vbangle

Spaced Ranger said:

Harmy said:

No matter what I try, no matter what codec I use, I keep getting these rendering errors when rendering AVI.

I hate the ghost in the machine. Hope you can excise yours without too much trouble.

This may be the oft-cited monitor calibration issue, but v.2.1 seems too strong orange-hued. I hadn't watched much through v.2.0 development, but it here seems weaker with some hue-steps off in the other direction. Like Goldilocks and the Three Bears' porridge, overlapping the two seems just about right:

Very nice.

Brooks said:

ww12345 said:

...What is even worse is that it will spread to your other films - you can't store VS films anywhere near non-VS films...

That is so crazy.  How is that even possible??

crazy voo-doo magic rituals done at Skywalker Ranch.

What happened? Oh wait. Just another GonJinn post. Move along.

Zigfried anybody?

Sometimes I feel invalidated, is that the same as -1's "invalid"?

I haven't been so let down since the Zigfried/RemixerBoss era.

Harmy regardless of when and how you share 2.1 thank you for sharing.

Leonardo said:

vbangle said:

Stinky-Dinkins said:

He lost his cum sock in the forest again and he's starting to panic.

What's a cum sock?

Read about onanism. That is, if you've got some time on your hands...

I have no spare time, you do it for me.

Stinky-Dinkins said:

He lost his cum sock in the forest again and he's starting to panic.

What's a cum sock?

There's a sock in these woods!

dr.olds said:

CatBus said:

dr.olds said:

CatBus said:

Yes, they are available.  They are on MySpleen and alt.binaries.starwars for download under the name "Project Threepio".

great :)

but can can you explain me , how to load ? i don't know myspleen or any binaries ...

MySpleen is a website: www.myspleen.org. If you need an invitation to log in, contact walkingdork.  alt.binaries.starwars is a newsgroup, if you have newsgroup access.

i don't no anything about newsgroups , so i guess i do not have access . and i don't know walkingdork - is this a member from here ?

 

but why so cmplecated anyway ? why doesn't anybody upload the subs somewhere everybody is able to get them ? that would be so much easyer for everyone .

I'm sure with that sense of entitlement you'll be sure to attract the needed help you seek.

Or at the very least there's Google. You could actually learn about the Usenet or make the effort to contact walkingdork instead of whining and bitching about it.

TV's Frink said:

Why did you make a new account?

Blend! Blend! You don't see anything...

negative1 said:

hey vbangle,

 

that shot is from the trailer, not the 35mm print.

i'll see if i can dig up that screenshot then we

can tell if that's representative. 

 

however, as we're moving to the new blog sunday.

 

you might want to hold off on the questions until

we are over there.

 

later

-1

Sure fair enough...this really wasn't that big of a deal with me, I just got my curiosity up when I saw the trailer. I sure hope the transfer is sharp and has lots of detail...I know the editors and restoration experts here are hoping for that to be the case. Thank you -1 for your reply.

jero32 said:

Call me crazy, but I think the picture You_too posted already has a lot of detail? Keep in mind that that picture is NOT 1080p. But 1280 x 544

What are you comparing the quality to anyway? If it's the official blu-rays, well you can't really expect these captures to have the same quality.

1.) They're using homemade equipment to capture the frames, definitely not perfect. (altough really good results anyway)

2.) these are NOT the original negatives, which is what the blu-rays were made with. These 32mm are basically third generation, so they're gonna look a little "softer"than a direct o-neg copy.

No you're not getting it. The picture You_Too posted is the one that looks great and is sourced from the GOUT. I am talking about and comparing it to the scanned 35mm screen grab I did of  the 1080p trailer that Negetive1 made of his project. Look at the comparison I posted.

Anyway was hoping to get a explanation from negetive1 not one of his followers who isn't directly involved with the project.

You_Too said:

First of all, vbangle: Both of those shots have been clipped from 0-255 to 16-235. And the shot from blu v2 has the wrong aspect ratio, should be a bit taller. So there's probably some settings that are wrong in the software you used to capture them.

