towne32

BobbyDigital said:

If the rule is you should have the blu-rays before downloading the despecialized editions so that you aren't technically getting something for nothing, then why aren't you supposed to own all the different versions of the movies that were used as sources for the despecialized versions? If you only own the blu-rays, then it could be argued that you're profiting from the piracy of all the releases that aren't blu-rays.

 I think there's a major distinction between what Disney/Fox currently have on the shelves for sale, and a rare laserdisc that is 30 years old. 

As for the GOUT, I think there was indeed support (and interest, otherwise) to buy the 2006 DVDs. It's a different story now that it's outdated and marked up. Those extra profits are going to resellers or 'preowners'. 

In the end, however, Frink is right. There is probably another subforum to discuss intricacies on the morality of this stuff (it's a grey area topic, to be sure, and people's perspectives are interesting). Certainly not in the thread of the person creating the edit, and certainly not in response to his request to please buy the damn discs.

CO said:

An older Anakin and Padme in TPM, along with the same actor playing Anakin for all 3 movies.

The biggest problem with Episode I is that we essentially have to re-acquaint ourselves with the characters because they are so different in Episode II.  There is a new actor playing Anakin in Episode II, so that takes time getting use to along with an older Padme played by Portman.  And QuiGon should have never been in Episode I, because that cut into Obiwan's screentime, who we really don't get to know til Episode II.

In many ways, the Saga started at Episode II because that is when you get to the nitty gritty of the main characters, and that is the biggest flaw of the Prequels. 

Wasn't that the original plan? I think I remember Lucas or someone saying that in the 'making of' documentary? And it was changed to a younger kid to emphasize the innocence, earlier (and presumably target the young, toy consuming market). 

JawsTDS said:

towne32 said:

Things that I think should definitely be changed:

Vader's Noooo

Ghost Anakin. 

Call me crazy, but I like the whole "no" line, but am indifferent on Hayden as Ghost Anakin. I wouldn't be against putting Sebastian Shaw back in though.

I'll try to do my best on the CG in Mos Eisley, but I don't have an 1080p sources to match it.

Your call is fair enough regarding "no". I'm probably a little more indifferent than many about that. As long as Shaw is back it'll be worth checking out!

And yeah, Mos Eisley would be tricky. Harmy did as good a job as is possible right now and it looks great. Lifting and using that scene from him would probably need permission from him and negative-1 (and maybe Team Blu for that one GOUT shot? I forget). At some point in time, team negative will release the full sequence. Hopefully the prints they're using are in good shape color-wise (perhaps even better than the clips given to Harmy?).

I agree that it's not just splitting hairs as far as the DVD vs. Blu. The same logic would suggest that torrenting a blu ray rip is fine if you own the 10 year old DVD based on the same transfer. (not making an argument on piracy as a whole here, just that what I've described would never be okay for a group trying to follow the rules). As doubleofive said, the difference between releases is of course even greater where SW is concerned.

I think the takeaway message is: It's counterproductive to say in the official thread, which is linked from various places, why you haven't bought the official product. Even if it's to give some polite praise. 

AntcuFaalb said:

RU.08 said:

which we all believe Disney is now doing

I'm hopeful, but I wouldn't say we all think they're doing that now.

To be clear: we're certainly not all sold on the fact that they're going to be releasing the OOT. Isn't the fact that a 4K remaster of some form has been done basically confirmed, though?

Hal 9000 said:

kk650 said:

Adywan did a great job with that but I can't use it for my own releases because however good it is, its never been part of the official releases.

Just for the record, Adywan's version of the ESB Emperor scene isn't available on its own somewhere, is it?

 It's basically cut so that the dialogue resembles the OOT dialogue. I think the only difference in the end is that he says "young skywalker" (pieced together from the SE audio) rather than "luke skywalker".

You can compare them here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRsDLIPVsic

I think the uploader originally had the sources all mixed up, but they might be fixed now. Either way, I believe kk doesn't like the look of the new Emperor even with that audio 'hack'.

