The Shining

[Michel Hafner]

I think you know quite well your post was meant as a personal dig, rehashing an old exchange.

Actually I don't. Believe it or not, when I wrote that I was not even aware that it was you in the other thread. In this thread I read your post and (probably wrongly) assumed you had seen these transfers as an insider, in some post house for example, and not as a consumer at home on TV (e.g. they might be new transfers the public has not seen yet). Hence my question. After your nasty reply and my reply I went back and found out.

If you have something to say, you don't need to base your position by using my remarks as a way of subtle attack, so don't pretend otherwise. In the future, please refrain from using my quotes, and I'll refrain from using yours. You might want to consider acting like more of a grownup, yourself.

See above. Assumptions can go very wrong indeed. First mine and then yours. By the way, you never gave a valid explanation why you discredited the findings and declared them not representative of how the transfer looks. It is not an issue of compression, contrast or interlacing.

(see

http://images5.theimagehosting.com/2001eehell.jpg

http://images5.theimagehosting.com/2001ee1.jpg

http://images5.theimagehosting.com/2001ee2.jpg

http://images5.theimagehosting.com/2001ee3.jpg

http://images5.theimagehosting.com/2001ee4.jpg )

Maybe you don't agree because you watched the HD on a moderate size screen and/or not in 1080p?

[Michel Hafner]

I think you know quite well your post was meant as a personal dig, rehashing an old exchange.

Actually I don't. Believe it or not, when I wrote that I was not even aware that it was you in the other thread. In this thread I read your post and (probably wrongly) assumed you had seen these transfers as an insider, in some post house for example, and not as a consumer at home on TV (e.g. they might be new transfers the public has not seen yet). Hence my question. After your nasty reply and my reply I went back and found out.

If you have something to say, you don't need to base your position by using my remarks as a way of subtle attack, so don't pretend otherwise. In the future, please refrain from using my quotes, and I'll refrain from using yours. You might want to consider acting like more of a grownup, yourself.

See above. Assumptions can go very wrong indeed. First mine and then yours. By the way, you never gave a valid explanation why you discredited the findings and declared them not representative of how the transfer looks. It is not an issue of compression, contrast or interlacing.

(see

http://images5.theimagehosting.com/2001eehell.jpg

http://images5.theimagehosting.com/2001ee1.jpg

http://images5.theimagehosting.com/2001ee2.jpg

http://images5.theimagehosting.com/2001ee3.jpg

http://images5.theimagehosting.com/2001ee4.jpg )

Maybe you don't agree because you watched the HD on a moderate size screen and/or not in 1080p?

Michel Hafner

www.imdb.com

[Michel Hafner]

I think you know quite well your post was meant as a personal dig, rehashing an old exchange.

Actually I don't. Believe it or not, when I wrote that I was not even aware that it was you in the other thread. In this thread I read your post and (probably wrongly) assumed you had seen these transfers as an insider, in some post house for example, and not as a consumer at home on TV (e.g. they might be new transfers the public has not seen yet). Hence my question. After your nasty reply and my reply I went back and found out.

If you have something to say, you don't need to base your position by using my remarks as a way of subtle attack, so don't pretend otherwise. In the future, please refrain from using my quotes, and I'll refrain from using yours. You might want to consider acting like more of a grownup, yourself.

See above. Assumptions can go very wrong indeed. First mine and then yours. By the way, you never gave a valid explanation why you discredited the findings and declared them not representative of how the transfer looks. It is not an issue of compression, contrast or interlacing.

(see

http://images5.theimagehosting.com/2001eehell.jpg

http://images5.theimagehosting.com/2001ee1.jpg

http://images5.theimagehosting.com/2001ee2.jpg

http://images5.theimagehosting.com/2001ee3.jpg

http://images5.theimagehosting.com/2001ee4.jpg )

Maybe you don't agree because you watched the HD on a moderate size screen and/or not in 1080p?

Michel Hafner

www.imdb.com

[Dan Goulder]

This exchange isn't about anything even remotely important. I'm sorry that it got nasty. Let's just drop the matter completely.

[Drew Berkowitz]

Kubrick's entire catalogue is being transferred to HD in the original theatrical ratios. I assume these movies are slated for HD-DVD (or Blu-Ray). I've already seen HD transfers of Paths of Glory, 2001, Clockwork Orange, The Shining, Full Metal Jacket, and Eyes Wide Shut. The transfers look great, and seem to have a greater immediacy than the "protected" 4x3 versions, which tend to make the action more remote.

(Paths of Glory is pillarboxed, as it was originally framed for 4x3 projection.)

 

 

That is the greatest information I've heard since FULL METAL JACKET was released on HD-DVD.

 

Has anyone heard anything about BARRY LYNDON in HD? Oh my just thinking about it drives me mad!

[Michel Hafner]

This exchange isn't about anything even remotely important. I'm sorry that it got nasty. Let's just drop the matter completely.

No problem. I find transfer quality very important, lack of digital artifacts, a film like look. EE ruins it. Film does not look like that.

Michel Hafner

www.imdb.com