Originally posted by: Vigo
So, you think that an old non-anamorphic soft and washed-out transfer made in 1993 with obsolete equipment represent the originals better than an all-new transfer directly made from the negatives, right?
You should read what I've already said addressing that exact point before coming and claiming that as my point of view. What I said was that it's better they release it like this then to put it through the same process the 2004 version went through. A new transfer would look a little bit better, yes, but not by much.
This is a run-down of what I've said:
1. This release will look better then LD rips.
2. This release will look better then 16MM prints.
3. The colours will be better and more consistent then the 2004 version.
4. This release could have been much worse.
5. This release will be decent DVD quality (I expect video to be 7 or 8/10).
BTW, in the following screenshot to me the OOT one looks better... which do you think looks better?
Since you are the person, who claimed in the past that a DVD can truly represent the full resolution of a 35mm frame (LOL),
What I said was:So, you think that an old non-anamorphic soft and washed-out transfer made in 1993 with obsolete equipment represent the originals better than an all-new transfer directly made from the negatives, right?
You should read what I've already said addressing that exact point before coming and claiming that as my point of view. What I said was that it's better they release it like this then to put it through the same process the 2004 version went through. A new transfer would look a little bit better, yes, but not by much.Originally posted by: Vigo
They are LD transfers, made from the LD mastertapes, and the screenshots already show clearly all the flaws. They lack detail, and contrast and won´t, in general, look better than the fan preservations. Repeat: they won´t look better than the fan preservations. Yes they will, it's transferred from a digital source much higher in quality then laserdisc by professionals.
Btw, there are movie releases, made long time before Star Wars, that are not only anamorphic, but have already a HD transfer. What now, my friend?
YOU GOT TO FIGHT! *BOOM , BOOM* FOR YOUR RIGHT.... *FOR LOOOW QUALITYY!!!!!*
You're complaining about every little thing you possibly can. There is so much more I have to complain about the 2004 transfer (even if I'm not complaining about the changes) then you have to complain about this release.They are LD transfers, made from the LD mastertapes, and the screenshots already show clearly all the flaws. They lack detail, and contrast and won´t, in general, look better than the fan preservations. Repeat: they won´t look better than the fan preservations. Yes they will, it's transferred from a digital source much higher in quality then laserdisc by professionals.
Originally posted by: Guy Caballero
Boris, do you really feel the theatrical Star Wars trilogy ("bonus" or whatever you want to call them) doesn't warrant the same effort as Bad News Bears Go To Japan? Do you really feel 1993 tapes accurately present the original work of three highly regarded cinematographers? I believe I've already answered this above "it's better they release it like this then to put it through the same process the 2004 version went through".
LOL. You clearly don´t have a clue what you are talking about, do you?
HD users won´t use DVD´s anymore. And watching a DVD on a high resulution medium, instead on a plain old CRT TV, brings all the flaws out even more. Upscaling does NOT add picture information, it softenes the pixels. But then again, this coming from a person who claims there is no difference between Laserdiscs and DVD´s on a beamer.... *LOL*
I didn't say it improves the picture, I said it scales it correctly.Originally posted by: VigoBoris, do you really feel the theatrical Star Wars trilogy ("bonus" or whatever you want to call them) doesn't warrant the same effort as Bad News Bears Go To Japan? Do you really feel 1993 tapes accurately present the original work of three highly regarded cinematographers? I believe I've already answered this above "it's better they release it like this then to put it through the same process the 2004 version went through".
Originally posted by: Vigo
The source material of the OOT is anamorphic 35mm film shot in 2.35:1 aspect ratio. Easy enough source material to make a HD transfer. The source they're using is a standard definition digital master tape, not an anamorphic 35mm film reel.
Originally posted by: Vigo
You claimed yourself in the past that non-anamorphic Laserdiscs have the same quality as DVD´s when watched on a beamer..... But there are other people around here who aren´t so blind as obviously you are.
The closest thing I ever said to what you just claimed is that watching this upcoming DVD will look better then watching a scratched up 16MM print, and watching an LD using good equipment will as well.Originally posted by: VigoThe source material of the OOT is anamorphic 35mm film shot in 2.35:1 aspect ratio. Easy enough source material to make a HD transfer. The source they're using is a standard definition digital master tape, not an anamorphic 35mm film reel.
Originally posted by: Vigo
Yes it is, i live and PAL land, and could (if I would buy them) "enjoy" the upscaled, overall sh/tty looking SD NTSC masters. It appears that: They.are.not.using.the.ntsc.masters.for.the.pal.dvd. Moth3r posted some information on this a while ago with some evidence supporting the idea that the PAL master tapes are not resized from the NTSC ones. If you think otherwise please cite your references.Originally posted by: Vigo
If you don´t care about quality, fine.
Converting.non-anamorphic.SD.to.anamorphic.SD.will.not.improve.the.quality.Yes it is, i live and PAL land, and could (if I would buy them) "enjoy" the upscaled, overall sh/tty looking SD NTSC masters. It appears that: They.are.not.using.the.ntsc.masters.for.the.pal.dvd. Moth3r posted some information on this a while ago with some evidence supporting the idea that the PAL master tapes are not resized from the NTSC ones. If you think otherwise please cite your references.Originally posted by: Vigo
If you don´t care about quality, fine.
