logo Sign In

digitally remastered

Author
Date
Author
Time
Post link
who thinks they go to far with remastering, not just with star wars but with other movies and tv shows. for instance i think star trek the old show looks vastly different then they way i remember it, i dont think i like it much
Author
Time
Post link
I am all for remastering. It is THE way to preserve classics, unless they fuck up the color, of course!
Author
Time
Post link
i'm so confused with the problem on the 04 DVD's it had very nice clarity but why do you guys say that the colors bad can some give an example.....
Author
Time
Post link
Yeah, for one thing Luke Skywalker's light saber on the Falcon during ANH is GREEN! And Vader's lightsaber is PINK on cloud city. Dear god...
"I am altering the movies. Pray I don't alter them any further." -Darth Lucas
Author
Time
Post link
What's wrong with Star Trek? When they remastered it, they brought out details that hadn't existed in the broadcast tapes (like coffee stains on Spock's uniform). What you're seeing may be different than the old NTSC broadcasts you're used to, sure, but it's closer to the 35mm prints. And wait until Paramount dips into Trek again for HD/BD and you can see it in 1080p!

Edit: Darth Richard, check out www.starwarslegacy.com. That's just the tip of the iceberg; there's lots more samples on the web of screwed up colors. My favorite is the subtle gradations of color on one of the Tatoo stars disappearing and turning the star into a big red dot.
"It's the stoned movie you don't have to be stoned for." -- Tom Shales on Star Wars
Scruffy's gonna die the way he lived.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Scruffy
What's wrong with Star Trek? When they remastered it, they brought out details that hadn't existed in the broadcast tapes (like coffee stains on Spock's uniform). What you're seeing may be different than the old NTSC broadcasts you're used to, sure, but it's closer to the 35mm prints. And wait until Paramount dips into Trek again for HD/BD and you can see it in 1080p!

Edit: Darth Richard, check out www.starwarslegacy.com. That's just the tip of the iceberg; there's lots more samples on the web of screwed up colors. My favorite is the subtle gradations of color on one of the Tatoo stars disappearing and turning the star into a big red dot.


thanks for the link and i agree with you is when you remaster something you see more detail. remeber the master of Star Wars were soped so many time that they lost there small details and the remastering brought them back
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Scruffy
What's wrong with Star Trek? When they remastered it, they brought out details that hadn't existed in the broadcast tapes (like coffee stains on Spock's uniform). What you're seeing may be different than the old NTSC broadcasts you're used to, sure, but it's closer to the 35mm prints.
thats why i dont like them. all the grain and color that was so much a part of my memeories of that show dont exist the way they did and its a shame. and i dont think thats the way it originally looked, the way it looked was when it was first broadcast and these remastered versions dont look like that at all. what i mean to say is they look to plain now, and too flat visually for my liking.
i think i have more a problem with these than the trilogy on dvd, and least those dont look flat or uninteresting
Author
Time
Post link
I would imagine the DVDs should have more grain, rather than less. Grain is a fine detail in film, and shouldn't show up as well in an nth-generation syndicated copy as it would in a high-bitrate MPEG2 copy. If Paramount ran them through a de-graining algorithm before committing them to DVD, that'd suck. I don't know, because I refuse to pay Paramount's price for the series; but I remember it looked pretty good when Sci-Fi Channel had it.
"It's the stoned movie you don't have to be stoned for." -- Tom Shales on Star Wars
Scruffy's gonna die the way he lived.
Author
Time
Post link
I absolutely HATE grain. I like a very clear, pristine, detailed image.
Author
Time
Post link
Unless somebody has a videotape of Trek recorded off NBC back in the day, it's debateable how it looked back then. People had a tendency to tweak their RCA color consoles by eye, and I doubt anyone had color bars handy!
The syndicated episodes I recall seeing back in the 70's probably had more grain, (unless you were in a major city, you probably saw 16mm prints) not to mention being all scratched up.
Forum Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time
Post link
I agree with Adam on this one. Grain is a natural part of the film itself, but so are water spots and it's ilk. I like to see clean clear images with out little hairs on the film or grain or anything like that. It's just distracting.
"I am altering the movies. Pray I don't alter them any further." -Darth Lucas
Author
Time
Post link
For instance, they did an incredible job removing the grain from the OT for the DVDs, but since I still was able to see some of it in the binary sunset scene.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Adamwankenobi
I absolutely HATE grain. I like a very clear, pristine, detailed image.


ya that irritates the hell outta me. Like i love going to movies but everythime i see grain or water spots it takes me outta the movie for a minute
Author
Time
Post link
well i absolutely hate pristine images espescially for films that are 20 years old or more. that doesnt seem right that films that old, look newer than something shot recently
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: battlewars
well i absolutely hate pristine images espescially for films that are 20 years old or more. that doesnt seem right that films that old, look newer than something shot recently


I don't see the problem, though. Why would you want the quality it to be as bad as the limitations of the time was, if it can be improved so that you can see it better than you ever saw it?
Author
Time
Post link
Because that's what makes it... film. It's hard to explain. Well, I do have an explanation that fits with Star Wars. In my opinion, the CG in The Phantom Menace stands out much less than those of the other two prequels, and that's because it was shot on actual film instead of the pristine perfect world of digital recording. Everything was so clear on digital that all the CG stuff just stood out, but a little bit of blur or grain made it more believable. Just like with the original trilogy, I never saw the boxes around the ships in spaces before I got the DVDs. On my tapes, they were imperceptible.

EDIT: That said, I don't mind pictures being cleaned up to remove age distortion (even though it's kind of fun to watch sometimes), or even to make it look somewhat better than it did originally. But I agree with battlewars that it can go a bit too far.

There is no lingerie in space…

C3PX said: Gaffer is like that hot girl in high school that you think you have a chance with even though she is way out of your league because she is sweet and not a stuck up bitch who pretends you don’t exist… then one day you spot her making out with some skinny twerp, only on second glance you realize it is the goth girl who always sits in the back of class; at that moment it dawns on you why she is never seen hanging off the arm of any of the jocks… and you realize, damn, she really is unobtainable after all. Not that that is going to stop you from dreaming… Only in this case, Gaffer is actually a guy.

Author
Time
Post link
Basically, I'm just praying for a digitally remastered Holiday Special...that 17th generation copy I've been watching every other week or so is starting to deteriorate significantly.
Author
Time
Post link
call me traditional but i like film to look like film and not digital video
Author
Time
Post link
Ah, but do you want digital video to look like digital video or film? The resolution and bitrate of DVD Video, and even HDDVD/BD, often is not enough to capture the fine grain of an original copy of a film. The HDDVD spec calls for simulated grain to be added based on a metainformation channel that describes how much grain there is in a given shot. So I guess then you can have digital video that looks like film, even if the filmic quality of grain is reconstructed mathematically. (Technically, so are P- and B-frames.)

To me, grain is an artifact of the photographic process, like lens flare or motion blur. It should be retained, if possible, to provide a truer representation of what is on the film. This is epsecially true for photographers and directors that consciously use it for its artistic effect.

That being said, I've never bothered to play with a DVD player, TV, or computer program to try to make grain visible on something. I may try it and see what happens.
"It's the stoned movie you don't have to be stoned for." -- Tom Shales on Star Wars
Scruffy's gonna die the way he lived.
Author
Time
Post link
I'd have to agree with Adam, I'm all for the pristine image. The recent remaster of Casablanca is incredible, as are many other classic DVD reissues. Seeing them in this quality really makes these old films come alive for me, where before they were sleep-inducing. Someone like Humphery Bogart becomes a real guy in a real situation, instead of an untouchable movie icon shrouded in a silver hail of flecks and scratches. Subtle lighting nuainces, set design and other details are now an unveiled testament to the amount of hard work that went into these films, and suddenly if you didn't before, you now understand why they are revered as "classics".

This is why I was extremely disappointed with the transfer of The Godfather DVDs. Artistic grain is one thing, but these films look absolutely horrible. Sorry, Francis, but it's NOT enjoyable to watch a DVD with that much grain. It's a sin to trap a monument like The Godfather under a cloak of dirt and haze, and sell it to the consumer for top-dollar.


--InfoDroid

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: gethedgical
Basically, I'm just praying for a digitally remastered Holiday Special...that 17th generation copy I've been watching every other week or so is starting to deteriorate significantly.


Contact Rikter.
Author
Time
Post link
as much as i like the idea of a totally remastered holiday special, i feel if they do it totally it will rob alot of the nostalgic qualities of the holiday special. (which really is all it has going for it)
Author
Time
Post link
There is a group of Star Wars fans who will never know the joy of sitting in a theatre and watching a 16 or 35mm print of Star Wars, Empire or Jedi, looking up and seeing smoke in the beam of light from the projector and connecting on a primal level with an organic image on a screen.

They will never know the thrill of getting a copy of any one of the OT films on a rental VHS tape, watch it over and over and not care about the quality because the way Star Wars makes you feel is bigger than the movies ever could be.

They will never know what it was like to see Star Wars in 1977, Empire in 1980 and Jedi in 1983. The closest they will ever get is an approximation in the digital format de jour.

I pity them because they will never, ever understand or get it.