Originally posted by: Scruffy
Yeah. Hoosiers was a late generation LD, made in 1995 (possibly with the intention that it would be used on DVD when the format was finalized). The Star Wars LD predates that by several years. I don't know how much (if any) the state of the art changed in the interim, but I wouldn't use the later product to set a lower limit for the earlier product.
Also keep in mind the film elements of ANH and ESB were older at the time of telecine than Hoosier's were when it was scanned; with Lucas's admission that some of the ANH film stock was bad, there's more evidence that the SW laserdisc master was poorer than that of Hoosiers'. The greater image area of the latter may also serve to mask artifacts; any small error in the neg/print, transfer, or encoding will be proportionately larger on a 2.35:1 film than a 1.85:1 film (since we're holding horizontal resolution constant).
I'm just not confident that Hoosiers is the best predictor for the quality of the SW DVDs. If I'm only allowed one data point to predict a trend, I'd prefer it to be as close to SW as possible -- same aspect ratio, same photographic stock and techniques, same age when the transfer was made, same postprocessing, etc.
Yeah. Hoosiers was a late generation LD, made in 1995 (possibly with the intention that it would be used on DVD when the format was finalized). The Star Wars LD predates that by several years. I don't know how much (if any) the state of the art changed in the interim, but I wouldn't use the later product to set a lower limit for the earlier product.
Also keep in mind the film elements of ANH and ESB were older at the time of telecine than Hoosier's were when it was scanned; with Lucas's admission that some of the ANH film stock was bad, there's more evidence that the SW laserdisc master was poorer than that of Hoosiers'. The greater image area of the latter may also serve to mask artifacts; any small error in the neg/print, transfer, or encoding will be proportionately larger on a 2.35:1 film than a 1.85:1 film (since we're holding horizontal resolution constant).
I'm just not confident that Hoosiers is the best predictor for the quality of the SW DVDs. If I'm only allowed one data point to predict a trend, I'd prefer it to be as close to SW as possible -- same aspect ratio, same photographic stock and techniques, same age when the transfer was made, same postprocessing, etc.
I agree, and I am not saying since Hoosiers is pretty good, that Star Wars will be. I also put in Wargames, which is a non-anamorphic movie from 1983, and that was one of the first DVD's I bought in 1999. I have to say, again, it was a little grainy because I had to zoom to 16 x 9, but still not that bad.
I plopped in about 8 non-anamorphic movies last night that I know come from Laserdisk masters, and I was suprised none of them struck me as shitty quality where I was pulling my hair out. I am not happy about this non-anamorphic announcement at all, but I have to say this is the first time I have really watched movies on my Widescreen TV that are non-anamorphic, and I even think I overrated how bad they were, cause I was pleasantly suprised with every image on every DVD.
My whole point to this thread was, if I just walked into the room and saw all these movies on my TV, and someone told me they were Anamorphic, I probably would have believed them, it just wasn't that noticeable, as if I walked in on a VHS movie, then I would be able to tell the difference within seconds. Remember these aren't new movies that were released in the theater last year, so I don't expect perfection anyway.
Again, I am still pissed at Lucas for being a dick, but my love for these movies are so strong, I think I personaly will still enjoy them in the quality I think we are getting.