logo Sign In

The Official 2006 Discs Will Be No Better Than What We Have! — Page 5

Author
Time
Post link
but with all of the information I have on this (which may be more than you realize) I know that this is exactly what we are getting.


Please elaborate. What do you know? What are your sources?
Author
Time
Post link
I'll concede that the 1985 mix would be an acceptable substitute. Nothing was really added to the 1977 Dolby Stereo mix (except the 3PO line about the tractor beam, which was present in 1977, but inexplicably left out of the Dolby Stereo mix) and it does have great clarity. But I bet we're not even getting that. We'll get the 1993 mix (which again, inexplicably leaves out the 3PO line) but does have new elements added to it. That mix, as strong and clear as it is, is not how the film was seen in 1977, which is how this bonus disc is being marketed.

Just like the "Ultimate Edition" soundtrack of The Phantom Menace is every note composed by John Williams for that score and just like the mixing mistake on the current Star Wars DVD represents a "deliberate creative decision".

Originally posted by: 20th Century Mark
Please elaborate. What do you know?

I've told you what I know.

Neil

Well at least the reversed surround channels have been addressed.

Author
Time
Post link
I've told you what I know.


I know that. I asked what your sources are. How do you know what you know? You said, "but with all of the information I have on this (which may be more than you realize) I know that this is exactly what we are getting.

The marketing campaign states "how it was originally seen" not heard.
Author
Time
Post link
Without going into any detail, the Jim Ward comment, "It is state of the art, as of 1993, and that's not as good as state of the art 2006," confirmed something that I had been told just a few days prior to the announcement.

I would be thrilled if my info is wrong and we get new 16x9 transfers. If what I'm posting is wrong and we do get something that isn't sourced from a 13 year old video master I'll admit I was wrong and will happily buy this set.

Neil

Well at least the reversed surround channels have been addressed.

Author
Time
Post link
No one in their right mind would talk DOWN one of their releases as 'highest quality from 1993'... unless they already knew we'd have a problem with it. It's like selling a 1993 calendar in 2006.....

And... in 1993, there was no such thing as an anamorphic transfer... so what makes anyone think that these releases will be enhanced for 16x9??? They won't be... (unless someone is smart enough to pay attention to our bitching and moaning online to realize that not making them true 16x9 transferred films (Don't stretch the old laser transfer!!)....

Anyone who says that these will be 16x9 are just speculating... Bill...

Before “Intentional Creative Decisions”!!! it was “…A certain point of view”???

Author
Time
Post link
If it is used from a video master, what tape format do you think could be used and what quality would it be. Were there any tape formats in 1993 that were better than laserdisc. I think would be very surprised if they didn't use a film print as there has to be at least one print in good condition around somewhere. I would also be very surprised if they didn't make an anamorphic transfer.

Take back the trilogy. Execute Order '77

http://www.youtube.com/user/Knightmessenger

Author
Time
Post link
"And... in 1993, there was no such thing as an anamorphic transfer... "

There were anamorphic LDs. T2 comes to mind. I just don't know what year it was produced.

[EDIT] Release Date: 1993

Not that this proves anything one way or another. I was just addressing your statement in general.

<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: Sadly, I believe the prequels are beyond repair.
<span class=“Bold”>JediRandy: They’re certainly beyond any repair you’re capable of making.</span></span>

<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: You aren’t one of us.
<span class=“Bold”>Go-Mer-Tonic: I can’t say I find that very disappointing.</span></span>

<span class=“Italics”>JediRandy: I won’t suck as much as a fan edit.</span>

Author
Time
Post link
Of course it is going to be anamorphic, I doubt even for how much GL doesn't like the orginals that it wouldn't be.
Author
Time
Post link
I think the concern about it being anamorphic is not that the discs won't be 16x9 enhanced but rather they won't be mastered anamorphically. So long as they use a film print the odds of that are 3720 to 1. What were the laserdiscs mastered from besides the film?

Take back the trilogy. Execute Order '77

http://www.youtube.com/user/Knightmessenger

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: CorellianSmuggler
And... in 1993, there was no such thing as an anamorphic transfer... so what makes anyone think that these releases will be enhanced for 16x9???


