or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Filmmaker

Don't tease me. A big step down from the first one, to be sure, but I still like it (that slam dunk in HD is gonna look retched, though) and am a little grumpy it didn't come to BD at the same time. And a young Courtney Cox is a smokin' hot Courtney Cox!
Do you know something I don't know in respect to that sequence? I maintain that it was way too early in the history of CGI, not to mention being outside of COCOON's relatively meager VFX budget, for that element to be computer generated, but if you have some facts I'm not aware of, I'm not too proud to admit error. As it stands, they clearly look very much like the paint-in-water cloud effects seen earlier in CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND and POLTERGEIST.Then I want...
Well, now you're just being ornery; I think it would be a rare person who would read the sentence "As to the digital imagery in the opening sequence where the ship hovers over the ocean and dolphins this was created by Lucas' Industrial Light and Magic" and think you were talking about some other element of that shot altogether. Oh, and the point remains--still not CGI/digital, not the clouds, not the ship, not the dolphins, not the water, not nuthin'. But I really...
Gotcha! Strange word choice, IMO, but if I read you correctly, you're referring to the degree of perceiving a 3D "pop" to the image.Sure, but ILM has been around since the first STAR WARS movie; ILM ≠ nothing but CGI. I took issue with your use of the term "digital", as though the spaceship and/or dolphins were created via CGI, which is not the case.Ouch.
Thanks for the review, Ralph. Not to bust your hump but two questions: 1) What does this sentence mean? "The majority of the time the visuals didn't have a high level of image penetration." Frankly, that reads to me like "talkin' a lot but saying nuthin'." The visuals are the image, and what are they supposed to be penetrating? 2) What "digital imagery" in the opening ocean scene? This was 1985; the nascent CGI of even WILLOW and YOUNG SHERLOCK HOLMES had yet to...
My friend, I am so not the guy you wanna reach out to for double-checking math. Spelling? Sure. Math. LOL! Um, no.
lmfao!
Ah, this is interesting. What I'd been reading so far led me to believe that Image's DVD and BD of DREAMSCAPE were edited down from the theatrical release, but are you saying the "boobies" version was never shown to American audiences (sans special cable TV airings) and this BD matches the U.S. theatrical experience of 1984?
There are ample screenshots with the new review at blu-ray.com and, though the video quality isn't absolutely perfect, it appears clear that softness is really the greatest issue and (like with so many unfairly maligned BDs) it appears that's due much more to the aesthetics of how the movie was filmed than how the BD was transfered/encoded/compressed. On the issue of artificial sharpening/EE, to my eyes, there's none to be seen. The shot of Hanks and another NASA...
Well, it pained me to do it but, based on the these screenshots, I cancelled my preorder for the UK Steelbook and will grab the domestic version instead; god-awful cover art aside, it's clear that the U.S. transfer is the superior one (marginally, but still superior) and the extras being in HD on their own BD platter really sealed the deal.
New Posts  All Forums: