• 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

Thunderbirds: trapped in the sky: International Rescue edition

TM2YC said:
I've finished previewing the latest version of "trapped in the sky: International Rescue edition" and it's almost ready for approval. The heavy compression and choppy framerate problems from earlier are gone (With one exception, see below).

I got the Blu-Ray boxset of Thunderbirds not so long ago and was quite surprised how long and slow the 50 minute episodes now seem, so this 25 minute edit feels exactly right. It's the fast-paced Thunderbirds you probably "remember" watching as a kid. The rescue is there but in super-fast time and the edits are all quite smooth too. Nice job.

- There is just one issue that I'm concerned about. At 00.30 as T2 is taking off, there is obvious interlacing combing going on. As this encode is progressive, this cannot be switched off. Oddly, Im pretty sure it is only present in this one shot. Even all quick camera pans from side-to-side are fine in the rest of the edit. Here is a screenshot...

27584954530_ea2447f5c7_o.png


@"wilhelm scream" Did this shot come from a different source or something?

There were a couple of other minor points at the end that you don't need to correct but I personally didn't like them:

- The fade out while the villain is still halfway through talking felt odd. Maybe fade later, or slower? Or just hard cut to the theme music perhaps?

- Your faneditor titlecard at 25.24 featuring the eponymous "wilhelm scream" sound effect is very loud and annoying (Maybe twice as loud as the rest of the edit). Plus "comic sans" is a widely despised font. There must be classier fonts that could be used?

27251184724_42f9be569f_o.png


comicsansred_fullpic.png


So in conclusion, if you could just clear up what is going on with that T2 shot above, then we can move to adding this to ifdb.
Click to expand...

The shot looks like that because I slowed it down. It was the only way to make the title sequence without giving away any spoilers. It's not perfect, but it's all I could do! Also, I do not understand why comic Sans is despised.
 
wilhelm scream said:
The shot looks like that because I slowed it down.
Click to expand...

Are you still using the blu-ray source? It seems strange that interlacing artifacts would appear from a progressive source. Given that there are some small interlacing artifacts left in the blu-ray transfer (not noticeable during normal playback speed), you should probably look at other methods for slowing down the footage. How are you slowing it down?



wilhelm scream said:
Also, I do not understand why comic Sans is despised.
Click to expand...

http://www.comicsanscriminal.com/
http://sabotagetimes.com/life/why-i-despise-comic-sans
...and about 1 million more explanations on the web.

The bottom line is that fonts are important. Always use one appropriate to the design and tone of your art.
 
COMIC  SANS  could be always be bold-faced and multi coloured to heighten the comical effect.
 
Example of something that would work better: 

2ptxd02.jpg


This uses the Google Font "Oswald". The top and bottom text are perfectly centered, and are each 65px away from the top and bottom edges of the image. 

The "Screamer" character is center-focus, and not obscured by the text. One of the background characters from the painting are in-frame to imply they are the cause of the "Screamer"'s reaction.

Compare the two, see which you like better, and try to understand why you like one over the other. These are design principles at work. 
For comparison, here's the original again:
27251184724_42f9be569f_o.png

I'd highly recommend looking at sans-serif fonts, possibly condensed sans-serif fonts, for the right feel. That's what I chose for this quick example.
 
wilhelm scream said:
The shot looks like that because I slowed it down. It was the only way to make the title sequence without giving away any spoilers. It's not perfect, but it's all I could do!
Click to expand...

Ah that explains it. You've improperly dealt with the framerate when slowing it down. You need to redo that shot with the framerate correct, or pick another shot to go in there. It might help if you explained what you were trying to achieve by slowing it down?

ThrowgnCpr said:
Are you still using the blu-ray source?
Click to expand...

He's using an old PAL-DVD.

wilhelm scream said:
I do not understand why comic Sans is despised.
Click to expand...

Well it is but as I said "you don't need to correct" this, I just personally don't think it looks good.
 
PAL-DVDs rock!... once you convert them back to filmspeed that is.
 
TM2YC said:
wilhelm scream said:
The shot looks like that because I slowed it down. It was the only way to make the title sequence without giving away any spoilers. It's not perfect, but it's all I could do!
Click to expand...

Ah that explains it. You've improperly dealt with the framerate when slowing it down. You need to redo that shot with the framerate correct, or pick another shot to go in there. It might help if you explained what you were trying to achieve by slowing it down?

ThrowgnCpr said:
Are you still using the blu-ray source?
Click to expand...

He's using an old PAL-DVD.

wilhelm scream said:
I do not understand why comic Sans is despised.
Click to expand...

Well it is but as I said "you don't need to correct" this, I just personally don't think it looks good.
Click to expand...

Fixed
 
How?
 
Like many following this thread,
I am waiting for the next chess move.
 
Any progress on this edit?
 
TM2YC said:
Any progress on this edit?
Click to expand...

It's finished. But I can't send you the link because I am on holiday and don't have the link. I will send you the link once I get home.
 
Thread moved back to in-the-works while this is being worked on. You don't need to resubmit it to the academy when the new version is done. Just PM me, thanks.
 
I've looked at the "latest" version you just sent me but it's clearly just the same version you showed me before, re-submitted in the hope I'd be too stupid or lazy to spot it.

This problem...

TM2YC said:
- There is just one issue that I'm concerned about. At 00.30 as T2 is taking off, there is obvious interlacing combing going on. As this encode is progressive, this cannot be switched off. Oddly, Im pretty sure it is only present in this one shot. Even all quick camera pans from side-to-side are fine in the rest of the edit. Here is a screenshot...

27584954530_ea2447f5c7_o.png
Click to expand...

...is not fixed at all. Look I did a screenshot-comparison between the July version that I rejected and the "new" and "fixed" version you just sent me...

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/180614

It's exactly the same. If you are just going to waste everybody's time (and bandwidth) I'm tempted to lock this thread and be done with it.
 
TM2YC said:
I've looked at the "latest" version you just sent me but it's clearly just the same version you showed me before, re-submitted in the hope I'd be too stupid or lazy to spot it.

This problem...

TM2YC said:
- There is just one issue that I'm concerned about. At 00.30 as T2 is taking off, there is obvious interlacing combing going on. As this encode is progressive, this cannot be switched off. Oddly, Im pretty sure it is only present in this one shot. Even all quick camera pans from side-to-side are fine in the rest of the edit. Here is a screenshot...

27584954530_ea2447f5c7_o.png
Click to expand...

...is not fixed at all. Look I did a screenshot-comparison between the July version that I rejected and the "new" and "fixed" version you just sent me...

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/180614

It's exactly the same. If you are just going to waste everybody's time (and bandwidth) I'm tempted to lock this thread and be done with it.
Click to expand...

I accidentally sent you the same version twice. I will upload the updated version and send it to you by the end of the month.
 
Wilhelm scream, I have some advice. Read this thread, "The Rules of Fanediting". Especially point 5:

Remixed by Jorge said:
DON'T RUSH IT.
<snip>
If you repeatedly rush, and repeatedly put out inferior first  products you will develop a bad rep fast.
It isn't a race.  First impressions are the lasting impression. 
Click to expand...
 
Well, if he's sending a revised clip by the end of the month, he's not exactly rushing it. ;)
 
Neglify said:
Wilhelm scream, I have some advice. Read this thread, "The Rules of Fanediting". Especially point 5:

Remixed by Jorge said:
DON'T RUSH IT.
<snip>
If you repeatedly rush, and repeatedly put out inferior first  products you will develop a bad rep fast.
It isn't a race.  First impressions are the lasting impression. 
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

How am I rushing it? I have been working on it since December!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom