, this *is* history."

See, the OT is the Ark and we have no right to screw with it.

How do you like that, I used Lucas's own words (possibly) against him, yet again.
Post
#79255
Topic
Censorship of the original films
Time
Well I am also against these changes. But I think DanielB doesn't make a very good argument for it. I don't see the relevance of those analogies he uses. And I wouldn't call it censorship either.
In case anyone is interested, here is the argument I would propose:

- I am a supporter of film history
- I would like to see the films preserved as products of their time, the seventies and eighties
- Part of the enjoyment is knowing it was all done 30 years ago
- There is another level of enjoyment when you relive your first viewing of the films, which is only possible if you know they are the same
- I like the original films despite their flaws, as did millions of people when they were released

Lastly, a point for Zion and MBJ. We all know an artist is never satisfied with any work. I bet that when you actually sit down to watch your creations you will notice more things that you wished you fixed. You will probably never be happy with them. However, if it were a straight conversion you could love watching them knowing that they are preserved as they were originally filmed.
Post
#79148
Topic
Stop ebay pirates
Time
I have spent nearly three times as much on my set than I could get the official release for. And that's WITHOUT paying ebay prices.

In US dollars I spent: $42 on discs & postage (via RiK), $40.85 on a tin from Paul Champagne & postage, and around $20 on glossy printable discs, and paper for the inserts and covers. Of course these are international shipping costs, and mine is an 8-disc set.

I could have bought the official release for around $40.

So I agree that these bootlegs are worth more to fans.
Post
#78771
Topic
.: Moth3r's PAL DVD project :.
Time
I always thought they should do something like this for the next generation formats (blu-ray etc.):

With current DVDs you can store the film as 24fps with 3:2 pulldown on playback (at least for NTSC). So with the next generation, they should have made ALL films stored at 24fps, and they play back at a certain speed depending on your player settings. eg. if you are in PAL-land, it plays it back 4% faster and adjusts the pitch on-the-fly (or have a separate audio track). If you are in NTSC-land, it performs 3:2 pulldown. It could possibly do SECAM stuff too but I forget what that would involve.
The resolution would be stored at PAL high-definition res, and could be scaled-down on playback for NTSC.

This would make truly universal discs that wouldn't need localising for different territories. And then you would start to see hybrid TVs with the better PAL resolution (and 24fps progressive) being sold in the US for high-end home theatres. Perhaps eventually we would all have TVs with the same formats.
Post
#77524
Topic
Stop ebay pirates
Time
Hey rikter,
It's ok mate I was just trying to start a discussion about this. You can get some interesting responses when you post something 'controversial'. And yeah, I did notice who were quick to defend themselves...
I thought I'd test whether ebay would actually close the auction if I reported it. It's been about 24 hours and they still haven't. I did get a few auctions shut down a couple of years ago (not for SW sets). That was for bootleg games and stuff. Perhaps ebay aren't as worried about it any more.