danny_boy

AntcuFaalb said:

danny_boy said:

As for members here actually owning one of these rare IB prints then I would like to see some proof of those claims.

My previous post contains more-than-enough information to track down the proof you seek.

When I ask Conheim if there’s a Honus Wagner card of film prints, he names the British Star Wars, processed in Technicolor. It doesn’t fade, he says. “They were still using that process in England up to 1977 or so. Those are really sought after, because even the original negative has faded.” A Technicolor print of Vertigo is also valuable. “I saw one sell for $10,000 two or three years ago.I’ve never seen a Star Wars British version for sale. I know two people who have them. One guy is so freaked out it’s going to be a disappointment he’s never opened the box it came in. I’ve been standing in front of the box with him many times, he’s like, ‘I’ll get there.'”

http://ww2.kqed.org/arts/2014/01/05/the_projectionist/

AntcuFaalb said:

danny_boy said:

But no one here has seen it in it's entirety.

That's not true at all. I can think of at least four members here who either own or have seen multiple *complete* 35mm IB Technicolor prints.

AMPS exists for a reason.

I was referring explicitly to the IB 35mm print that surfaced in Baltimore.

Hence the reference to "seen IT in IT's entirety".

Now if that same print has re-surfaced else-where(or if members here were present at that screening) then fair enough....I'll take it back.

As for members here actually owning one of these rare---not many were made in the first place---(2 have already been bagged by Lucas and whoever has the senator print ) IB prints then I would like to see some proof of those claims.

Also if these members are using nothing more than their memories to certify the quality and look of a 35mm print(be it Delux or Technicolor) then I would personally take their claims with a pinch of salt.

I saw Star Wars in 1981(back to back with Empire) and 1983( as part of a triple bill with ESB and ROTJ) and I can't remember exactly how it looked other than it looked big!

TV's Frink said:

danny_boy said:

TV's Frink said:

danny_boy said:

TV's Frink said:

danny_boy said:

just saying. 

 No, not true.

 

Hey dude....I can get more of a kick from watching that 1982 VHS tape than watching the 2011 blu ray..........but I will still acknowledge that the 2011 bLu ray is superior in technical quality.

 Beating a horse that's been dead for several pages now is not the same thing as "just saying."

Could you elaborate?

 I'm pretty sure you're the only one here who needs elaboration, so I'm going to say...no.

I think you just created a new dead horse. 

AntcuFaalb said:

danny_boy said:

although nobody really knows or remembers what the original look of the film is

The 35mm IB Technicolor prints come pretty close by definition, so I wouldn't say nobody.

But no one here has seen it in it's entirety.

We have a few screen shots from the screening in Baltimore....and even then you have to take into account the contrast/exposures and settings of the camera used to take those photos.

The only way we could really know is if it is run side by side(with the DCP)under the same conditions.

Screen shots from one source used against screen shots from a different source is not reliable.

DuracellEnergizer said:

Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:

danny_boy said:

In terms of which version I prefer......then that is obviously the original version!.....that is why I am here........but until that version hits Blu ray....then the 2011 Blu ray is the best Star Wars(albeit in it's altered form) has looked on home video.

Fair enough.  Although I find it a bit odd that, given that you would prefer the original version, that you aren't even curious to see Harmy's version.  Most of it uses the blu ray as its base, and even improve on it because of the color palette and soundtrack.

Maybe danny_boy's really this guy:

 

maybe you can keep Jennifer warm:

TV's Frink said:

Because he already knows it will look like crap on his super awesome display.

It is because I don't watch fan edits irrespective of whether they look good or bad on "my super awesome display".....comprende? 

Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:

danny_boy said:

In terms of which version I prefer......then that is obviously the original version!.....that is why I am here........but until that version hits Blu ray....then the 2011 Blu ray is the best Star Wars(albeit in it's altered form) has looked on home video.

Fair enough.  Although I find it a bit odd that, given that you would prefer the original version, that you aren't even curious to see Harmy's version.  Most of it uses the blu ray as its base, and even improve on it because of the color palette and soundtrack.

Fan edits don't interest me.

But I am not going to stop or criticize  other people who dig fan edits from watching and enjoying them.

The Blu ray's color palette looks fantastic on my set up.

No....it may not be faithful to the original look of the film(although nobody really knows or remembers what the original look of the film is) but that does not mean it looks bad.

TV's Frink said:

danny_boy said:

TV's Frink said:

danny_boy said:

just saying. 

 No, not true.

 

Hey dude....I can get more of a kick from watching that 1982 VHS tape than watching the 2011 blu ray..........but I will still acknowledge that the 2011 bLu ray is superior in technical quality.

 Beating a horse that's been dead for several pages now is not the same thing as "just saying."

Could you elaborate?

darklordoftech said:

danny_boy said:

darklordoftech said:

danny_boy said:

darklordoftech said:

danny_boy said:

darklordoftech said:

danny_boy said: I have compared the GOUT to the bluray on my Sony 4K...........trust me.....it is not even a contest......be it with colours and  obviously resolution.

Of course it's not a contest. GOUT looks that much better. In GOUT, snow is white, Star Destroyers are gray, and 3PO is gold. On Blu-Ray, snow is blue, Star Destroyers are also blue, and C-3PO is green.

 

Well.....if you exclude the jaggies, the digital noise, the optical grain, the limited colour palette ect.....then the laserdisc/GOUT might have a better chance!.

Jaggies: not noticable

Digital noise: not noticable

optical grain: it's called film

limited color palette: I didn't know that gold 3PO indicates a more limited color palette than green 3PO.

 

Well they might not be noticeable on a crap display.............

I doubt that all of my displays are "crap".

If your display does not show the below....then I would suggest that it is:

 

My display shows the below. The below looks awesome to me.

that is fair enough mate......I enjoy the GOUT....I enjoy that VHS tape which predates the GOUT by 24 years!......I enjoy Star Wars!

TV's Frink said:

danny_boy said:

just saying. 

 No, not true.

Hey dude....I can get more of a kick from watching that 1982 VHS tape than watching the 2011 blu ray..........but I will still acknowledge that the 2011 bLu ray is superior in technical quality.

Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:

Danny, you never answsered my question... out of curiosity, do you prefer the blu ray, or Harmy's?  And if the former, why?

And if time permits, I'll add a second question - disregarding the picture quality, which movie do you prefer, the one on the GOUT, or the one on the blu ray?

I don't have Harmy's version and I have no interest in getting it.

Don't get me wrong.....I respect and admire what he did .....but it is not an officially sanctioned release(which is all that interests me) ......but if other fans get a kick out of watching it then all power to them.

I would just see it for what it is.....a concoction of BluRay,GOUT and 35mm stills......and having already plugged the GOUT + laserdisc rips through my projector and seeing how ugly they look......I don't see how those parts of Harmy's that are derived from those sources would hold up(no matter what manipulation he did to make them look better )......that is not his fault....he has done the best with the elements from which he has had to work with,.

In terms of which version I prefer......then that is obviously the original version!.....that is why I am here........but until that version hits Blu ray....then the 2011 Blu ray is the best Star Wars(albeit in it's altered form) has looked on home video.

Handman said:

danny_boy said:

Handman said:

danny_boy said:

Handman said:

danny_boy said:

@Handman

35mm release prints were notoriously inconsistent from one print to the next and even from the showing of a print to the next showing of the same print!

It is one of the reasons(if not the main reason) why they have been phased out.

Francis Ford Coppola admitted h could not remember what the original Godfather looked like......who can blame Lucas for being the same with Star Wars.

 Despite the inconsistencies you claim, I'd take that any day to the consistently messed-up colors of the BD.

 Because the colours were so consistent on the laserdisc or on the VHS tapes?!

 I was referring to 35mm.

 

So you have  your own personal un-faded  35mm print from which you can reference whether the blu ray is true to it....or not?

 No, but from this : http://savestarwars.com/technicoloribscreening.html

It is clear that the BD colors are incorrect, and because of Harmy's and Negative -1's efforts, I soon won't need my own print.

