canofhumdingers

I'm not sure how I feel about the colortiming on Raiders. It's just my opinion, but a lot of the bluray screen grabs just "feel" right to me compared to the DVD and even the other HD masters. I don't know why but the warmer tones just look more like a film from the late 70's/early 80's. I mean, look at all the talk of how much warmer-toned Star Wars was originally that we've had in recent months. And I'm quite convinced now that Star Wars really was much warmer than what we've been used to on home video. So it makes sense that might also hold true for Raiders. But I also see a bit of the modern teal/orange stuff going on now that it's been pointed out & that makes me think that it can't be totally right...

But what concerns me even more: is it true that the digital alterations like the snake reflection removal are still there? I distinctly remember reading an interview with speilberg saying those changes were NOT going to be on the bluray as they went back to the original negative and did not digitally alter anything this time. I'll be sorely disappointed if they did in fact make digital changes once again...

Harmy said:

It's a bit of a paradox how Puggo managed to misplace some of his backup discs of this even though he was so careful.

Since a few have asked but there hasn't really been an answer yet, is there any chance those nefarious types will see that this make its way to a host like uloz.to? Those of us who can't or prefer not to use torrents would be greatly apprec... I mean, terribly dismayed...

hmm, my spleen seems to be hurting but I have no cure... But I was also thinking, it might be easier for me to go to the Czech Republic... does anyone know if a cure might be found there. Maybe with the help of some guy by the name of Jd...?

Just watched the 2.0 AVCHD in its entirety. AWESOME! The color timing was incredibly inconsistent from shot to shot, and I mean that as a huge compliment! It actually looked like a movie filmed in the 70s, like it SHOULD! Great job Harmy and everyone else who contributed. Darn great job!

The two things that still really jumped out at me in the original Despecialized as just not looking right were the crushed blacks and the lightsabers in the duel. They are SO much better it's incredible. I finally feel like I have a definitive version to watch that has nary a single thing to pull me out of the viewing experience.

Looking forward to 2.1, but even if that never happened 2.0 is just great!

well, I was about to get the fixed audio avchd, but I guess I'll wait for 2.1

Any idea when that might be? (no rush, just curious)

Oldfan said:

I was just looking at the comparison shots posted between v1 and v2. Many of the shots actually look like the black levels are totally crushed - like take a look at the shots of the Millennium Falcon docked on the Death Star (shots 72 & 73, 80 & 81) - tons of detail is just gone, lost in shadow, and in shots 80 & 81 the door on the left in the background is almost impossible to see. And in the shot of Obi-Wan early on (shots 22 and 23), the v1 looks nice but v2 is totally blown out, with all detail in the background completely lost in a sea of white, and the colors look terrible compared to v1.

 

Is this just unavoidable due to the different sources used for v2? I don't mean this to sound like a criticism, I'm just curious why such a difference in quality- to my eyes many of the v1 shots have more background visible, even though the v2 are clearly sharper. In those shots, is this just how it looked originally, and we're just used to seeing tweaked versions over the years, or are those shots just due to limited available sources? It seems in the shots I mentioned above, v1 looks far better overall.

 

 
<div></div>
<div></div>

ww12345 said:

Off topic: Canofhumdingers, did you notice that your signature glitch was missing from this release? :D

Hairy_hen, I'm pretty sure the stereo track was indeed affected. Check your pm's.

so the sound on the avchd is problematic too?

On another note, is anyone else getting a "plugin error (out of date)" message on a bunch of the uloz.to AVCHD links? I can't figure out how to get those links to download now...

EDIT: Nevermind, I see others above had the same issue.

Harmy said:

EXAMS SUCCESSFULLY DONE!!!! I'M FINALLY FREE!!!

Time to start encoding the AVCHD and then working on the BD :-)

This isn't the bluray or avchd release is it? It's just the mkv or whatever it's called that those will be made from? Still exciting, but also beyond my knowledge/skill level...

First let me say that I LOVE film for all the organic, "living" qualities already mentioned.