Handman said:

I'm having some trouble playing the .iso file in VLC. Either it won't open or VLC crashes entirely. Any tips? I would like to be able to preview it before I burn it.

 From what I remember, VLC doesn't do blu ray menus. That might be different for homebrew menus but I'm not sure.

I've used totalmedia theater and powerdvd for blu rays with menus. ideer works by bypassing the menus.

videoguy71 said:

Just wondering if anyone has actually tried burning the Grindhouse to a BD? File seems to be just just slightly over 25GB. Keep getting a message that the file is too large for the disc.

You should probably read the last few pages. They're working on it.

Because the previous one was withdrawn and only a few lucky people got it.

Harmy said:

Well, if there's ever a full 35mm HD scan of Star Wars made available to me, then yes, definitely (unless of course the scan already looks better than the official BD, which certainly isn't inconceivable).

 Given your recent example, I am indeed curious to see what your technique applied to an entire film would be like (very very good, presumably). That's not a slight to -1, as we've yet to see their final restored effort. I'm sure it will be great as well. It would not be quite as sharp as the BD, but it's the real deal and comes with the satisfaction of not catching some tiny SE change years down the road. :)

Harmy said:

Oh, it will most certainly be 100% GOUT free.

 Wow.

Plans for someday a SW >2.5, similarly?

Looks incredible. Though I think they're using better prints for the final release, it's great to see how much can be done with a shot like that.

While we're on the subject of ESB-deSE and the grindhouse release, a comparison shot I saw made it clear that the 2.0 still had the SE composition in these shots.

Hadn't seen it bought up before, but quite possible that I missed it.

Well now that it's confirmed that they finished production on the rest of the PT in 3D (and screening it this year), I assume they'll be releasing that on blu ray by the end of the year. Hopefully they will release something nice for the OT customers as well..

Color sample looks good. 

I like your changes (I don't know that deleted scene, off the top of my head, though). More in line with what the SE probably should have been. I think sprucing it up for the 20th anniversary return to theaters was fine. Honestly, I'm all for changes like this or this. Obviously not at the cost of the (superior) originals never seeing the light of day again. 

Personally, (and I've said similar to kk650), I find just about all of the creature (and droid) type CGI pretty detestable. So, if it were up to me, I would cut:

Dewbacks

Rontos

Tatooine scout droids

Jokey lifting robot

Sarlac beak and tentacles. 

Remove Gungan celebration, as '97 version, or even all of the celebrations.

Things that I think should definitely be changed:

Vader's Noooo

Ghost Anakin. 

lucasdroid said:

Did the empire show up?

 According to a reddit post, it was just done preemptively due to up upcoming release.

I guess you're at least not responsible for hosting your own site that way. And reddit let's just about anything fly.

I think ditching the 'retro classic etc' labels is probably wise. There were always only minor differences between two of them, and not much enthusiasm behind the Technicolor. If people care all that much about such differences, they can achieve a similar result by adjusting their displays. 

The way you were discussing it, it would have been 6x ANH and ESB uploads, and 12x RoTJ. That would have been a ton of poorly seeded torrents before too long.

kk650 said:

Thanks guys! Can you please check out these two clips from Star Wars and let me know which one you prefer the look of:

Clip 1:

https://mega.co.nz/#!ClRlHLTA!3smGNx5LP02u1oW6hQhyxP4b7zGk0wCZ3jLVMcXNWbA

Clip 2:

https://mega.co.nz/#!3kRxXKLB!elZxrPt19T_MlYUX6gT0Q4P3PB7MqeUDJN255fuRqyw

 Is 1 a shade bluer? I think I prefer 2, but admittedly they looked similar enough to me that I considered that you might be testing us with the same video, and I might be failing.

Close enough for me that if it were my own setting I was tweaking, I would want myself to stop fiddling before I start going in another direction and making things worse. They look good. :)

Fantastic color and contrast. But yeah, a little stabilization needed. Looks amazing.

What other 35mm clips are you hoping to collect, Harmy? I know you want some frames for the eyebrows, but are you happy enough with the Sarlac and ghost to do them the old way again, or hoping to upgrade?

imperialscum said:

He said "buying physical copy"... post below:

moviefreakedmind said:

 I for one will never purchase any film unless I get a physical copy.