 What exactly are you arguing about? All I was saying is that the Blu-ray  and 04 DVD colors are incorrect based on every other source, and I prefer a presentation as close to the original theatrical print as possible. So, you prefer the BD, bully for you.

Yes I am aware of that Technicolor print......it does indeed  look beautiful and different to the Blu ray.

A standard 1977 35mm deluxe print(not Technicolor) would also have deferred from this print.

Those photos actually reveal how grainy those opticals were:

http://savestarwars.com/images/senatorcorrected/technicolor9.jpg

Those yellow splodges on Luke's white costume are indicative of the extra grain present in those shots.....I'll take the Blu ray thanks.

The Blu ray would also  need to be run side by side with this IB tech 35mm  under the same conditions to be in order to ascertain exactly how they differ.

But the VHS's,Laserdiscs ect ect also looked nothing liked that technicolour print either yet are not subjected to the same criticism that the Blu ray is?

just saying. 

m_s0 said:

Who needs 35mm anymore when there's Blu-ray? ;)

 The difference between Blu ray and the Digital Cinema Package(DCP) which has supplanted 35mm is not that great.

DCP's have 300gb(Blu ray has 50gb but with fancy compression algorithms) and slightly wider colour gamuts.....the resolutions are practically identical(2048 X 1080 for DCP vs 1920 X 1080 for Blu ray).

Handman said:

danny_boy said:

Handman said:

danny_boy said:

@Handman

35mm release prints were notoriously inconsistent from one print to the next and even from the showing of a print to the next showing of the same print!

It is one of the reasons(if not the main reason) why they have been phased out.

Francis Ford Coppola admitted h could not remember what the original Godfather looked like......who can blame Lucas for being the same with Star Wars.

 Despite the inconsistencies you claim, I'd take that any day to the consistently messed-up colors of the BD.

 Because the colours were so consistent on the laserdisc or on the VHS tapes?!

 I was referring to 35mm.

So you have  your own personal un-faded  35mm print from which you can reference whether the blu ray is true to it....or not?

darklordoftech said:

danny_boy said:

darklordoftech said:

danny_boy said:

darklordoftech said:

danny_boy said: I have compared the GOUT to the bluray on my Sony 4K...........trust me.....it is not even a contest......be it with colours and  obviously resolution.

Of course it's not a contest. GOUT looks that much better. In GOUT, snow is white, Star Destroyers are gray, and 3PO is gold. On Blu-Ray, snow is blue, Star Destroyers are also blue, and C-3PO is green.

 

Well.....if you exclude the jaggies, the digital noise, the optical grain, the limited colour palette ect.....then the laserdisc/GOUT might have a better chance!.

Jaggies: not noticable

Digital noise: not noticable

optical grain: it's called film

limited color palette: I didn't know that gold 3PO indicates a more limited color palette than green 3PO.

 

Well they might not be noticeable on a crap display.............

I doubt that all of my displays are "crap".

If your display does not show the below....then I would suggest that it is:

darklordoftech said:

danny_boy said:

darklordoftech said:

danny_boy said: I have compared the GOUT to the bluray on my Sony 4K...........trust me.....it is not even a contest......be it with colours and  obviously resolution.

Of course it's not a contest. GOUT looks that much better. In GOUT, snow is white, Star Destroyers are gray, and 3PO is gold. On Blu-Ray, snow is blue, Star Destroyers are also blue, and C-3PO is green.

 

Well.....if you exclude the jaggies, the digital noise, the optical grain, the limited colour palette ect.....then the laserdisc/GOUT might have a better chance!.

Jaggies: not noticable

Digital noise: not noticable

optical grain: it's called film

limited color palette: I didn't know that gold 3PO indicates a more limited color palette than green 3PO.

Well they might not be noticeable on a crap display.............

darklordoftech said:

danny_boy said: I have compared the GOUT to the bluray on my Sony 4K...........trust me.....it is not even a contest......be it with colours and  obviously resolution.

Of course it's not a contest. GOUT looks that much better. In GOUT, snow is white, Star Destroyers are gray, and 3PO is gold. On Blu-Ray, snow is blue, Star Destroyers are also blue, and C-3PO is green.

Well.....if you exclude the jaggies, the digital noise, the optical grain, the limited colour palette ect.....then the laserdisc/GOUT might have a better chance!.

@DuracellEnergizer

Well...you can always keep your fuzzy laserdiscs to keep you warm.

darklordoftech said:

danny_boy said:

Gogogadget said:

And again, just because your equipment is good doesn't change the fact that the official Blu-Rays are full of errors, mistakes, and SE additions.

Because the VHS,Betamax,V2000,Laserdiscs,8mm deran prints and 2004 dvds were so amazing!......the BluRay whatever it's inconsistencies is by far the best these films have looked on home video.

I personally prefer the look of GOUT over the look of the Blu-Rays. 

I actually prefer  the look of the original 1982 VHS(in all its bleached out glory) to the GOUT(maybe because it has a certain personal nostalgic effect for me). 

I have compared the GOUT to the bluray on my Sony 4K...........trust me.....it is not even a contest......be it with colours and  obviously resolution.

Handman said:

danny_boy said:

@Handman

35mm release prints were notoriously inconsistent from one print to the next and even from the showing of a print to the next showing of the same print!

It is one of the reasons(if not the main reason) why they have been phased out.

Francis Ford Coppola admitted h could not remember what the original Godfather looked like......who can blame Lucas for being the same with Star Wars.

 Despite the inconsistencies you claim, I'd take that any day to the consistently messed-up colors of the BD.

 Because the colours were so consistent on the laserdisc or on the VHS tapes?!

I have taken a laserdisc rip(to DVD) of the 1993 definitive collection......and plugged it through my 1080p Panasonic AE2000 and Sony 4K. projectors..........and they  look f*****g awful in practically every regard.

Now I have a relatively small screen compared to some of the other high end home theatre  enthusiasts  (just 77inches in width)......but the laserdisc's image starts to crumble long before the above mentioned screen size is reached.

I also have the original 1982 VHS tape(and V2000---an early competitor to VHS) and I really enjoy watching it for what it is.......but they don't hold a candle in  terms of quality relative to the blu ray( upscaled  to 4K or not).  

Gogogadget said:

And again, just because your equipment is good doesn't change the fact that the official Blu-Rays are full of errors, mistakes, and SE additions.

Because the VHS,Betamax,V2000,Laserdiscs,8mm deran prints and 2004 dvds were so amazing!......the BluRay whatever it's inconsistencies is by far the best these films have looked on home video.

@darklordoftech

That's fair enough mate.......get your hands on an OLED 1080p TV(they are coming down in price fast) and I guarantee you won't be disappointed! 

@Handman

35mm release prints were notoriously inconsistent from one print to the next and even from the showing of a print to the next showing of the same print!

It is one of the reasons(if not the main reason) why they have been phased out.

Francis Ford Coppola admitted h could not remember what the original Godfather looked like......who can blame Lucas for being the same with Star Wars.

darklordoftech said:

danny_boy said:

35mm Above......Blu Ray through a Sony 4K projector below:

1. That's a faded 35mm print.

2. I shouldn't have to buy a 4k projector to enjoy a movie.

The fact that the 35mm print is faded does not obscure it's inherent lack of resolution compared to the BluRay( albeit  upscaled to 4K).

That particular shot was an optical anyways.......it was always grainy.

And I agree.....you don't need to buy a 4k projector......an 1080p projector will suffice.

here is a shot as seen through a JVC rs40(1080p projector with fantastic black levels)

You would be a fool not to buy the blu ray.

people who say the blu ray looks shit around here probably have shit dispays.

Put it through a good system(I have a 4k Sony projector) and they look amazing:

35mm Above......Blu Ray through a Sony 4K projector below:

Also OLED tvs have just hit the market.

Star Wars...with it's black space backgrounds will benefit....OLED on the left...LCD on the right: