• Most new users don't bother reading our rules. Here's the one that is ignored almost immediately upon signup: DO NOT ASK FOR FANEDIT LINKS PUBLICLY. First, read the FAQ. Seriously. What you want is there. You can also send a message to the editor. If that doesn't work THEN post in the Trade & Request forum. Anywhere else and it will be deleted and an infraction will be issued.
  • If this is your first time here please read our FAQ and Rules pages. They have some useful information that will get us all off on the right foot, especially our Own the Source rule. If you do not understand any of these rules send a private message to one of our staff for further details.
  • Please read our Rules & Guidelines

    Read BEFORE posting Trades & Request

Random movie thoughts

Another year comes around and more fingers crossed to finally see 'Muppet Christmas Carol' uncut but this time it's the 30th anniversary and "At the 2022 D23 Expo, Henson stated the full version of the film with (When Love is Gone) left intact will be available on Disney+ on December 11, 2022". It's playing at my local cinema all December but so far there is no mention of what version???

Please Santa, make this come true! 🎅
 
I Randomly thought the other day that it would be fun to watch Dr. Strangelove on New Years Eve, but start it at the right time so that the bomb goes off right at midnight. I may be too lazy to figure out when to start it though.
 
Jrzag42 said:
I Randomly thought the other day that it would be fun to watch Dr. Strangelove on New Years Eve, but start it at the right time so that the bomb goes off right at midnight. I may be too lazy to figure out when to start it though.
Click to expand...
Alright, I did the math. Start your Dr. Strangelove at 10:27pm for the ultimate New Year. I was debating on whether it was worth the effort, but then I watched Reindeer Games and decided that I need the excuse to watch a good movie.
 
Jrzag42 said:
Alright, I did the math. Start your Dr. Strangelove at 10:27pm for the ultimate New Year. I was debating on whether it was worth the effort, but then I watched Reindeer Games and decided that I need the excuse to watch a good movie.
Click to expand...
Do you have the precise seconds or is it exactly 10:27:00?
 
Me and my coworker came up with an idea for an Owen Wilson biopic. It would star Luke Wilson in the role, and most of the budget would go to CGI for his nose. May or may not be directed by Wes Anderson. Simply titled "Wow."
 
Jrzag42 said:
Me and my coworker came up with an idea for an Owen Wilson biopic. It would star Luke Wilson in the role, and most of the budget would go to CGI for his nose. May or may not be directed by Wes Anderson. Simply titled "Wow."
Click to expand...
Owen could cameo as Luke for a short cutaway. That budget probably slim for reverse CGI on the other nose though.
 
I spent the last week in Sicily and managed to visit the beautiful mountain village of Savoca, the main shooting location for the Godfather. Had lunch in Bar Vitelli (expensive but they served the greatest Aubergine/Eggplant that has probably ever been cooked) and sat in the famous chair by the door.

52949854382_d8e8d77254_b.jpg


52950587544_9dc8dabd8b_b.jpg


and the church where Michael and Apollonia get married.

52950823120_147999783a_b.jpg


52950587574_79e2a5778c_b.jpg


From the film:

.jpg


stnicolo.jpg
 
When people talk about "old movies," what comes to mind? For me, I generally think of 70's and older. Even 70's is pushing it, I wouldn't call something like Alien or Warriors old. Of course if a modern reboot exists then it makes sense to call something old in comparison, like The Thing. I've probably called 80's movies old before, but generally that's not what comes to mind.
My coworkers all have a habit of mentioning "old" movies, only for said movies to be from the 80's or 90's (maybe 2000's too but I can't recall). I guess if I really think about, a 40+ year old movie from the 80's being called "old" is understandable, but it just feels weird. I'm the youngest person there, mind you.
 
Jrzag42 said:
When people talk about "old movies," what comes to mind? For me, I generally think of 70's and older. Even 70's is pushing it, I wouldn't call something like Alien or Warriors old. Of course if a modern reboot exists then it makes sense to call something old in comparison, like The Thing. I've probably called 80's movies old before, but generally that's not what comes to mind.
My coworkers all have a habit of mentioning "old" movies, only for said movies to be from the 80's or 90's (maybe 2000's too but I can't recall). I guess if I really think about, a 40+ year old movie from the 80's being called "old" is understandable, but it just feels weird. I'm the youngest person there, mind you.
Click to expand...
"Old" has multiple interpretations. For example, if you draw a picture of yourself at another age and say, "That's the old me", are you actually referring to a younger you in the past? Or are you referring to a version of yourself that will exist in the future?
 
Editzilla said:
After seeing this: https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?d1=18258&d2=18257&s1=211109&s2=211103&x=314&y=211&i=19&a=2&go=1&l=1

I don't want hear how Hack Cameron is a "film savior/king of the world" anymore. Dude can't even release his own films properly............

Seriously, I've seen VHS upscales that look better than that watercolor-ass garbola.
Click to expand...
Ah Avatar 1 was shot all on digital right? That might explain it. The Na'vi group shots zoomed in don't look as bad, which makes me think it's specific to the live action elements. Perhaps the original shot you highlighted got a digital reframe/zoomed in, in post? On film they would have had more resolution wiggle room so to speak. But digital would be less forgiving of that kind of thing.
 
addiesin said:
Ah Avatar 1 was shot all on digital right? That might explain it. The Na'vi group shots zoomed in don't look as bad, which makes me think it's specific to the live action elements. Perhaps the original shot you highlighted got a digital reframe/zoomed in, in post? On film they would have had more resolution wiggle room so to speak. But digital would be less forgiving of that kind of thing.
Click to expand...
I mean, it still doesn't matter if it was on digital or not. As said before, there are VHS rips that were upscaled way better than whatever Avatar was.

It's just insane how a supposed "master filmmaker" could look at it and go "Yeah, this is perfect for home consumption". Makes me fear what he'll do to The Abyss.
 
Editzilla said:
I mean, it still doesn't matter if it was on digital or not. As said before, there are VHS rips that were upscaled way better than whatever Avatar was.

It's just insane how a supposed "master filmmaker" could look at it and go "Yeah, this is perfect for home consumption". Makes me fear what he'll do to The Abyss.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what you mean about it not mattering whether it was shot on film vs digital. If it were on film this likely wouldn't happen, it doesn't look like DNR (which is what they probably would have done if it was film) and to me DNR is preferable to digital upscaling artifacts. The Abyss (Blu-ray) I think has more of the DNR problem if I recall correctly. So the 4k version would probably as well. Of course, I'm speculating.

Edit: I'm also not defending Cameron. Explanations, not excuses.
 
addiesin said:
I'm not sure what you mean about it not mattering whether it was shot on film vs digital. If it were on film this likely wouldn't happen, it doesn't look like DNR (which is what they probably would have done if it was film) and to me DNR is preferable to digital upscaling artifacts. The Abyss (Blu-ray) I think has more of the DNR problem if I recall correctly. So the 4k version would probably as well. Of course, I'm speculating.

Edit: I'm also not defending Cameron. Explanations, not excuses.
Click to expand...
They artificially sharpened it, and then slapped a bunch of DNR on it which is why it looks soo smeary. It can happen with film too, just look at T2.

Also, The Abyss hasn't gotten an official Blu-ray. Hell, there hasn't been an official release of it since the letterboxed DVD from 1998!
 
Editzilla said:
They artificially sharpened it, and then slapped a bunch of DNR on it which is why it looks soo smeary. It can happen with film too, just look at T2.

Also, The Abyss hasn't gotten an official Blu-ray. Hell, there hasn't been an official release of it since the letterboxed DVD from 1998!
Click to expand...
Weird about Abyss, I could have sworn I heard something about that, maybe it was Terminator like you said. That's besides the point with Avatar and the bad looking faces.

I'm just saying their faces look almost like they have turned into voxels, the values have sharp vertical and horizontal delineation, which is characteristic of bicubic smoothing while upscaling digital video. They also have the halo around the edges so you're right sharpening had to be in there too. Doesn't look like DNR to me though, it's a different kind of smear. Yes something similar can also happen to a movie shot on film, but it wouldn't happen to the film stock itself, it would happen to the digitized scan if the production company used a 2k scan for a 4k release instead of doing a new 4k scan.
My bet with this film is they shot on 4k or higher, but the effects work was rendered in 2k so the entire film ends up in 2k because of the amount of vfx shots, so the whole thing, even the naturally higher res live-action footage, needs to be upscaled in its entirety to be put back on 4k media. To avoid spending money on recompositing?
 
I saw the Avatar 4K "remaster" in the cinema last October. I could tell it was upscaled but it looked fine on the big screen and better than those screenshots portray, so maybe the effect looks better in motion? But my collector's edition blu-ray played on my 4K TV looks great, so I've no interest in buying it again either way.

To genuinely remaster (re-render from scratch) something like Avatar (where every frame was a bleeding edge FX shot) in a way that looks like the exact same movie (just sharper), would be an awesome undertaking, so I'm not surprised they just did an upscale. It's not just the frames that would need re-rendered, it's all the textures that cover the objects within the frame.
 
I've always suspected HDR is largely a scam - publishers pumping up contrasts and saturation to convince people to buy 4K discs when they can't/can barely tell the difference in detail between BD and 4K (because, on 35mm film, there's barely any difference at all!).

Anyhow, as I never tire of observing, I don't care what kind of TV or disc you've got, what your K pixels are, and whether you've remembered to turn off motion smoothing - movies should be seen projected in a dark room. You're getting closer to the ideal film experience watching DVD projected in an otherwise dark space than watching a 4K disc on a 4K TV with other lights on (or, even worse, with daylight visible). :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom