The Official Boycott Star Wars Bluray thread

Im done with you, ya went where i thought it was to easy to go long before. Should i say " Good work Potsy".

Edit, Is that the real reason ya changed it?
 
Last edited:
Thanks, Martyn. But you say film is FOUR times higher resolution than Bluray? Really? My word...

Mr. Webber, I wouldn't want anything sharper than theatre screen myself. (sorry, kit IDers!) Props and sets are often only finished off to a point that looks good at theatre screen resolution.

Martyn, my poor friend, if such simple amusements please you, then I am of course entirely at your mercy...
 
I kind of agree with you Colin but the Alien Blu Ray revealed another level of gritty detail that wouldnt have been seen otherwise, a credit to those who made it, long before High Def was ever considered for the home. Almost futureproof filmmaking.
 
SSgt Burton said:
I thought it was 480 lines? :confused
Click to expand...

Yerright mate, it is, but it's 720 when upscaled on an HD screen. Which is wot I've got now so I've gone all uber.

How do I get the umlaut? I can't be properly uber without an umlaut! :lol
 
Colin Droidmilk said:
Sorry, an idiot question now. Can someone refresh me: what exactly does the Blu Ray format give you - the same definition as a theatre screen would? I've never seen one, y'see.
Click to expand...

That's a good question.

( random info), The resolution of the human eye is about 600 Megapixles.

You can make a comparison between projected film and digital imaging, but they are different beasts.

Film is done on the chemical (crystal) level in a natural analog way, while computer monitors are something else.

So the resolution of a frame of 35mm film as a general comparison. ..is....
 
Last edited:
Mr Webber said:
I kind of agree with you Colin but the Alien Blu Ray revealed another level of gritty detail that wouldnt have been seen otherwise, a credit to those who made it, long before High Def was ever considered for the home. Almost futureproof filmmaking.
Click to expand...

Personally I liked it a lot, but, there are those who don't. It's not just the format; they cleaned it up and lightened everything, and that's where a lot of the seemingly 'extra' detail comes from: black levels that are just gone, compared to what they used to be.

As I say, I liked A L I E N, but in Aliens some of the changes do work against the film; for example the grain of the cheap stock which was used is even more apparent. It's much grainier than A L I E N, which seems odd for a newer film (though not so much if you're aware it was very cheaply made).

Also there's a scene in which the 1/4 scale puppet queen alien's neck rubber has split open. This used to get by, but now the lightening is so extreme that the metal armature inside the puppet almost stabs you in the eyes!
 
Thinking on this more and more, one could conceivably, after a lobotomy and having smoked themselves senseless on crack, make the most misguided of arguments that lucas is within his rights to butcher Star Wars (A New Hope) while surpressing the pure and original version from view since it was "his film". He directed it. Fine. But in looking at Empire and Jedi, those were directed by different people. What we see on screen, especially in Empire, is more their vision and as such it's THEIR artistic vision and choices that he's ****ting all over. How can someone who doesn't respect the work of another artist possibly be expected to respect what the fans really want?

And, if this senile old ******* was really concerned about the quality of the films, he'd have seen to it that all the color issues, etc. from the dvd release were addressed and corrected rather than inserting rocks in front of R2 on tatooine. But, no. All those errors and inconsistencies remain. Not only does that make it impossible to respect any "artistic choices" made at this point, but it also leaves me disappointed in the people working on the project who either don't notice or don't care about all the tech glitches screaming out to be corrected. For shame. It's as plain as day that "getting it right", even from a tech perspective (revisions aside) is not an item on the LFL agenda.
 
Nwerke said:
Personally I liked it a lot, but, there are those who don't. It's not just the format; they cleaned it up and lightened everything, and that's where a lot of the seemingly 'extra' detail comes from: black levels that are just gone, compared to what they used to be.

As I say, I liked A L I E N, but in Aliens some of the changes do work against the film; for example the grain of the cheap stock which was used is even more apparent. It's much grainier than A L I E N, which seems odd for a newer film (though not so much if you're aware it was very cheaply made).

Also there's a scene in which the 1/4 scale puppet queen alien's neck rubber has split open. This used to get by, but now the lightening is so extreme that the metal armature inside the puppet almost stabs you in the eyes!
Click to expand...

I agree, Aliens was a let down for me for the reasons you stated. Not all BluRays hit a home run resolution wise, some are no better than dvds but the production companies that go that extra step make up for the tightwads. Unfortunately as consumers, we arent really told which ones are and arent.
 
The new films will be shot on digital cameras, atlered in digital editing and augmented with digital CG software.
The transformation is complete. (In Vaders voice).
That's what 1080 is all about.

The previous stuff...totally different beast, shot onto chemical film, with mechanical transports, developed in chemical baths and hand cut and hand assembled, then run in a mechanical projector and bounced off a large silver screen.

That's what film is all about.

Can one be the other?...not really.
 
Mr Webber said:
No, just have a problem with bleeters and people who like the look of their own words, know anyone like that?
Click to expand...

I certainly like the look of my words better than I like most people's. Honestly, it's a massively short list. Hemingway, Ellison, Parker, Verne, Pynchon, some Atwood. Heinlein, the crazy old bastich.

Then me, and then everyone else. So don't take it personally that I like the look of my words better than yours. The odds aren't really with you, at all.

And I'm thinking of Steve as Blaphe, now, too, Martyn, damn you.
 
Interior Skywalker Ranch Editing Room.

GEORGE

Yep, put some digital eyelids on the Ewok would you.

ARTIST

huh? I thought the ewoks were low tech dudes?

GEORGE

Yes, they are, they show how heart beats a whole lot of technology.

ARTIST

So you don't think it's a bit strange to be getting all high tech on their furly little hinies?

GEORGE

oh...yeah... WEll..those little blank unblinking eyes are creepy.

ARTIST

Maybe aliens don't blink?

GEORGE.

Those eyes, those creepy staring eyes, looking , always looking....no. NO... DONT LOOK AT MEEEEEEE...​

George runs from the room crying.

ARTIST.

What next, eyelids on the Troopers and Droids!

A faint voice from far down the hall replies.​
GEORGE

Sniff, the're not called eyelids on a droid , the're "lens cleaning hoods", and yes put em on the troopers and Artoo too.​
 
Last edited:
Jedi-72 said:
...But in looking at Empire and Jedi, those were directed by different people. What we see on screen, especially in Empire, is more their vision and as such it's THEIR artistic vision and choices that he's ****ting all over....
Click to expand...

That really depends on the production. Some are director driven, and some are producer driven. Kershner and Marquand were hired by Lucas to direct, but the films remain Lucas' properties.

Nwerke said:
...As I say, I liked A L I E N, but in Aliens some of the changes do work against the film; for example the grain of the cheap stock which was used is even more apparent. It's much grainier than A L I E N, which seems odd for a newer film (though not so much if you're aware it was very cheaply made)....
Click to expand...

Not cheap stock, but a smaller aperture. Most films are shot anamorphic, and the image uses the full 35mm frame. Some films like Aliens are shot non anamorphic, and are masked to use less of the frame. It's a technical decision, not monetary. The smaller aperture makes the film more grainy, because the small frame must be enlarged more to fill the screen. Top Gun and Apollo 13 were also shot this way.
 
robn1 said:
That really depends on the production. Some are director driven, and some are producer driven. Kershner and Marquand were hired by Lucas to direct, but the films remain Lucas' properties.
Click to expand...

But not, 100%, his creations. After all, he protested before Congress when someone who OWNED classic films but didn't CREATE them wanted to alter them. Was Lucas an instrumental part in ESB and ROTJ? Obviously. But he was far from the only creative influence. Those two, at least, were highly collaborative efforts compared with the other four SW films he directed.
 
cayman shen said:
But not, 100%, his creations...he was far from the only creative influence...
Click to expand...

No argument here. Many people contributed to the saga. But they were all hired by Lucas to do so, and they have no ownership of their contributions. They are Lucas' to do with as he pleases. What he's doing with them sucks, but he has every legal and ethical right to do so.

Disney was the same way. Evey story idea, every character, and every technical invention, no matter who it came from, became the property of Disney.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Too Much Garlic
Value of the 2006 Star Wars Trilogy DVD
Replies
2
Views
1,153
Too Much Garlic
Too Much Garlic
13doctorwho
Skywalker Lightsaber (Scratch Build)
Replies
13
Views
2,144
mhope43
mhope43
Mr Mold Maker
The Stranger - The Acolyte
2
Replies
20
Views
3,665
ZeroSum
ZeroSum
AxeKando
The Bad Batch animation props
Replies
16
Views
2,929
Boredlois
Boredlois
BB43MAN
The Millennium Kestrel: older Wonderfest build
2
Replies
24
Views
3,469
monsterpartyhat
monsterpartyhat
Back
Top