yoda-sama

SilverWook said:

If this ISIS was still around, we could hire them to “liberate” the negatives. 😉

generalfrevious said:

The OT are not just mere films; they have become far more than that in just a mere four hours of content.

Indeed! By now they’ve become closer to six hours.

robertelee said:

Sorry if this is slightly off topic Harmy, but what is your profile picture of? It looks like Vader, but closer inspection reveal that it isn’t… sorry, I have literally been wondering for years, and tgought I would go ahead and just ask.

We’re barely a week from the sequel coming out, the reference should be more relevant and recognizable than ever, haha.

NeverarGreat said:

This is where I was as well, and even though her answer was rather vague it is disheartening. Guess it’s back to work 😉

Also, I don’t know if it is necessarily disheartening that the head of Lucasfilm has announced they aren’t further ruining the OT through continued SE dicking around.

Cobra Kai said:

CHEWBAKAspelledwrong said:

I think the “are you kidding” implies wouldn’t.

Yeah I know it doesn’t really change anything. The unedited clip though is interesting and makes it even more clear to me that she wasn’t even thinking about the theatrical versions.

Yeah, he completely dropped the ball on his question, she was so completely lost for a while there as to what he was trying to ask, and then was excited to get out a simple answer and move on once she thought she figured out where he was going with it. Off of this impromptu interview alone, I don’t think there’s any cause for new speculation either way about the state of the OOT, just that there’s some confirmation of what was already obvious, there’s no further SE tweaks going on without George.

Fang Zei said:

So here’s a question:

Lets say they wait this out and do nothing until 2020, simply reissuing the same 2011 discs in the meantime. Will they have to phase those discs out of the marketplace by May of 2020? If Lucasfilm gets the rights to Empire, Jedi, and the prequels, will Fox still get their cut on sales of the existing unsold discs?

Don’t underestimate Disney’s ability to put things in vaults.

nickyd47 said:

Fang Zei said:

Cobra Kai said:

Like I said before, I could totally see them putting out a regular 1080p blu-ray of the OOT this year because of the guaranteed dollars it would bring in, even if they have to share some of it with Fox. They would still have a UHD in their back pocket waiting to be released after May of 2020.

This possible scenario makes the most sense to me.

Apparently none of this has anything to do with sense, though.

They should partner with Nintendo to surprise-release the restored OUT this May, to ensure that, while they’re finally doing what the fans want, no one will be able to see it.

They should go back and remove Hayden’s eyebrows in Jedi, just for the heck of it.

Also, the reason for the sarcastic sounding response from alexp above is that there is honestly no chance in all of this discussion that WHERE to get this project could have been skipped. It is talked about or mentioned or, at the very least, hinted about almost all the time, you’ll figure it out. We know people want the quick and easy path, but you know where that leads… Yep, it leads to not learning anything, where did you think it led?

stealthboy said:

The search is half the fun!

But that IS how to search…

TV’s Frink said:

HotRod said:

old and lazy!

Citation not needed.

He was just afraid he’d forget.

You need to move. Simple as that. Just don’t move near any of us, to be safe.

poita said:

Home again safe, now it is hailing outside. This country is messed up.

Still… rain, though. Gotta help with the fires.

Jetrell Fo said:

towne32 said:

They’ve got other stuff up that they probably grabbed from myspleen. http://www.ebay.com/itm/Rifftrax-Star-Wars-Holiday-Special-DVD-Mystery-Science-Theater-3000-MST3K/282357001409

Best to just keep an eye on this person and report all their lame auctions. Obviously, this one isn’t as big a deal, as it’s the holiday special and Disney (Fox? Does anyone even pretend to own the rights to this one?) doesn’t sell it. Still, it’s someone trying to make money off a myspleen account, most likely.

This one should still be reported by all of us even if it’s a bastard child of Star Wars history.

😃

http://feedback.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewFeedback2&userid=mimmers_closet&ftab=AllFeedback

Look at the fat change this bastard has made already. GRRRRRRRRRRRRrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr …

Bastard Star Wars child or not, he isn’t just selling some unreleased Star Wars obscurity, hurting no one in terms of sales, but directly stealing from and harming a cherished small business called Rifftrax that, through no small feat, convinced Fox/Lucasfilm/CBS/Disney/whomever to actually let them legally distribute it in the commentated form this guy is reselling. This is despicable beyond even his sales of Despecialized.

http://www.rifftrax.com/the-star-wars-holiday-special

TV’s Frink said:

Question on this dream sequence. Originally I left in the dialogue but it’s super quiet and very hard to hear, even with the music volume lowered. Does this work with it removed entirely?

https://vimeo.com/202577911

All I know is I love the Groundhog Day-ness of the music as he wakes up, make sure that stays. (And I have no problem with how the dream sounds. Less you hear from Hayden, the better.)

TV’s Frink said:

Second clip features a quick audio gag (another Wook idea) of Super Grover yelling as Yoda “crashes” into the speeder. And the song playing on Bail’s radio is this one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srpwqf2MWAw

Which both calls back his comment in AOTR (yet another Wook idea) and also mocks Yoda a bit.

I swear I was shot down recommending Super Grover yells for Yoda in the past…

Edit: Okay, I actually found the posts. Seems I was just supporting Wook’s idea.

poita said:

yoda-sama said:

I’m paranoid about RAID for reasons like this… It may not be as good, but I just rsync what I need backed up… Not that that helps any right now. Good luck on the motherboard hunt, and yotsuya’s suggestion of contacting Gigabyte might actually be a good idea at this point.