Originally posted by: Vigo
You claimed yourself in the past that non-anamorphic Laserdiscs have the same quality as DVD´s when watched on a beamer..... But there are other people around here who aren´t so blind as obviously you are.
LOL. You clearly don´t have a clue what you are talking about, do you?
HD users won´t use DVD´s anymore. And watching a DVD on a high resulution medium, instead on a plain old CRT TV, brings all the flaws out even more. Upscaling does NOT add picture information, it softenes the pixels. But then again, this coming from a person who claims there is no difference between Laserdiscs and DVD´s on a beamer.... *LOL*
Btw, there are movie releases, made long time before Star Wars, that are not only anamorphic, but have already a HD transfer. What now, my friend?
YOU GOT TO FIGHT! *BOOM , BOOM* FOR YOUR RIGHT.... *FOR LOOOW QUALITYY!!!!!*
This is a run-down of what I've said:
1. This release will look better then LD rips.
2. This release will look better then 16MM prints.
3. The colours will be better and more consistent then the 2004 version.
4. This release could have been much worse.
5. This release will be decent DVD quality (I expect video to be 7 or 8/10).
BTW, in the following screenshot to me the OOT one looks better... which do you think looks better?
Since you are the person, who claimed in the past that a DVD can truly represent the full resolution of a 35mm frame (LOL),
16MM is roughly equivalent to standard definition, and 35MM is roughly equivalent to high definition. I said DVD resolution is capable or reproducing all the detail that a 16MM frame can hold (and yes I know the colour is stored at a lower resolution on DVD - I was talking about DVD resolution, not the DVD format). In the same way, HD resolution is capable of reproducing all the detail in a 35MM frame. This is widely accepted to be true - it does not resolve the issue of whether films shot digitally look as good as those shot directly onto film - but when talking about display formats ... 16MM=SD, 35MM=HD. What I said was that because the Star Wars film was in such bad condition that parts of the film had to be permanently replaced on the master reels, and because it had deteriorated so much that there isn't much more detail in the film then can be represented in SD. Note I was talking about the original film - I do think that ROTJ may look better then the other two - and I also said that a lot of the detail in the 2004 version is an illusion caused by the detail in newly added digital elements - I stand by that with this as my proof:
The original framing of this shot was scaled down, with the image area extended with a digital matte painting that added more vaporators and more sandcrawler than was practically built on location. reference
Though hard to spot, the landspeeder model element that moves through the valley was replaced in the 2004 DVD release with a more realistic digital incarnation. reference
All the landspeeder hovering shots where enhanced in 1997 with more realistic digital shadows. The original 1977 versions had thick hand-animated shadows. reference
The original matte painting of Mos Eisley was replaced in 1997 with a more detailed one for a shot that also featured some distant air traffic. reference
The Special Edition version is much sharper, as digital compositing retains an original image's clarity. The speeder wheel removal and ground replacement is much more realistic, and a ronto and Imperial transport were added. reference
Originally achieved through a traditional matte painting since there was no shot of the entrance that didn't contain the principals in the frame. To add life to the still image, live action extras and a CG dewback were added. reference
For this scene, the sky backdrop is replaced with a digital sky complete with ship traffic. reference
The original shot of Alderaan also had effects artifacts in it, appearing as a hazy blue outline that surrounds the planet. reference
The original laser blast was hand-animated to have jagged lightning-like fingers of energy surround Alderaan, which didn't scale convincingly. The Special Edition instead had the atmosphere ignite as it spread from the impact point. reference
In 1997, the original matte painting of the Falcon was replaced with one that used a digital ship model as a foundation. Also, the Death Star hangar design was changed to match the one seen in Return of the Jedi. reference
In 1997, the original matte painting of the Falcon was replaced with one that used a digital ship model as a foundation. Also, the Death Star hangar design was changed to match the one seen in Return of the Jedi. reference
The main tunnel on this set had a painted backing to make it appear it went on much further. Unfortunately, the perspective of the painting often did not match the camera angle, and in 2004 it was replaced with a digital set extension. reference
In 1997, this scene was enlarged with a digital matte set and bluescreen-photographed and replicated extras as stormtroopers and Imperial officers. reference
The 1977 matte painting of the Yavin temple was replaced with a more realistically detailed digital one, complete with slowly opening hangar door and a second speeder. The foreground plants are the same. reference
The original hangar painting had more impressionistic detail in the foreground Y-wing, which in the update featured a digital Y-wing fighter. Also improved was the color balance between the projected live action and painted set extensions. reference
The Special Edition altered this shot of the Rebel fighters leaving Yavin 4, having more visible and realistic craft against a sky that properly depicts the gas giant behind the moon's clouds. reference
PS: ALL THE TREES WERE CHANGED TOO.
The '77 version had the approach of Red Leader and his wingman as two separate shots. The '97 version replaced them with a single shot of all three fighters. reference
The rather obvious matte painting soldiers in the foreground were replaced with digitally composited extras in 1997. reference