What if the master is on film instead of tape? It could easily be scanned from film and resized anamorphically for DVD.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Neil S. Bulk


Just like the "Ultimate Edition" soundtrack of The Phantom Menace is every note composed by John Williams for that score and just like the mixing mistake on the current Star Wars DVD represents a "deliberate creative decision".

Neil


Yes, we all know those were mistakes. Did you really expect them to admit that? I think I know ONE person that actually believes it was deliberate. I fully expect them to fix this and release it in 2007 for the 30th anniversary.

Now, whether this is released as 16x9 anamorphic or not, I could care less. Some of you keep saying we "deserve" a good, quality release. I have some news for you. We don't deserve a darn thing. Lucas sees this release as just continuing to milk the franchise. The movies are done and aside from the tv show, he has nothing left to give us that will satisfy our wants. He knows that every die hard Star Wars fan will go out and buy this so they can have the original as well as the SEs. Those of us that didn't buy the 2004 DVDs *raises hand* will now have to live with both, but at least we'll be getting the original.

If I had a wishlist of what I wanted these DVDs to be, it would be completely cleaned up (no matte lines, etc), but no other changes besides that. Will we get that? I have no idea. Even if it does have matte lines, I'll be 100% satisfied. Then again, aside from an HDTV, I don't have a surround sound stereo system. I don't think that would change my mind even if I did though.
F Scale score - 3.3333333333333335

You are disciplined but tolerant; a true American.

Pissing off Rob since August 2007.
Author
Time
Post link
Everyone seems so caught up in the fucking technical details that they're overlooking one thing.

For years Star Wars wasn't about digital this and digital that, anamorphic this and 16X9 that.

It was about the story, characters, emotions and fun! Fuck - remember when Star Wars was fun?

Now we're getting as close to the beloved version officially as we're likely to get and we're arguing over tech details?

Fuck it - if you love the technical shit so much, piss off and watch the 2004 version...
Author
Time
Post link
Just to clarify, an “anamorphic” transfer to DVD does not require that you start with an anamorphic version of the film. The digital master which THX made in 1993 was certainly at a MUCH HIGHER RESOLUTION than Laserdisk offered and probably higher than DVD. That means a high quality, anamorphic transfer to DVD is most likely possible if they use the 1993 master. The digital master made at that time is probably very good, just not as good as what technicians could accomplish today.

Originally posted by: joe
no i dont think he is a creep in the least bit
i never have and i never will

i dont see the "trampling" here
he wasnt happy with what he originally had, so he went and updated it, and added a few things here or there
what are you talking about ?
the reason he IS releasing the O-Ot is because the demand is so large, and previous to last year, i hardly heard anyone complaining about the O-OT not being on DVD
he listened to the fans by releasing it now
and people are STIll complaining...and this site has the worst of it

You see no trampling? Well, since you didn't specifically respond to the ways I illustrated his disregard for the original artistic triumph (and the OT-fan sentiment), I'll assume you simply want to "agree to disagree" at that point.

Otherwise, nobody complained about not having the original Star Wars on DVD? I've wanted, and many fans have wanted that very thing since the DVD format was first introduced! We patiently waited because George told us to wait, and then finally in 2004 he gives us no original version to enjoy. I always thought he was going to do a 2-disk release in the first place and now that's simply going to be a special, limited time offer. Just because there were no organized efforts to voice complaints does not mean there were no complaints.


Originally posted by: joe
your criticizing GL as well
you contradicted yourself by saying that we should support GL, and then calling him a creep and saying that he trampled star wars


Sorry, logic isn't that simple. Supporting George Lucas because he makes another good move (out of his many good moves) does not logically exclude the additional concept that he may still be a "creep" in other ways. Also, supporting Lucas in this recent announcement certainly does not erase the recent history of him treating the original trilogy like shit. If his future inclination is to preserve the original trilogy more, then I will support him more, but that doesn't erase his previous officially-stated attitude. He may legally control the Star Wars franchise, but that's not the same thing as saying that every decision he makes is perfect; far from it. Don’t be such a blind follower.