But for those who argue that 35mm film has more resolution than even 1080p material, I submit this article: http://www.cst.fr/IMG/pdf/35mm_resolution_english.pdf

In short, while film has the potential for higher resolution, the reality is that digital projection looks just as sharp or sharper. The real lesson to be taken from this is that resolution is not nearly as important as people make it out to be (I was reading another article about that specific topic but can't seem to find it right now). If you really want the highest quality moving image, you also need things like contrast, frame rate, and good color reproduction; all of which are just as important and work together to make a quality image.

The real problem wih digital (IMO), that others are kind of hinting at, is that it feels too sterile. It lacks the little inconsistencies, the gateweave, the scratches, the pops, etc that make it feel organic and alive and, i agree, less fatiguing to watch.

I should also mention that, when scanning film the quality of the source material is incredibly important. Working with a high quality OCN or IP can certainly provide enough information to make 4k scans or better worthwhile. It's just important to understand you're not seeing anything NEAR that at even the best theater. Which then opens the debate of should the goal of home video be to reproduce what you would've seen opening night? Or provide the best possible viewing experience, even if it's technically significantly BETTER than even an absolutely perfect theatrical presentation?

What thread am I in again?

Hmm... Just looks like Drake's Fortune in space. Not really as innovative as the people in the video make it out to be. I'm also pretty concerned that it will still have way too much prequel influence for my taste.

Still, I'm cautiously optimistic that just maybe it'll be worthwhile. The last SW game I played was the Battlefront series, and even those were only avg. IMO. I'd love a really great SW game set in or near the OT again!

Oh, and am I the only one who thinks 1313 sounds like some lame title a 12 yr old would come up with trying to be "edgy" and "ominous"? Seriously, who comes up with this crap? Hopefully it's just a working title...

not to mention they only sent FOUR tie fighters...? if they seriously wanted to catch them, don't you think they'd send a few more? the death star was huge it probably had hundreds if not thousands of fighters available...

of course that also begs the question: then why didn't they send out every ship the had at the battle of yavin? surely they could've stopped the rebels with shear overwhelming numbers in a matter of minutes if they really wanted to...

Hmm, it sounds more like an issue of how the disc is programmed than how bluray works. I don't own the star wars blu's but it works on the discs I've tried. At any rate, bluray technology is certainly capable of doing step frame or slow mo & it sounds like it's a matter of how the manufacturer programs the disc as to how well it works.

It figures lucasfilm would program them in such a way as to make it a pain... *rolls eyes*

SilverWook said:

I first saw dummy Greedo in 1988, when I rented the Japanese CAV Laserdisc from a video store in L.A. that is sadly long gone now. Great fun running the explosions backwards and forwards, in super slow motion too. It bugs me Blu Ray can't really do that stuff.

@Space Ranger

Just to help clarify what Harmy already said, the point of this project is not to make things "better" (which is all relative anyway), but to make them EXACTLY the way they appeared on opening day in 1977. Could harmy make the shadow look more real? Sure. Do we want him to? NO! That's what the SE's are for. Harmy is making the best possible reconstructions of the original cuts of the OT as is humanly possible with what's publicly available.

when I read that last bit from McGreggor all my mind hears is "you can't act when you have NOTHING to act against/with/to.... But I sure do like those royalty checks! And it was fun to play with a lightsaber."

Also, part of me is glad to see him take the high road & stay positive when there's clearly PLENTY of negative things he could go on & on about. But on the other hand, it'd be nice to see him, Neeson, & others speak more candidly about the faults & shortcomings of both the films & their director. Not that I want to see them be nasty, but just honest. People in the media & Hollywood seem too afraid to call Lucas out when he makes bad decisions these days... It's getting old.

Sad news. I agree with so many of the sentiments already expressed. His art had more imagination than all of modern Hollywood combined. I know he's best known for Star Wars & other film concept art, but he did SO much more. I really love his aviation art.

But I must confess that my absolute favorite pieces he did are Star Wars related. While I love all of it, I can never get enough of the works he did just showing glimpses of everyday life on a foreign world. They REALLY get my imagination going. I really need to get that book of his that was put out s few years ago...

.

.

.

geez... If I had the disposable income right now, I'd be all over that... It's becoming a stronger & stronger dream of mine to have an actual scope print of each star wars film to project in my home... 8 or maybe 16mm is what I'd want (35 would be insanely awesome, but is just totally unrealistic).

.