Downloading the copy to your hard disk or buying it on DVD is both buying physical copy. At no point it becomes a non-physical copy.

In the first case, the physical copy stored on the company server's hard disk is being transferred (over the internet, physically non-the-less) to your PC's hard disk where it is again a physical copy that you bought.

In the second case, the physical copy stored on the company server's hard disk is being transferred to the DVD which you then buy.

I am quite certain that a non-physical copy of anything cannot exist. Maybe some magic in fairytales.

 A higher bitrate copy that you actually own, rather than lease, and won't expire when a company folds or gets bought out or changes their business model. 

You're not the brightest person.

imperialscum said:

moviefreakedmind said:

imperialscum said:

moviefreakedmind said:

I for one will never purchase any film unless I get a physical copy.

I hate to be Ric again but even if you download the digital content on your hard disk, you get a physical copy. The information is stored physically on your disk.

 If I buy the movie Speed 2: Cruise Control on Itunes, I do not get a physical copy; I get a digital file of the film that I store on a hard drive that I already own. If I buy it on blu ray, then I get a physical copy of the film... not that I would ever spend money on Speed 2: Cruise Control. 

Or at least that's how it works in my brain

But that is not how it works outside of you brain. Blu-ray or hard disk, both are physical devices that hold digital data.

 The part that you are buying for that movie is digital.

The part that you are buying for a blu ray is digital, on a physical medium.

I can't tell if you're actually having a difficult time understanding a ridiculously simple concept. The entire point of the discrepancy and terminology is that, if you are not buying physical medium (and instead supplying your own physical medium), the data must be transferred electronically through what we call the Information Super Highway. The files are then typically DRM-filled and lower bitrate, again, because you didn't buy them on a physical medium (we are not counting a harddrive that, again, you already own). 

There is a worthwhile and important distinction between the two delivery mechanisms. The fact that they're both digital, and they both at some point involve something physical, suggests to you that not only should the terms not be used, but we should not discern between these two media forms, one of which being consistently crippled due to its delivery format. 

While they could, in theory, provide you (digitally), the exact same encoding (bitrate, filesize and all) of a movie and all its extras, that will never happen in the real world. The distinction between the two delivery formats only breaks down when pirating complete blu ray ISOs. 

TV's Frink said:

towne32 said:

TV's Frink said:

Despite the repeated claims he isn't involved, I like how it's clear that negative1 wrote that info. Not to mention the fact that this has gone private once again.

*shrug*

TV Frank: I really can't understand your persistent need to try to unveil the workings of a group who are obviously trying to cover their asses for legal reasons, whilst bringing us great releases like this.

Are you upset that you're being lied to? Who hurt you as a child?

:) 

 Clicking on reveal user's post again, are we?

:)

 It helps build suspense. 

TV's Frink said:

Despite the repeated claims he isn't involved, I like how it's clear that negative1 wrote that info. Not to mention the fact that this has gone private once again.

*shrug*

TV Frank: I really can't understand your persistent need to try to unveil the workings of a group who are obviously trying to cover their asses for legal reasons, whilst bringing us great releases like this.

Are you upset that you're being lied to? Who hurt you as a child?

:) 

imperialscum said:

But then again everything is physical. Even if it is digital information it is still stored physically somewhere.

 Stored by a company that will be happy to distribute it to you at a crappy bitrate, and tell you that your copy has expired when they get bought out by someone else.

Yeah, I'm happy with it.

These are pretty much my thoughts on the subject as well.

Buying the existing blu-ray is a much bigger and better example of making the wrong vote with your wallet, which is exactly why I never plan on doing so.

At this point, I would honestly be more surprised if a restored OOT wasn't on the shelves by this time next year.

 While I really don't see any boycott happening (or mattering at least), I do think such a release will drum up good faith and interest in the franchise from old fans who have lost interest after 1997-2004. But again, probably won't make a big difference in the scheme of things. It's going to be a financially successful film.