"Now all Lucas has to do is make a cgi version of himself.  It will be better than the original and fit his original vision." - skyjedi2005

Author
Time
Post link
I think the DVDs will look quite good, as we haveseen a few of the Original Trilogy scenes onDVD already... in the Empire of Dreams documentary on the bonus disc to the 2004 trilogy release. There is the opening crawl from Star Wars without the "Episode IV: A New Hope" title, scenes on the Tantavie IV without the ugly purple explosions from the blasters, and a whole bunch more. It looks like a decent 16x9 transfer to me!

This is probably a new 16x transfer to DVD without the Lowry cleanup, which was done to the SE master print.

If I am wrong and this is a 4:3 LBX transfer, I wont buy it. As for having the 2004 versions included, luckily I didn;t buy the set in 2004 because I was holding out.

I do agree though... they should give us the 70mm 6-track as a 5.1 Dolby Track, just like was included on the original Spartacus DVD.

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Tiptup
Just to clarify, an “anamorphic” transfer to DVD does not require that you start with an anamorphic version of the film. The digital master which THX made in 1993 was certainly at a MUCH HIGHER RESOLUTION than Laserdisk offered and probably higher than DVD. That means a high quality, anamorphic transfer to DVD is most likely possible if they use the 1993 master. The digital master made at that time is probably very good, just not as good as what technicians could accomplish today.


Acutally, that is not true. The master for the LD would be inferior to today's component masters for DVD. I have several DVDs that are made form LD masters, 2001 for instance. In all cases they just don't hold up to even the most plebian of 16x9 masters today. The most important difference is that Laser Disc's were not mastered to component devices. A DVD is a component disc, separating th luminance (black and white signal) and the three color signals so there is no crosstalk. In 1993 there was a component video format called D1, but it was much more likely to be placed on the less expensive D2 composite master because there is no reason to pay for the overkill in the master. This crosstalk causes strange dot crawls aganst adjacent colors between lines. Also, this master would have 3:2 pulldown recorded in, and not transferred as they are today as a 23.976 progressive flagged to output a 3:2 pulldown. This is how progressive DVD players today output progressive sources and the old transfers will not come out progressive if this is the case.

As for resolution, the LD master is an NTSC master. It cannot hold more resoulution than 720x486 in visible resolution. There was no HD-Video formats in use, except for expermental use. Back then the only higher resolution master was the film itself.

I say to lucas: give us the best technology can muster with the old films if you want to prove the new ones are better.





Author
Time
Post link
I've told you what I know.


Which is fuckin bupkes, Neil. If you knew anything, you'd have spilled. But you don't. You've got your assumptions and your guesses and your hard-on to rage against the Lucasfilm machine like some sort of internet Che Guevara for his past transgressions against you and your desires. That's what you've got, and that's what you're running around smearing the internet with. Unfortunately that's not anywhere NEAR enough to go on.

The Best Show You've Never Heard
Author
Time
Post link
What's the big issue with it being anamorphic anyway? I thought we were all moving towards digital display technology eventually, so number of lines on CRT would no longer be an issue and we would be talking in pixel numbers.
Author
Time
Post link
I am almost tempted to avoid this place for a while, because all have seen since the anouncment is bitching and whinning. No one, including myself, have any idea what we will get. The guy on star wars.com who said the DVDs would be state of the art for 1993 was probably somebody who did not know what the shit he was talking about. Your taking this 1993 statement to seriously, and it is really stupid!


Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Marvolo
I am almost tempted to avoid this place for a while, because all have seen since the anouncment is bitching and whinning. No one, including myself, have any idea what we will get. The guy on star wars.com who said the DVDs would be state of the art for 1993 was probably somebody who did not know what the shit he was talking about. Your taking this 1993 statement to seriously, and it is really stupid!


I agree, with OCP and Neil making fools of themselves i'm gonne jsut a be a lurker for a little while.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: eros
What's the big issue with it being anamorphic anyway? I thought we were all moving towards digital display technology eventually, so number of lines on CRT would no longer be an issue and we would be talking in pixel numbers.


