- Time
- Post link
So, this is how the DVDs are going to look... — Page 5
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: Mike O
As these DVD transfers do not meet industry stards, I must repectfully disagree.
It's still considered industry standard to release non-anamorphic sourced material as non-anamorphic (many DVD's with extras feature a mix of anamorphic and non-anamorphic features). It's annoying, but it's standard. They're using SD non-anamorphic master tapes, so it's not necessary to resize them for DVD. Yes, I'm well aware they could do it really well if they chose to, but I still fail to see how this is a requirement.As these DVD transfers do not meet industry stards, I must repectfully disagree.
People are going to start buying HD-TV's. And HD TV's will see DVD players with better inbuilt scaling (in fact I've seen some excellent scaling just on set top boxes)... which will up scale both anamorphic and non anamorphic PAL/NTSC to an HD signal. Or you can buy a progressive scan DVD player ... or you can rip it and resize it yourself on your home PC. So why on earth does it matter so much that the disc is non-anamorphic? You're nitpicking it to death. It's standard procedure, and there are movies released on DVD - that were made after Star Wars - that are not available in anamorphic form.
By the way, the R4 release will, most likely, be dual R2/R4 and probably a direct copy of the R2 version (or vice versa). You should find the video and sound encoded exactly the same on the R2 and R4 releases.
<blockquote>Originally posted by: BadAssKeith
You are passing up on a great opportunity to makes lots of money,
make Lucas lose a lot of his money
and make him look bad to the entire world
and you could be well known and liked
None of us here like Lucas or Lucasfilm.
I have death wishes on Lucas and Macullum.
we could all probably get 10s of thousands of dollars!
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: Karyudo
Thanks, boris. The specs for R4 releases don't have any omissions or other annoying features (like higher compression or something stupid), do they? I've read in the past that often the R4 release of some films is compromised in some way, when compared to the R1 -- or even the R2? -- release (which is one of the reasons that antipodean consumers have a high rate of region-free DVD player adoption, presumably).
There's an excellent website for this and it's http://dvdcompare.net. With releases like this the only difference will be the technical specifications between PAL or NTSC. The PAL version may be resized from the NTSC... but it doesn't appear to be. I have an italian copy of Ken Park since they haven't even released that in the USA! The Italian version is very good (and it's PAL). I remember with the Alien Quadrilogy... don't ask me where I read it (I think it was a review where people could post online responses to it) - but before it even came out people were claiming the US version was better because you could listen to the commentary watching either version of the film, and someone else said that "well if it's a real commentary they were watching only one version of the film when making it - it's better that you watch the version they watched" or something, which I thought was true. Someone tried to claim that 30 minutes of commentary would be "missing" from the PAL versions of Alien3 because you could only listen to it on the theatrical version... which is kind of silly because if that was the case then you'd only be able to listen to it watching the special edition. Nevertheless dvdcompare.net thinks that this is a valid reason to make R1 the winner:Thanks, boris. The specs for R4 releases don't have any omissions or other annoying features (like higher compression or something stupid), do they? I've read in the past that often the R4 release of some films is compromised in some way, when compared to the R1 -- or even the R2? -- release (which is one of the reasons that antipodean consumers have a high rate of region-free DVD player adoption, presumably).
http://dvdcompare.net/comparisons/film.php?fid=4361
I think it is better to watch with the commentary on the intended version. So only little things like that can sometime be different on such global releases. For movies released by different publishers around the world, then you get more glaring differences. The only thing they'll change is the copyright notices - though they may even be the same too.
<blockquote>Originally posted by: BadAssKeith
You are passing up on a great opportunity to makes lots of money,
make Lucas lose a lot of his money
and make him look bad to the entire world
and you could be well known and liked
None of us here like Lucas or Lucasfilm.
I have death wishes on Lucas and Macullum.
we could all probably get 10s of thousands of dollars!
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: boris
LinkLoucst demanded the highest level of grain removal. It does not truly represent the original negative.
If you look careful, you can still spot the film grain in the transfers. Since you are the person, who claimed in the past that a DVD can truly represent the full resolution of a 35mm frame (LOL), I highly doubt that you are the one who actually can spot hard film grain removal and its symptoms in digital restaurations.
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?
And as for your other comment, I wish you would stop calling them "LD transfers" - because it just shows that either you don't know what you're talking about, or you're biased to the point of over-exaggerations and false claims.
LinkLoucst demanded the highest level of grain removal. It does not truly represent the original negative.
If you look careful, you can still spot the film grain in the transfers. Since you are the person, who claimed in the past that a DVD can truly represent the full resolution of a 35mm frame (LOL), I highly doubt that you are the one who actually can spot hard film grain removal and its symptoms in digital restaurations.
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?
And as for your other comment, I wish you would stop calling them "LD transfers" - because it just shows that either you don't know what you're talking about, or you're biased to the point of over-exaggerations and false claims.
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.
Now, go ahead, and think of something new, how to defend this procedure coming from a multi billion dollar company.
Sorry, this is just plain ridiculous. "Fans" fighting for low Star Wars quality, *LOL*
- Time
- Post link
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: boris
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*
You're nitpicking it to death. It's standard procedure, and there are movies released on DVD - that were made after Star Wars - that are not available in anamorphic form.
Originally posted by: Mike O
As these DVD transfers do not meet industry stards, I must repectfully disagree. It's still considered industry standard to release non-anamorphic sourced material as non-anamorphic (many DVD's with extras feature a mix of anamorphic and non-anamorphic features). It's annoying, but it's standard.
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.
They're using SD non-anamorphic master tapes, so it's not necessary to resize them for DVD.
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.
Yes, I'm well aware they could do it really well if they chose to, but I still fail to see how this is a requirement.
If you don´t care about quality, fine. 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.
Better stick to your VHS tapes.
People are going to start buying HD-TV's. And HD TV's will see DVD players with better inbuilt scaling (in fact I've seen some excellent scaling just on set top boxes)... which will up scale both anamorphic and non anamorphic PAL/NTSC to an HD signal. Or you can buy a progressive scan DVD player ... or you can rip it and resize it yourself on your home PC. So why on earth does it matter so much that the disc is non-anamorphic?
As these DVD transfers do not meet industry stards, I must repectfully disagree. It's still considered industry standard to release non-anamorphic sourced material as non-anamorphic (many DVD's with extras feature a mix of anamorphic and non-anamorphic features). It's annoying, but it's standard.
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.
They're using SD non-anamorphic master tapes, so it's not necessary to resize them for DVD.
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.
Yes, I'm well aware they could do it really well if they chose to, but I still fail to see how this is a requirement.
If you don´t care about quality, fine. 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.
Better stick to your VHS tapes.
People are going to start buying HD-TV's. And HD TV's will see DVD players with better inbuilt scaling (in fact I've seen some excellent scaling just on set top boxes)... which will up scale both anamorphic and non anamorphic PAL/NTSC to an HD signal. Or you can buy a progressive scan DVD player ... or you can rip it and resize it yourself on your home PC. So why on earth does it matter so much that the disc is non-anamorphic?
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*
You're nitpicking it to death. It's standard procedure, and there are movies released on DVD - that were made after Star Wars - that are not available in anamorphic form.
Yeah, Sex flicks and Zombie/Splatter movies coming from low-budget DVD labels. Oh man, you are defending this ridiculous point to the death, aren´t you?
