post #31 of 90
5/4/08 at 9:47pm
Be a part of the community.
It's free, join today!
|
Originally Posted by TonyD
whats that/
he had a cap on with a front and a back brim? a 2 sided cap? so he could turn it around depending on what he was doing at the time? kidding? |
| ...its not like people keep quiet about tensions because a director is powerful, if theres yelling and screaming it usually comes out. I think Spielberg just knows how to get the job done. |
|
Originally Posted by WillG
Personally, I don't care if I can see them on my cable/satellite service in HD. If they are cropped from 2.35 to 1.78 they're useless to me. Not to mention they will be shown edited and with commercials. However, doensn't Lucas insist on the proper 2:35 ARs for HD broadcasts. I believe this was the case with the Star Wars films.
|
|
Originally Posted by TonyD
whats that/
he had a cap on with a front and a back brim? a 2 sided cap? so he could turn it around depending on what he was doing at the time? kidding? |
|
Originally Posted by TonyD
that is a 7 minute making of poltergeist here is another. at about 50 seconds it changes from the first video above to what appears to e TCM footage. then about 65 seconds in the doule hat is there on Speilberg, really hard to see what it says. |
|
Originally Posted by Patrick H.
This has always been my impression as well. James Cameron's on about equal status, but there's a been a lot more said about his on-set behavior. Of course, some of that might just be the overall ordeal of some of his productions, but that's another thing about Spielberg...I think he learned enough from his first couple films not to stretch himself or his crews to the breaking point. Later on, when he started producing, it took him another couple films to figure out what that role was (compare the stories behind 'Poltergeist' to those from 'Back to the Future'). The 'Twilight Zone' incident, though, is it's own whole mess that involves a LOT of people.
Anyway, back to the discs at hand, I know I'll probably end up getting these. The Lucas camp seems to have this annoying-yet-consistent methodology of "pay twice and build your own comprehensive boxed set." |
|
Originally Posted by TravisR
It's not much of a mystery- Just like with DVD, they're going to wait until there's alot more Blu Ray players in homes so they can sell more copies and make more money.
|
|
Originally Posted by Charles_Y
Sorry, Travis but that would be rather weak reasoning on Paramount's part in my view. Apparently, Warners has no such qualms, look at the editions of Bladerunner, Bonnie and Clyde, etc. - released in BOTH BD and DVD.
|
| Spielberg had almost no involvement in the Twilight Zone accident at all. Landis and his producer were totally in charge of that part of the production. There is a very good book about the incident called Special Effects by Ron LaBrecque that really gets into the details of that production. |
|
Originally Posted by Ron Reda
Last night, I realized that my Indy collection from '03 was on my "pending" shelf i.e. I hadn't watched them yet! So, I broke out "Raiders" and figured I watch them all again. These DVDs held up pretty well for being 5 years old. There were several occasions in the beginning (one I recall being when Indy discovers the snake "Reggie" in the sea plane) when the film gets blurry almost like it was shimmy-ing back & forth. Those few occurrences aside, they look pretty good. That being said, I see not reason to double dip on this new set...well, not until the BR version comes out. The sound was pretty good as well, with some of the explosions sounding quite good.
|
|
Originally Posted by Douglas Monce
The blurring you are talking about in the "reggie" scene was actually visible in the theater as well. It is a result of the vibration from the airplane itself that the camera was mounted to, not any problem with the transfer of the film.
There is another shot in The Last Crusade where Indy, Sallah and Marcus are driving in a car just before the tank scene that has the same kind of vibration. I remember seeing the film in the theater and thinking there was something wrong with the projection, until I realized it was vibration coming from the camera mount. Doug |
|
Originally Posted by Jay Pennington
I've always noticed that focus issue in the car scene as well, although I don't think it was caused by vibration, but was rather a depth of field problem. I believe the lens being used could not keep all of the characters in focus at one time, and they had to rack during the shot to focus upon whomever was talking.
|
|
Originally Posted by Douglas Monce
It does look a little like a rack focus shot on video, but in the theater you could see that the whole image was going in and out of focus rather than focus shifting. It might have been more than just vibration from the camera mount, it might have been a badly mounted aperture plate holding the film in place in the camera.
Doug |
|
Originally Posted by mike kaminski
Possibly it could be the flange depth minutely shifting if the film is actually vibrating as it goes through the gate of the camera but most of Raiders was shot with Panaflex's, which should not have this issue. On the other hand, vehicle mounts in the Amazon might use smaller, less stable gear like Arris. It might be a mixture of both. But if its vibration from the plane/car/vehicel it would be a constant softness because the vibration is so extreme, it shouldn't be phasing in and out. I don't recall the shot itself but it sounds more like a depth of field than a focal flange issue.
EDIT Taking a look at the shots, the plane shot in Raiders is just vibration from the plane blurring the image. The car shot in Crusade has the same problem but there is also focus racking. The focus is on Salah for most of the shot, which causes a bit of sotfness on Indy and Henry Jones sr., and then when Henry Jones speaks the focus racks back to him, making Salah slightly soft and Indy softer, and then when he leans forward the focus racks with him and all three become reasonably sharp. But there is a phasing bluring throughout from the vibrating engine/terrain. |
|
Originally Posted by Lord Dalek
Interesting to see that LFL has dropped the THX Optimizers from this release. Wonder how they're expecting us to callibrate our systems to stablize Indy's fleshtones now?
|
|
Originally Posted by Douglas Monce
Lucas no longer owns THX so I don't know if their association has been cut as well or not. I notice fewer and fewer THX discs in general.
Doug |
|
Originally Posted by Douglas Monce
I looked at it again and clearly there is a rack focus going on in the car shot in Crusade, however there is also a weird vibration going on. You can see it clearly on Sallah's test pattern tie regardless of his being in focus or not. I think it maybe an intermittent vibration coming from a vintage car, and ether a bad aperture plate, badly mounted camera, or badly mounted lens. Maybe some combination of all three.
You are probably right that the car mount cameras are probably Arri's or Moviecams, however they aren't particularly known for low quality movements or lens mounts. I think particularly the shot in Crusade is likely the result of a malfunction that was not discovered until they watched the dailies. By that time its likely they couldn't go back to the location and had to live with the shot as it was. Doug |
|
Originally Posted by MattH.
These new Indy releases feature a new THX logo before the main feature begins.
|
|
Originally Posted by mike kaminski
Oh I agree there is the vibration on top of the racking, but its just caused by the car itself. The intermitten and random nature of it shows its just variations in the engine/terrain--you can see the same thing in the "Reggie" scene. An improperly seated lens would be shook right off the camera body, and in either case improper mounts look different from the phenomenon you see here--its the same as when, if you hold a powerful hand drill and close one eye you get the same "blurring" effect.
|
|
Originally Posted by mike kaminski
Yeah, thats true. Possibly that side shot is mounted via an arm of some kind attached to the wing, which would transfer more vibration. I'm not sure how else you could have a mounted shot from that kind of profile angle.
|