Here's how our shot really looks:

And the shot you posted from negative1's old trailer is from what I think they called an "early color correction". I bet they've made a massive improvement since then. And that shot is also compressed.

All that aside ( admittedly my screen grabs were done quick and dirty :) )why is the 35 mm film show so much loss of fine detail? Color correction shouldn't have any effect on the quality of the image, right? Shouldn't 35mm film have a sharp crisp picture with lots of detail?

skyjedi2005 said:

I had assumed it was because of compressing the images into crappy jpeg images for the net.  But that was just a guess. 

Nope. Both screen grabs are jpegs saved with identical settings. So that's one theory shot down.

Negative1 I see you been here since I posted, do you have any information that can help explain the loss of detail in your 35mm project?

I hope I am not coming off in a accusatory tone, I was just floored when I noticed the difference in detail between projects and just trying to understand it.

So here is a comparison, top is a screen grab from the trailer of the 35mm -1 cleaned up capture and the bottom is a screen grab of project blu v2

The image quality difference is striking. What I don't understand is why the image from 35mm film is so inferior compared to the upscaled laser disc master? Beyond anything else why is it so blurry? The loss of detail is shocking. How can this happen?

AntcuFaalb said:

vbangle said:

Watched the trailer, the shots of the project looked a little blurry, like this particular copy is blurry on the film stock. Am I seeing it wrong? Is there anything you can do to sharpen up the image?

Which trailer did you watch? I've seen many of -1's videos, so I'm not sure if I remember the one to which you're referring.

Please link me!

The trailer on the front page, it contains brief snippets of the project mixed in with old original trailer footage. It just didn't look very crisp and clear is all, and I was wondering if that is how the film stock looks or was that because of the transfer process? No biggie, you probably disagree but I was really just asking -1 about it.

Watched the trailer, the shots of the project looked a little blurry, like this particular copy is blurry on the film stock. Am I seeing it wrong? Is there anything you can do to sharpen up the image?

Not to judge or begrudge Adywan for the decisions he makes for his edits but it sure sounds like the Revisited Edits have been a burden on Adywan for quite some time and maybe he would welcome a letter from LF. I feel there are too many here that have the attitude that Adywan has to finish the edits, as if Adywan owes them something. A man can only take so much abuse until he call it quits. Just saying.

Envy is Jealousy's little sister, and she's quite the bitch.

Nice work DJ/You_Too.

This thread was heading for page 3, sorry but I couldn't let that happen.

I have no questions for you_too or DJ.

TV's Frink said:

vbangle said:

Sigh, Where's TV's Frink when we need him?

The irony in this question is delicious.

I knew you'd be pleased.

Sigh, Where's TV's Frink when we need him?

captainsolo said:

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/t/323399/while-we-wait-for-a-few-words-about-raiders-of-the-lost-ark-in-blu-ray/240

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXl_3kGXIuI&feature=player_embedded

New info on the impending release. Raiders has that new color timing, which I'm not sold on, but TOD and LC are supposedly also from 4K scans. (Isn't this the Lowry scan? They look identical.) LC has some artifacting etc. on screencaps over at caps a holic, but otherwise everything seems ok. (At least nothing as in what's going on about the Hitchcock set.) I'm just not enthused about the new Raiders audio.

The bass and surrounds have been redone to meet modern standards, but to me the sonic identity of the original mix is a part of the film's identity. I hope it isn't lost with new stereo surrounds being done (Didn't Jambe's Raiding confirm that the film was originally mixed for stereo surrounds?) What would have been really interesting would have been to actually incorporate the 70mm mix and find some way to incorporate that baby boom experience. (Actually, would this be possible with the LFE cable being split to two subwoofers playing the same content?)

The new 35mm print sounded terribly dull.

But if they redid the work, went to the original negative, and changed nothing-WHY PAY SOMEONE TO REMOVE THE SNAKE REFLECTION?

So Raiders is gonna suck. Great.