⭐ Star Wars' 50th anniversary in 2027 ⭐ | Your hopes and expectations (if any)... — Page 13

NEW SCREENSHOT COMPARISON - AND A NEW VIDEO CLIP - FROM RETURN OF THE JEDI…

(Pre Special Edition)

ALI…

 
4K83…

Detail: ALI…

 
Detail: 4K83…

Only the latter half of this shot is in the Special Edition - and what’s left of it looks… like this…

UHD…

as opposed to this…

ALI…

a streamable video clip of the above scene: https://streamable.com/7jt5vr

 
A Mini-Index for info on the ALI OOT Restoration Leaks…

• An Introduction / Overview
• Image Screenshots & Comparisons
• Video Clips
• Media Coverage & Content
• FAQs
• News & Updates (tba; for when we hopefully get an official announcement on the ALI OOT restoration for the 50th anniversary)

oojason said:

NEW SCREENSHOT COMPARISON - AND A NEW VIDEO CLIP - FROM RETURN OF THE JEDI…

ALI…

What’s up with Han’s hair? There is an odd (compositing?) line around it. Looks almost like Ford was in front of a blue-screen doing his thing.

Haarspalter said:

oojason said:

NEW SCREENSHOT COMPARISON - AND A NEW VIDEO CLIP - FROM RETURN OF THE JEDI…

ALI…

What’s up with Han’s hair? There is an odd (compositing?) line around it. Looks almost like Ford was in front of a blue-screen doing his thing.

That’s just motion blur…

YAREL_RGP said:

That guy with no name said:

YAREL_RGP said:

Detail: ALI…

 
Detail: UHD…

Well, it’s important to note that this shot was digitized in 2K in 1997 to add the rope holding Han, so the UHD not only includes that shot with a clearly lower resolution, but also suffers from excessive DNR for the 3D conversion, which caused the image to lose detail.

Yeah, the point of the comparison is that this isn’t sourced from the UHD. Or you’re right, it would also have quality loss. Also good to note that the 97 filmouts also had fake digital grain added on top to disguise the new CG! So yeah, doubly worse…

I don’t know why you say “digital fake grain was added.” This shot was scanned, digitized, had CGI added, and was reprinted. If there’s supposedly more grain, it’s because of the reprinting. Although, back then, films had very fine grain, so no detail was lost when reprinting a film a second time. In the case of the enhanced shots in Star Wars, they look “worse” because they were rendered in 2K.

No, they had fake grain added onto them aswell… even in '97.
https://youtu.be/RMzif1D0nyA

That guy with no name said:

YAREL_RGP said:

That guy with no name said:

YAREL_RGP said:

Detail: ALI…

 
Detail: UHD…

Well, it’s important to note that this shot was digitized in 2K in 1997 to add the rope holding Han, so the UHD not only includes that shot with a clearly lower resolution, but also suffers from excessive DNR for the 3D conversion, which caused the image to lose detail.

Yeah, the point of the comparison is that this isn’t sourced from the UHD. Or you’re right, it would also have quality loss. Also good to note that the 97 filmouts also had fake digital grain added on top to disguise the new CG! So yeah, doubly worse…

I don’t know why you say “digital fake grain was added.” This shot was scanned, digitized, had CGI added, and was reprinted. If there’s supposedly more grain, it’s because of the reprinting. Although, back then, films had very fine grain, so no detail was lost when reprinting a film a second time. In the case of the enhanced shots in Star Wars, they look “worse” because they were rendered in 2K.

No, they had fake grain added onto them aswell… even in '97.
https://youtu.be/RMzif1D0nyA

So when the 4K transfers came around, I guess George decided he was over it, and just said, eff it… freeze it all!

NEW SCREENSHOT COMPARISON - AND A NEW VIDEO CLIP - FROM RETURN OF THE JEDI…

ALI…

 
UHD…

 
2011 blu ray…

 
4K83…

a streamable video clip of the above scene: https://streamable.com/7nczxt
 

YAREL_RGP said:

That guy with no name said:

YAREL_RGP said:

That guy with no name said:

YAREL_RGP said:

Detail: ALI…

 
Detail: UHD…

Well, it’s important to note that this shot was digitized in 2K in 1997 to add the rope holding Han, so the UHD not only includes that shot with a clearly lower resolution, but also suffers from excessive DNR for the 3D conversion, which caused the image to lose detail.

Yeah, the point of the comparison is that this isn’t sourced from the UHD. Or you’re right, it would also have quality loss. Also good to note that the 97 filmouts also had fake digital grain added on top to disguise the new CG! So yeah, doubly worse…

I don’t know why you say “digital fake grain was added.” This shot was scanned, digitized, had CGI added, and was reprinted. If there’s supposedly more grain, it’s because of the reprinting. Although, back then, films had very fine grain, so no detail was lost when reprinting a film a second time. In the case of the enhanced shots in Star Wars, they look “worse” because they were rendered in 2K.

No, they had fake grain added onto them aswell… even in '97.
https://youtu.be/RMzif1D0nyA

Well, I think it refers more to the completely computer-generated shots, like the CGI shots of the Battle of Yavin, the CGI arrival on Bespin, among others, but the existing shots that were altered already had grain, and when reprinting, the natural grain of the new film did its thing.

I’m sorry, why are we making assumptions here? In the full video he says this was done to both new and “changed” shots. There are many original shots that appear to have had more grain in them in the SE evidenced by the need of more aggressive DNR…

That guy with no name said:

YAREL_RGP said:

That guy with no name said:

YAREL_RGP said:

That guy with no name said:

YAREL_RGP said:

Detail: ALI…

 
Detail: UHD…

Well, it’s important to note that this shot was digitized in 2K in 1997 to add the rope holding Han, so the UHD not only includes that shot with a clearly lower resolution, but also suffers from excessive DNR for the 3D conversion, which caused the image to lose detail.

Yeah, the point of the comparison is that this isn’t sourced from the UHD. Or you’re right, it would also have quality loss. Also good to note that the 97 filmouts also had fake digital grain added on top to disguise the new CG! So yeah, doubly worse…

I don’t know why you say “digital fake grain was added.” This shot was scanned, digitized, had CGI added, and was reprinted. If there’s supposedly more grain, it’s because of the reprinting. Although, back then, films had very fine grain, so no detail was lost when reprinting a film a second time. In the case of the enhanced shots in Star Wars, they look “worse” because they were rendered in 2K.

No, they had fake grain added onto them aswell… even in '97.
https://youtu.be/RMzif1D0nyA

Well, I think it refers more to the completely computer-generated shots, like the CGI shots of the Battle of Yavin, the CGI arrival on Bespin, among others, but the existing shots that were altered already had grain, and when reprinting, the natural grain of the new film did its thing.

I’m sorry, why are we making assumptions here? In the full video he says this was done to both new and “changed” shots. There are many original shots that appear to have had more grain in them in the SE evidenced by the need of more aggressive DNR…

I wonder if the terrible, dated quality of the SE shots had more to do with Disney going back to the Original than any kind of principle. Ironic, given the supposed intent of the SE, that a 4K transfer made with modern tools of the OOT will look better than one of the SE.