An anamorphic transfer has more resolution (less pixels wasted on black bars) no matter what display device you're watching it on. You've probably misunderstood what an anamorphic transfer is since you're talking about the number of lines on CRT displays. A non-anamorphic 16:9 movie in NTSC format has 720*360=259,200 pixels for the actual content (the rest is wasted in the black bars). An anamorphic transfer has 720*480=345,600 pixels dedicated to the picture. That's a 33% increase.

That said, I can't wait for these to be released in high definition: 500% increase in resolution!
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: ripa
Originally posted by: eros
What's the big issue with it being anamorphic anyway? I thought we were all moving towards digital display technology eventually, so number of lines on CRT would no longer be an issue and we would be talking in pixel numbers.


An anamorphic transfer has more resolution (less pixels wasted on black bars) no matter what display device you're watching it on. You've probably misunderstood what an anamorphic transfer is since you're talking about the number of lines on CRT displays. A non-anamorphic 16:9 movie in NTSC format has 720*360=259,200 pixels for the actual content (the rest is wasted in the black bars). An anamorphic transfer has 720*480=345,600 pixels dedicated to the picture. That's a 33% increase.

That said, I can't wait for these to be released in high definition: 500% increase in resolution!


And yet some people won't be satisfied with a movie shot on film and released 1977 until they can smell Walrusman's ass sweat...

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: stilleon
Acutally, that is not true. The master for the LD would be inferior to today's component masters for DVD. I have several DVDs that are made form LD masters, 2001 for instance. In all cases they just don't hold up to even the most plebian of 16x9 masters today. The most important difference is that Laser Disc's were not mastered to component devices. A DVD is a component disc, separating th luminance (black and white signal) and the three color signals so there is no crosstalk. In 1993 there was a component video format called D1, but it was much more likely to be placed on the less expensive D2 composite master because there is no reason to pay for the overkill in the master. This crosstalk causes strange dot crawls aganst adjacent colors between lines. Also, this master would have 3:2 pulldown recorded in, and not transferred as they are today as a 23.976 progressive flagged to output a 3:2 pulldown. This is how progressive DVD players today output progressive sources and the old transfers will not come out progressive if this is the case.


You aren't paying attention to my full statement. Jim Ward said that they would use video that was state of the art in 1993. He never said they were going to use a "Laserdisk master" from 1993. You assume too much.

I believe the digital master they will be using from 1993 was a result of the cleaning process used before the last home-release of the original films in 1995. The Laserdisk and VHS masters were then probably transfered from from that, in my estimation. If I'm right, that means the source master could very well be superior to any possible DVD master, and if that is the case it can then be mastered on DVD in anamorphic widescreen and still be very high quality.

"Now all Lucas has to do is make a cgi version of himself.  It will be better than the original and fit his original vision." - skyjedi2005

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: TheCassidy
For years Star Wars wasn't about digital this and digital that, anamorphic this and 16X9 that.

It was about the story, characters, emotions and fun! ...

Now we're getting as close to the beloved version officially as we're likely to get and we're arguing over tech details?

Fuck it - if you love the technical shit so much, piss off and watch the 2004 version...


http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f20/stonetriple/ALI.jpg

By the way Cassidy, I fully agree with your statement.
Forum Moderator
Author
Time
Post link
Yeah, because you can really enjoy the story, characters, emotion, and fun when you can't see or hear anything well.

"Now all Lucas has to do is make a cgi version of himself.  It will be better than the original and fit his original vision." - skyjedi2005

Author
Time
Post link
If the SEs had never been made, most people wouldn't have noticed minor differences in versions of the OT. There's going to be so many different versions of the films out there now. Star Wars is such a mess. It's sad that some of the most popular movies ever made are riddled with so much controversy and audience pain. Why oh why did the man have to fiddle with them? Sometimes I wish I could be like my friends who don't blink twice about Star Wars. I think I may need a 12-step program, or even rehab to forget about Star Wars.