The RAID is for speed, working with files that require 2.88GB/s transfer rate to maintain realtime playback is the main issue. In this case it isn’t about redundancy, just about transferring data at decent rates so you aren’t waiting on the I/O constantly.

Oh right, sorry, just kind of assumed for a bit there that RAID for storing scans that are so expensive to acquire would be for redundancy, but you’re totally right about access time for actually working on them, I should have put that together sooner. So, how are you doing when it comes to redundancy? Do you have backups of at least the original scans on external hard drives? With the amount of calamities that seem to befall you, you may be best having offline backups that are not connected to power whatsoever, maybe even in a safe, or vault… located in a panic room… underground.

Tyler0013 said:

What is the most current version?

Well, both v2.5 and v2.7 have some level of support. v2.7 is a color adjusted (I shy away from saying corrected, because that is a moving target) version of v2.5 (based on the discovery that the v2.5 color reference itself was green-shifted rather than corrected) and has a few more 35mm sourced despecializations, done by Towne32 and endorsed by Harmy.

Both have merit and both are available, but the short of it is that v2.7 is the generally accepted latest, greatest version. (I went into it at this depth because the question was asked in Harmy’s thread, which could be assumed to deal specifically with v2.5, as it is his personal latest release, and Towne32 has a separate thread on the color adjustment project with resulted in v2.7.)

_Shorty said:

slumberdore said:
It’s not even consistent within computing. A 1 Megahertz CPU has a clock rate of 1,000,000 cycles per second not 1,048,576.

You’ll note “byte” and “hertz” are different words that mean different things, too.

That’s fair, clockspeed can hardly be considered as base-anything. Anyway, we should probably bring this bit of off topic to an end soon. To the guy running the Mac and wanting to burn the AVCHD ISO file to a DVD-DL, yes, there is a reason the file size looks bigger than it should, it has to do with how your OS is representing the file size, not a problem with the file itself, it should be fine, but let us know if you have any actual problems when you do burn it.

_Shorty said:

slumberdore said:
I’m not saying computer units should not use base 2 multiples. I’m saying they should never have used SI prefixes to describe them since to just about anyone, not just marketing people, a “kilo” anything is 1000 not 1024.

But it always meant 1024 to us computer people when talking about computers. That’s the most important part. We’re talking about computers. Not negotiating a coke deal with Scarface.

Also fair, it is representing computer-related storage size… It probably should always be in computer terms…

matt said:

Damn it, nerds. I follow this thread for (a) debate/discussion regarding Harmy’s despecializing efforts and (2) ETA requests motivated by the upcoming birthday of someone’s dad/cousin/stepsister’s uncle’s half-brother.

And I hope you expected us to notice your varying listing standards in the middle of our standards discussion… Also, plumbers’s brothers’ birthdays matter.

Edit: Did you choose your user name on purpose such that whenever you’re quoted your name ends up italicized?

slumberdore said:

_Shorty said:

It’s a computer. It should always involve base 2 multiples. That’s how computers work. And that’s why until a certain point in time when marketing guys stuck their noses where they didn’t belong, all we had were base 2 multiples. All storage devices were specified in base 2. Why don’t you see anyone trying to say a byte should be 10 bits instead of 8? Who the hell wants to count in eights? The fact remains that people in the computer world, you know, the ones who designed/built/programmed them, all used the prefixes with base 2 multiples until non-computer people decided sometime in the last 1990s that they wanted to use base 10 instead, for no other reason than the make their storage devices seem bigger than they were. If you buy 16 GB of memory today it is a base 2 multiple, not base 10. Why is that? Oh, that’s right. Because it’s a freakin’ computer. 😄

I’m not saying computer units should not use base 2 multiples. I’m saying they should never have used SI prefixes to describe them since to just about anyone, not just marketing people, a “kilo” anything is 1000 not 1024.

Fair enough. Though, this probably started here in 'Merica, and we don’t care what other places do with their "kilo"s or other “metrick” thingys, we say it is 1024, so it is 1024, unless we feel it is 1000.

Well, I was trying to keep it somewhat simple as he was obviously still a bit confused. I do agree with all you’ve said, though I figured bringing in Mebi, etc. would be extreme overkill for the point I was trying to get across… Still, well said.

It is all about representation of size/space. Like how people complain that a 4TB drive will show up as 3-something TB when formatted. In those cases you’re not actually robbed of any space, just that the space was misrepresented by those marketing it (base 2 [computer ones and zeros] vs base 10 [people counting on their ten fingers]). To your computer a MegaByte is not 1,000 KiloBytes, but 1,024 KiloBytes (1GB is 1,024MB, 1TB is 1,024GB etc.), to a marketing firm, they pretend the transition between KB, MB, GB, TB, etc. happens at 1,000 increments rather than 1,024. Your OS has chosen to cater toward such advertised sizes, so as to make you think they’ve given you more when they really haven’t, and to appease people who are incapable of understanding why things don’t show up as their advertised sizes.

In, short, a DVD-DL advertises a base 10 size of 8.5GB, and that’s about how it will show up on your Mac. It isn’t exactly the best way of doing things, but that’s what’s going on.

(Also, I’ll clarify, 1,024 isn’t some weird, random number, it is a progression from: 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1,024. That’s why you see RAM and other types of memory/storage all the time with numbers like these, but the bigger things get, the more tempting it gets to claim something is bigger than it really is by rounding up with creative math, than to actually have to supply that extra storage.)

TV’s Frink said:

Lol.

Related, I enjoy the wiki article’s first sentence for the actual day.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friday

Friday is the day after Thursday and the day before Saturday.

To be fair, that really is the best way to describe it.

How is that NOT based on a Rebecca Black lyric?