Ask questions to The Digital Bits team (Bill Hunt, Jeff Kleist et.al.)

[Jeff Kleist]

Player based internet features

Rule #1- I am never wrong about these things You're just mad that I said David Lynch shouldn't be in control over these movies

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

You're just mad that I said David Lynch shouldn't be in control over these movies

Actually, I'm not that much of a fan of Lynch's Dune- in part because of some of the differences from my reading of the book.

[Jeff Kleist]

So you agree with me. Case closed, end of story, yet another victory for truth, justice and the way of integrity

[NL197]

Aww, I missed out on another Star Trek 2009 argument again....damn.

This thread is over 500 pages long, and it's clearly elliptical since that same back-and-forth (one side being all "Comic Book Guy" about the continuity, the other saying lighten the hell up it's only a movie) has gone on like three or four separate times in this one thread!

Is it dependent on the season?

Some hardcore fans suck the life out of this stuff so much it's such a turn-off for anyone on the outside. I sometimes wonder if that is the intention.

Oh, and:

Originally Posted by Anthony P

well obviously it was not on, if you liked this movie.

(referring to "having one's brain on")

A pathetic, insulting remark if there ever was one.

[Jeff Kleist]

Some hardcore fans suck the life out of this stuff so much it's such a turn-off for anyone on the outside. I sometimes wonder if that is the intention.

Given that I've literally seen anime fandom destroyed by the replacement of people who appeiciate the artform and the purchase large amounts of merchandise by 14 year old girls who are more interested in preening in their costumes than meeting and interacting with the people responsible for the character they are so lovingly cosplaying after stealing all the episodes of the series of the internet and never sending a penny to the people responsible for it in any form. Yes It's pathetic that directors, who are, in their field the Speilberg, Cameron or Scott of their field get 30 people, while some guy dubbing anime at minimum wage sucks 2000 in because "he's funny"

(Yes I know there are still people out there who purchase merchandise and do support the creators)

I'm as sick of having the arguement as you are of reading it. I pledge from now on that barring some drastic new way of presenting it, that I will not engage in these and refer people back to the previous.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

So you agree with me. Case closed, end of story, yet another victory for truth, justice and the way of integrity

No, I don't. We happen to have somewhat similar opinions of Lynch's Dune, in particular, but I don't agree with you.

And I certainly don't think the television cut is better than Lynch's cut!

[MerrickG]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

And I certainly don't think the television cut is better than Lynch's cut!

I think John Harrison's cut is better than both!

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by merrick97

I think John Harrison's cut is better than both!

However, the lead actor has pretty much no personality at all. I'm not sure whether or not that "contradicts" the original text.

[MerrickG]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

However, the lead actor has pretty much no personality at all. I'm not sure whether or not that "contradicts" the original text.

Im not sure Paul Atreides had much personality ever!

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Lynch's Dune may be a bit of a mess, but it's a brilliant mess. I fell in love with it, flaws and all, when I first saw it in 1984. It was really the film that cemented my love of the cinema. The Blu-ray will be in my hands today as soon as the UPS truck arrives.

[aygie]

Hey Jeff, on the 3D front do you know if current amplifiers/receivers are going to be able to passthrough the signal? (being HDMI 1.3 spec)

Will we have to buy compatible amps with 3D TVs?

Thanks

[MerrickG]

Originally Posted by aygie

Hey Jeff, on the 3D front do you know if current amplifiers/receivers are going to be able to passthrough the signal? (being HDMI 1.3 spec)

Will we have to buy compatible amps with 3D TVs?

Thanks

Yes, you will need an HDMI 1.4 compatible reciever.


HOWEVER, many of the 3d bluray players include TWO HDMI outputs so you can still get lossless audio so not all hope is lost.

[jaaguir]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

While the Super35 negative may be larger, the actual space used for a 2.40:1 extraction is far smaller and lower resolution. For every Super35 film that looks great like Top Gun (thank you California sunshine! ), there's ten that look like crap because there simply isn't the acreage available to them.

I hold fast to my opinion that no one pre 2004-ish should have shot Super35 if they're aiming for scope. It just looked terrible, even in a good movie theater compared to a true anamorphic flick. Obviously on the relative small size/resolution of the home screen, Super35 served just fine for the most part.

Jeff, I found your exchange with Vincent about Super35 very interesting. My question doesn't have to do with the LotR issue, it's in general.
I understand how a movie shot in Super35 should look worse on a movie theater. But on a flat TV, where we actually see scope movies smaller instead of bigger, I'm guessing the difference in the negative's size doesn't come into play? In a way (just so I can explain the idea), it's like the movie has been shrank back to its original size (they blow-up the central part of the negative, I assume), isn't it?
And yet I think sometimes the difference is noticeable. Like now I understand why "L.A. Confidential"(1997) looks so fuzzy most of the time. And "Out of time"(2000) (even with a DI) too. But then the first two "The fast and the furious"(2000 & 2002) movies look quite good. Is it because of their sun-drenched settings? (since you mentioned "Top gun" as an exception).
Maybe it's just that the image of true anamorphic movies has a different quality to it, you can tell most of the times. Nowadays super35+DI movies look extremely clean and sharp though.

[Jeff Kleist]

Hey Jeff, on the 3D front do you know if current amplifiers/receivers are going to be able to passthrough the signal? (being HDMI 1.3 spec)

Will we have to buy compatible amps with 3D TVs?

With a few, maybe, officially no, my opinion- don't count on it. Sony is using a software kludge to make their 1.3 output 3D, but I don't think it'll survive the trip through the receiver. Buy the panasonic players with dual outputs

I understand how a movie shot in Super35 should look worse on a movie theater. But on a flat TV, where we actually see scope movies smaller instead of bigger, I'm guessing the difference in the negative's size doesn't come into play? In a way (just so I can explain the idea), it's like the movie has been shrank back to its original size (they blow-up the central part of the negative, I assume), isn't it?

Ability to resolve the image in the first place is a big difference. That's why you see people complaining about how 80s films look on Blu. That's why IMAX footage looks better than anamorphic on Dark Knight (processing aside, even theatrically). The more resolution you have going in, the better the end product on the other side, because the downscalers have more to work with (yes, there is a point of limited return, but it's a pretty good rule in general)

In the last 3-4 years, the filmmaking process and Super35 stocks have changed drastically

I think LA Confidential is intentionally "fuzzy" for that film noire feel. I wasn't a fan when I saw it so I barely remember how it looked.

(since you mentioned "Top gun" as an exception).

Think of how good it could have looked anamorphic Or if they get their way on the supposed sequel- IMAX (though keep the camera mount on will be interesting, the weight being the reason they went S35 in the first place)

[MerrickG]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

With a few, maybe, officially no, my opinion- don't count on it. Sony is using a software kludge to make their 1.3 output 3D, but I don't think it'll survive the trip through the receiver. Buy the panasonic players with dual outputs



Ability to resolve the image in the first place is a big difference. That's why you see people complaining about how 80s films look on Blu. That's why IMAX footage looks better than anamorphic on Dark Knight (processing aside, even theatrically). The more resolution you have going in, the better the end product on the other side, because the downscalers have more to work with (yes, there is a point of limited return, but it's a pretty good rule in general)

In the last 3-4 years, the filmmaking process and Super35 stocks have changed drastically

I think LA Confidential is intentionally "fuzzy" for that film noire feel. I wasn't a fan when I saw it so I barely remember how it looked.



Think of how good it could have looked anamorphic Or if they get their way on the supposed sequel- IMAX (though keep the camera mount on will be interesting, the weight being the reason they went S35 in the first place)

I thought the idea of a Top Gun sequel was as dead as the thought of a Real Genius sequel.

[Jeff Kleist]

Maybe it is, I haven't looked into it for awhile. I know IMAX was brought up on it though

[Ataneruo]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

Take it to PMs, but the one who gives up is wrong. Minimum of 10 PMs a day back and forth, FIGHT!

Jeff, you're a funny guy. You have a deep, incisive understanding of how the internet works

Regarding flippers, I hated dual discs from the moment I first unwrapped one, and I still curse them when I am flipping through my portable collection of old DVDs and have to stop and look at each one to see what movie it is...is there really a single exec out there who doesn't understand the inherent suckiness of such technology independent of failure rates, or does it always have to be about squeezing every last penny?

[MerrickG]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

Maybe it is, I haven't looked into it for awhile. I know IMAX was brought up on it though

How many successful sequels have been made 20+ years after the fact?

I still have a feeling Ghostbusters 3 will end up cancelled.

[Jeff Kleist]

Ghostbusters 3 is probably more of a question how far they can get the budget down than anything else. the movie is designed to pass the torch to a new generation of funny people anyway. I think GB3 is far less likely to be canned than most others.

A Top Gun sequel would do very well shot in IMAX, because it would have the same thing as Avatar, the visual wow factor will sell plenty of tickets at high prices, making it attractive

[MerrickG]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

Ghostbusters 3 is probably more of a question how far they can get the budget down than anything else. the movie is designed to pass the torch to a new generation of funny people anyway. I think GB3 is far less likely to be canned than most others.

A Top Gun sequel would do very well shot in IMAX, because it would have the same thing as Avatar, the visual wow factor will sell plenty of tickets at high prices, making it attractive

Last time I checked Harold Ramis, Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd and Ernie Hudson have all put on a little bit of weight. Hopefully they will have some form of shape to perform in a believable way. I do hope Bill Murray gets more than a cameo appearance though.