logo Sign In

team negative1 - star wars 1977 - 35mm theatrical version (Released) — Page 172

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Wazzles said:

dahmage said:

Wazzles said:

yotsuya said:

Disco_Lobot said:

I laugh at people buying 4K TVs… your eyes are almost certainly not good enough to tell the difference in the vast majority of viewing scenarios. Total waste of money

http://bgr.com/2015/09/18/720p-vs-1080p-vs-4k-resolution/

If we were just talking about the absolute resolution, you are right. At my normal viewing distance I can’t tell the difference between 720 and 1080. I’m certainly not going to see much improvement from a 4k screen. But it isn’t just the resolution. The more pixels you have to display the image data, the better the image looks. The pixels start to disappear and be truly invisible. I’ve known this about printing for years, but when you apply it to video, it really helps the realism of the image, even if you are watching a 480 DVD. With the proper hardware, everything will look better on a 4k screen, even if you never get a UHD player or media.

My dad has a 43 inch 4K TV and DVDs look horrendous.

Often, if you turn off all that image enhacent crap, lower quality sources like dvd actually look better. I have a 51" 1080p plasma tv, and i think DVD’s look pretty damn good if they were authored at high bitrate. a bit soft, but good.

I have a 40 inch 1080p and DVDs look great unless I’m directly comparing them to Blu Rays. I honestly believe that 4k as a resolution is simply too high for a TV.

4k content looks better on my 40" 4k tv than 1080p. But then again, DVD is obviously poorer-looking even when not comparing directly to a Blu-ray, so…

[shrug]

Author
Time

TV’s Frink said:

Wazzles said:

dahmage said:

Wazzles said:

yotsuya said:

Disco_Lobot said:

I laugh at people buying 4K TVs… your eyes are almost certainly not good enough to tell the difference in the vast majority of viewing scenarios. Total waste of money

http://bgr.com/2015/09/18/720p-vs-1080p-vs-4k-resolution/

If we were just talking about the absolute resolution, you are right. At my normal viewing distance I can’t tell the difference between 720 and 1080. I’m certainly not going to see much improvement from a 4k screen. But it isn’t just the resolution. The more pixels you have to display the image data, the better the image looks. The pixels start to disappear and be truly invisible. I’ve known this about printing for years, but when you apply it to video, it really helps the realism of the image, even if you are watching a 480 DVD. With the proper hardware, everything will look better on a 4k screen, even if you never get a UHD player or media.

My dad has a 43 inch 4K TV and DVDs look horrendous.

Often, if you turn off all that image enhacent crap, lower quality sources like dvd actually look better. I have a 51" 1080p plasma tv, and i think DVD’s look pretty damn good if they were authored at high bitrate. a bit soft, but good.

I have a 40 inch 1080p and DVDs look great unless I’m directly comparing them to Blu Rays. I honestly believe that 4k as a resolution is simply too high for a TV.

4k content looks better on my 40" 4k tv than 1080p. But then again, DVD is obviously poorer-looking even when not comparing directly to a Blu-ray, so…

[shrug]

That’s why I think 1080p hits a sweet spot for TV resolutions. This is especially true if you watch older TV series (or really made before the mid 2000’s), which look bad already. I have not attempted to watch something like MASH or The Simpsons on a 4k TV, but I wouldn’t anticipate good results.I think we have a ways to go before upscaling technology is good enough to make these palatable on a 4k screen.

Author
Time

Wazzles said:

dahmage said:

Wazzles said:

yotsuya said:

Disco_Lobot said:

I laugh at people buying 4K TVs… your eyes are almost certainly not good enough to tell the difference in the vast majority of viewing scenarios. Total waste of money

http://bgr.com/2015/09/18/720p-vs-1080p-vs-4k-resolution/

If we were just talking about the absolute resolution, you are right. At my normal viewing distance I can’t tell the difference between 720 and 1080. I’m certainly not going to see much improvement from a 4k screen. But it isn’t just the resolution. The more pixels you have to display the image data, the better the image looks. The pixels start to disappear and be truly invisible. I’ve known this about printing for years, but when you apply it to video, it really helps the realism of the image, even if you are watching a 480 DVD. With the proper hardware, everything will look better on a 4k screen, even if you never get a UHD player or media.

My dad has a 43 inch 4K TV and DVDs look horrendous.

Often, if you turn off all that image enhacent crap, lower quality sources like dvd actually look better. I have a 51" 1080p plasma tv, and i think DVD’s look pretty damn good if they were authored at high bitrate. a bit soft, but good.

I have a 40 inch 1080p and DVDs look great unless I’m directly comparing them to Blu Rays. I honestly believe that 4k as a resolution is simply too high for a TV. As far as projecting goes, I’m sure it’s great, but when you’re watching 480i-1080p content from a 40-60 inch TV and sitting about 10-12 feet away, it seems unnecessary.

It definitely makes a difference for projectors. Several years ago My uncle upgraded from a 1080p Domino projector to a 4k Sony SXRD that could also do 3D. The Domino looked perfectly fine, but with the Sony I noticed the pixels were no longer visible more than a few inches from the screen.

The pixel problem is something I’ve also noticed with TVs. It must have something to do with the display tech (ips/tn/va lcd vs plasma vs oled, etc), because I’ve seen 1080p sets in the same size range with noticeably different pixel visibility. 4k eliminates this problem for the most part.

Another funny thing to consider is the screen size / seating distance / screen resolution debate. I’ve also got a 40" 1080p but I sit less than five feet from it. The tv is a sony lcd from almost nine years ago. Right around that time, I remember there was the opinion that 1080p is wasted below 50". In other words, it was hard to see the difference over 720p unless the screen was at least that big. That may have been true at more normal seating distances, but I like to sit close enough to the screen to recreate the movie theater experience and the jump in resolution is definitely noticeable.

I seem to recall that a couple years ago the debate had turned into “4k is wasted below 80”."

Author
Time

Wazzles said:

TV’s Frink said:

Wazzles said:

dahmage said:

Wazzles said:

yotsuya said:

Disco_Lobot said:

I laugh at people buying 4K TVs… your eyes are almost certainly not good enough to tell the difference in the vast majority of viewing scenarios. Total waste of money

http://bgr.com/2015/09/18/720p-vs-1080p-vs-4k-resolution/

If we were just talking about the absolute resolution, you are right. At my normal viewing distance I can’t tell the difference between 720 and 1080. I’m certainly not going to see much improvement from a 4k screen. But it isn’t just the resolution. The more pixels you have to display the image data, the better the image looks. The pixels start to disappear and be truly invisible. I’ve known this about printing for years, but when you apply it to video, it really helps the realism of the image, even if you are watching a 480 DVD. With the proper hardware, everything will look better on a 4k screen, even if you never get a UHD player or media.

My dad has a 43 inch 4K TV and DVDs look horrendous.

Often, if you turn off all that image enhacent crap, lower quality sources like dvd actually look better. I have a 51" 1080p plasma tv, and i think DVD’s look pretty damn good if they were authored at high bitrate. a bit soft, but good.

I have a 40 inch 1080p and DVDs look great unless I’m directly comparing them to Blu Rays. I honestly believe that 4k as a resolution is simply too high for a TV.

4k content looks better on my 40" 4k tv than 1080p. But then again, DVD is obviously poorer-looking even when not comparing directly to a Blu-ray, so…

[shrug]

That’s why I think 1080p hits a sweet spot for TV resolutions. This is especially true if you watch older TV series (or really made before the mid 2000’s), which look bad already. I have not attempted to watch something like MASH or The Simpsons on a 4k TV, but I wouldn’t anticipate good results.I think we have a ways to go before upscaling technology is good enough to make these palatable on a 4k screen.

MASH was shot on film, so it should look good at higher resolutions.

Author
Time

It doesn’t have an HD master. They seem unwilling to remaster it since there is so much work for what’s a comparitively small fan base (as opposed to something like TNG).

Author
Time

TNG episodes had to be completely rebuilt from scratch. The cost of scanning all 12 seasons of MASH really ought not to cost as much. Unless the film elements are in bad shape.

Forum Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time

They remastered TJ Hooker, I don’t know why MASH would be a problem.

Forum Moderator
Author
Time

SilverWook said:

TNG episodes had to be completely rebuilt from scratch. The cost of scanning all 12 seasons of MASH really ought not to cost as much. Unless the film elements are in bad shape.

They rescanned in it HD when they made the master for the DVD collection. They could rescan it in 4k, if there would be a quality improvment, but I think the 1440x1080 HD is probably good enough.

Author
Time

MASH was definitely remastered for the DVD, not only re-scanned. I have the DVD sets of the first 2 seasons and they keep repeating it on TV from some unknown source, and if I check just the opening credits - the TV version has tons of scratches and dirt during the opening montage, while the DVD has (almost) none.

Author
Time

I’ve been searching desperately and can’t find a copy of v1.6, has anyone got any links/invites that may help me?

thanks

Author
Time
 (Edited)

So I’m completely out of the loop now after following this stuff a few years ago and I’m only just finding about this and the Grindhouse transfers. If anyone could send me a message as to how to find them, that would be awesome.

EDIT: Just noticed the invite notice.

Author
Time

Williarob said:

poita said:

Hairy Hen, I’ve sent you a link for the raw audio capture of the mono version.

Thanks Poita!

I was just reminded of this. Did anything ever come up an updated Mono track for the SSE 1.6 release? I forget if anything ever came of that in the intervening pages (I didn’t re-read the whole thread)

Author
Time

I’m pretty sure Schorman cleaned up the new capture of the mono track and sent it to me. I remember updating the files in the blu-ray project with the new version and rebuilding it, but I don’t recall whether that happened before the final release or after.

I suspect it happened after as the new flac file is dated 7/8/16.

TheStarWarsTrilogy.com.
The007Dossier.com.
Donations always welcome: Paypal | Bitcoin: bc1qzr9ejyfpzm9ea2dglfegxzt59tys3uwmj26ytj

Author
Time

Thanks for confirming that. Is that cleaned up track available anywhere for remuxing into the SSE? Planning to watch this soon and wanted to make sure I had the best audio option. If it’s too much of a bother, please don’t worry about it.

Author
Time

dahmage said:

Thanks for confirming that. Is that cleaned up track available anywhere for remuxing into the SSE? Planning to watch this soon and wanted to make sure I had the best audio option. If it’s too much of a bother, please don’t worry about it.

I just downloaded v1.6 and it’s a 39gig ISO file. The file name is “Star Wars 1977 TN1 v1.6 BR” This obviously won’t rip to a BR, unless I don’t know something. Anybody got any tips/hints?

Author
Time

Swampholley said:

dahmage said:

Thanks for confirming that. Is that cleaned up track available anywhere for remuxing into the SSE? Planning to watch this soon and wanted to make sure I had the best audio option. If it’s too much of a bother, please don’t worry about it.

I just downloaded v1.6 and it’s a 39gig ISO file. The file name is “Star Wars 1977 TN1 v1.6 BR” This obviously won’t rip to a BR, unless I don’t know something. Anybody got any tips/hints?

you can burn it to a 50 gb BR disc.

Author
Time

Swampholley said:

dahmage said:

Thanks for confirming that. Is that cleaned up track available anywhere for remuxing into the SSE? Planning to watch this soon and wanted to make sure I had the best audio option. If it’s too much of a bother, please don’t worry about it.

I just downloaded v1.6 and it’s a 39gig ISO file. The file name is “Star Wars 1977 TN1 v1.6 BR” This obviously won’t rip to a BR, unless I don’t know something. Anybody got any tips/hints?

Like has been said a dual layer 50gb bd-r is the way to go. Make sure to use a decent branded one like sony or Panasonic and burn at the lowest speed possible your drive will allow. Thats option one.

Alternatively you can go with option two like I have. Being too tight to buy 50gb bds I used daemon tools to mount the iso image and then you can use either BdRebuilder or Bdtoavchd ( google these ) to shrink the iso down to the size of a standard 25gb bd-r.

Some here might say 50gb is the only option they would trust but I cant see any quality issues with my 25gb disc even though it’s a shrinking in size of 35% it still looks incredible to me.

Captain Danielsan’s Disc printing Service thread

Author
Time

Hi all,

Here’s an in interview with the mixer for Star Wars. The youtube blurb and link are below.

On the 40th anniversary of the theatrical release of Star Wars, 3-time Academy Award-winning re-recording mixer Mike Minkler talks about his work on that seminal movie. Topics include how he first got hired to work on the sound, the process of pre-mixing various sound elements, the first use of front-back panning, the birth of separate low-frequency effects (called “Baby Boom” at the time), Dolby Stereo, Dolby A noise reduction, the transition from magnetic to optical soundtracks, how THX was born to assure the quality of commercial presentation, the movie’s impact on the cast and crew the first time they saw it, how the future of movie sound was influenced, answers to chatroom questions, and much more. May the force be with you!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AM0MFZfOrPU

Author
Time

another fan here looking to watch the full 1080p SSE 1.6. I have all the capabilities to burn the full res Blu-Ray, just don’t have a link to download it. Can anyone help me or give me some pointers? I would really appreciate it!

Author
Time

portabello said:

another fan here looking to watch the full 1080p SSE 1.6. I have all the capabilities to burn the full res Blu-Ray, just don’t have a link to download it. Can anyone help me or give me some pointers? I would really appreciate it!

Do some research. There are a myriad of threads here with everything you need to learn. Obviously we can’t just post links to it. Good luck.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Alright so after reading through almost 4 years of thread somehow never having seen this until recently, can someone shoot me a myspleen invite. Wow, the amount of work put into this appears to be a herculean effort that I can truly appreciate!!

Author
Time

esoteryk said:

Alright so after reading through almost 4 years of thread somehow never having seen this until recently, can someone shoot me a myspleen invite. Wow, the amount of work put into this appears to be a herculean effort that I can truly appreciate!!

Keep reading. You missed an important one.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Sorry for the noob question. I’ve tried to look through to find, but I’m looking for version 1.6. The version I have plays fine, but when I burn it to blu-ray, it plays the opening few seconds of sound from the first logo screen when Greedo confronts Han. I’m hoping 1.6 will fix this.

Could someone shoot me a link to get the 1.6 version?

Thanks.