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!!!!!*
- Time
- Post link
also, T'bone has a caught a rumour that 2007 might bring some kind of monster star wars box set for the films 30th anniversary. more deleted scenes and all manner of stuff. re-touched films? certainly. apparently lucas is again tinkering with the films for the 30th anniversary.
the only way for us to get OOUT on DVD in top quality is for LFL to do what they did to the 2004 SE. rescan the original film neg, recomposite everything digitally.
considering that to make the 1997 SE, the had to scan and recomp everything in the first place, there must be a full versioin of the original film to start with, Lucas just doesn't want to acknowledge its existence.
so, if Lucas won't do it, that leaves us with this.
all this pissing and moaning ignores one factor which I don't think anyone has mentioned.
laserdisc.
=
film neg
to master tape
to laserdisc processed version
to capture version (raw footage reinterpolated by a computer system)
to re-encoded. (ad infinitum depending on how many processed you run it through.)
that means, our bootlegs are between 4 or more steps between us and the original film which is a lot of processing.
new OUT DVD
=
film neg
to master tape
to dvd
we rip the DVD which is the same as the DVD gives us 2 generations away from the original.
gives us more grain etc but we are working with more raw footage. okay, it means the film grain is there (bear in mind that the lowry processing pretty much eliminated the original film grain anyway, giving us a really pristine image but it always felt a little odd to me because its almost too perfect.)
then I can use my filters, colour correction etc to bring the footage up. Russ15 knows what my filters can do after I showed him some samples from when I fiddled with the editdroid version.
of course. all the work being done by X0 project is relevant because as the LD and the new OUT DVD is struck from the same master tapes, then the footage suffers from the same problems of dirt, grain, damaged frames etc.
so what they're doing will work just as well on a source, if framed the same, is closer to the original neg.
(BTW guys, a release of any of your scripts to bring up the starfields to public domain would be quite nice
)so, while this release isn't exactly top, we were already adjusting non anamorphic LD to be anamorphic, so nothing changed there, we have an original source to look at.
I think the only unanswered question is whether or not the original trilogy release to come is using master tapes? or master tapes that had the additional processing etc for LD added to it.
if its untouched, then it's gotta be worth using to some degree, even if it does need adjustment and fixing.
I know I've burbled a bit, but I don't think anyones mentioned that point yet.
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: tellan
the only way for us to get OOUT on DVD in top quality is for LFL to do what they did to the 2004 SE. rescan the original film neg, recomposite everything digitally.
Most of us don´t even demand this. We just want them to be remastered from a good 35mm copy, which various sources have already claimed to posess.
considering that to make the 1997 SE, the had to scan and recomp everything in the first place, there must be a full versioin of the original film to start with, Lucas just doesn't want to acknowledge its existence.
Well, he recut the negative, which means the OOT can not easily be obtained from the negative anymore. But negatives aren´t the only high quality sources.
laserdisc.
=
film neg
Afaik, the Laserdiscs were not mastered from the negatives but preservation copies.
to master tape
Involving old telecine equipment, which does not yield the clarity and resolution modern film scanners achieve.
to laserdisc processed version
to capture version (raw footage reinterpolated by a computer system)
to re-encoded. (ad infinitum depending on how many processed you run it through.)
Laserdiscs are not digital, hence there is no re-encoding.
that means, our bootlegs are between 4 or more steps between us and the original film which is a lot of processing.
Which is even more shameful considering that the pictures already suggest there won´t be much quality difference.
new OUT DVD
=
film neg
Again, no.
to master tape
to dvd
You forgot the encoding process.
gives us more grain etc but we are working with more raw footage. okay, it means the film grain is there (bear in mind that the lowry processing pretty much eliminated the original film grain anyway, giving us a really pristine image but it always felt a little odd to me because its almost too perfect.)
Another jump on boris "but there is no filmgrain!!!!" wagon. First: DVD is too much of a low quality medium, to see film grain when movies are mastered from the negative. If you master from n-generation 35mm copies or 16mm, you can see grain even on DVD´s.
Furthermore: most people here don´t mind film grain. Film grain is a natural element of 35mm. What we mind is loss of resolution and brilliance through:
1. Non anamorphic transfers
2. Transfers made with old telecine equipment (lack of contrast, and resolution).
then I can use my filters, colour correction etc to bring the footage up. Russ15 knows what my filters can do after I showed him some samples from when I fiddled with the editdroid version.
Yo can not add picture information where there is nothing.
of course. all the work being done by X0 project is relevant because as the LD and the new OUT DVD is struck from the same master tapes, then the footage suffers from the same problems of dirt, grain, damaged frames etc.
No, because they are hand-fixing these problems. I believe that in the end, the X0 transfer will look better than the official DVD´s. They are working with raw uncompressed images while when workind with the DVD, you have to re-compress everything, introducing more digital artifacts.
so, while this release isn't exactly top, we were already adjusting non anamorphic LD to be anamorphic, so nothing changed there, we have an original source to look at.
Again: YOU CAN NOT ENHANCE THE PICTURE QUALITY BY UPSCALING A NON-ANAMORPHIC FRAME TO ANAMORPHIC.
I think the only unanswered question is whether or not the original trilogy release to come is using master tapes? or master tapes that had the additional processing etc for ´LD added to it.
the only way for us to get OOUT on DVD in top quality is for LFL to do what they did to the 2004 SE. rescan the original film neg, recomposite everything digitally.
Most of us don´t even demand this. We just want them to be remastered from a good 35mm copy, which various sources have already claimed to posess.
considering that to make the 1997 SE, the had to scan and recomp everything in the first place, there must be a full versioin of the original film to start with, Lucas just doesn't want to acknowledge its existence.
Well, he recut the negative, which means the OOT can not easily be obtained from the negative anymore. But negatives aren´t the only high quality sources.
laserdisc.
=
film neg
Afaik, the Laserdiscs were not mastered from the negatives but preservation copies.
to master tape
Involving old telecine equipment, which does not yield the clarity and resolution modern film scanners achieve.
to laserdisc processed version
to capture version (raw footage reinterpolated by a computer system)
to re-encoded. (ad infinitum depending on how many processed you run it through.)
Laserdiscs are not digital, hence there is no re-encoding.
that means, our bootlegs are between 4 or more steps between us and the original film which is a lot of processing.
Which is even more shameful considering that the pictures already suggest there won´t be much quality difference.
new OUT DVD
=
film neg
Again, no.
to master tape
to dvd
You forgot the encoding process.
gives us more grain etc but we are working with more raw footage. okay, it means the film grain is there (bear in mind that the lowry processing pretty much eliminated the original film grain anyway, giving us a really pristine image but it always felt a little odd to me because its almost too perfect.)
Another jump on boris "but there is no filmgrain!!!!" wagon. First: DVD is too much of a low quality medium, to see film grain when movies are mastered from the negative. If you master from n-generation 35mm copies or 16mm, you can see grain even on DVD´s.
Furthermore: most people here don´t mind film grain. Film grain is a natural element of 35mm. What we mind is loss of resolution and brilliance through:
1. Non anamorphic transfers
2. Transfers made with old telecine equipment (lack of contrast, and resolution).
then I can use my filters, colour correction etc to bring the footage up. Russ15 knows what my filters can do after I showed him some samples from when I fiddled with the editdroid version.
Yo can not add picture information where there is nothing.
of course. all the work being done by X0 project is relevant because as the LD and the new OUT DVD is struck from the same master tapes, then the footage suffers from the same problems of dirt, grain, damaged frames etc.
No, because they are hand-fixing these problems. I believe that in the end, the X0 transfer will look better than the official DVD´s. They are working with raw uncompressed images while when workind with the DVD, you have to re-compress everything, introducing more digital artifacts.
so, while this release isn't exactly top, we were already adjusting non anamorphic LD to be anamorphic, so nothing changed there, we have an original source to look at.
Again: YOU CAN NOT ENHANCE THE PICTURE QUALITY BY UPSCALING A NON-ANAMORPHIC FRAME TO ANAMORPHIC.
I think the only unanswered question is whether or not the original trilogy release to come is using master tapes? or master tapes that had the additional processing etc for ´LD added to it.
Isn´t this irrelevant? Both will look like sh/t on DVD.
- Time
- Post link
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
<blockquote>Originally posted by: BadAssKeith
You are passing up on a great opportunity to makes lots of money,
make Lucas lose a lot of his money
and make him look bad to the entire world
and you could be well known and liked
None of us here like Lucas or Lucasfilm.
I have death wishes on Lucas and Macullum.
we could all probably get 10s of thousands of dollars!
- Time
- Post link
<blockquote>Originally posted by: BadAssKeith
You are passing up on a great opportunity to makes lots of money,
make Lucas lose a lot of his money
and make him look bad to the entire world
and you could be well known and liked
None of us here like Lucas or Lucasfilm.
I have death wishes on Lucas and Macullum.
we could all probably get 10s of thousands of dollars!
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: Mielr
Is that a joke? Did that bottom pic come from the '04 DVD? It looks awful!
Originally posted by: bactaOT
Here is a comparison against a screen cap from the 2004 dvd release:
Can you guess which is which? Hmmmmm? Tough call I know.
Here is a comparison against a screen cap from the 2004 dvd release:
Can you guess which is which? Hmmmmm? Tough call I know.
Is that a joke? Did that bottom pic come from the '04 DVD? It looks awful!
No Joke!
The bottom image is a screen cap from the 2004 dvd taken at 1920 pixels width (Same width as monitor settings), and then simply scaled down to 720 width to match
the top 'outnow' review image reported to be from the upcoming 9/12 release.
Trying to ignore the blue glowy mess on the 2004 release for a moment, the quality between these two grabs, both at 720 width, doesn't actually look too different from each other to me, film grain aside of course.
Also just trying to figure out why the lack of starfield to the left of the 'outnow' screen cap?
- Time
- Post link
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: bactaOT
Trying to ignore the blue glowy mess on the 2004 release for a moment, the quality between these two grabs, both at 720 width, doesn't actually look too different from each other to me, film grain aside of course. Very true. With the three I posted I saved the 2004 grab to about the same filesize as the "OUT" grab. I then cropped the OUT using a program called Jpegcrop which is freeware and can crop jpegs without re-encoding - um, recompressing them (it's lossless). The SW and Empire grabs have the OUT on top. The ROTJ grab has the 2004 grab on top, hopefully to help confuse people as to which is which.Also just trying to figure out why the lack of starfield to the left of the 'outnow' screen cap?
There's actually an area there which has no stars, in either cap - it must just be like that on the negative. Trying to ignore the blue glowy mess on the 2004 release for a moment, the quality between these two grabs, both at 720 width, doesn't actually look too different from each other to me, film grain aside of course. Very true. With the three I posted I saved the 2004 grab to about the same filesize as the "OUT" grab. I then cropped the OUT using a program called Jpegcrop which is freeware and can crop jpegs without re-encoding - um, recompressing them (it's lossless). The SW and Empire grabs have the OUT on top. The ROTJ grab has the 2004 grab on top, hopefully to help confuse people as to which is which.Also just trying to figure out why the lack of starfield to the left of the 'outnow' screen cap?
<blockquote>Originally posted by: BadAssKeith
You are passing up on a great opportunity to makes lots of money,
make Lucas lose a lot of his money
and make him look bad to the entire world
and you could be well known and liked
None of us here like Lucas or Lucasfilm.
I have death wishes on Lucas and Macullum.
we could all probably get 10s of thousands of dollars!
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: bactaOT
The bottom image is a screen cap from the 2004 dvd taken at 1920 pixels width (Same width as monitor settings), and then simply scaled down to 720 width to match
the top 'outnow' review image reported to be from the upcoming 9/12 release.
It would be better to capture it at its original resolution and then scale it... otherwise its been scaled twice and will look smoother. Well, that's how I would do it anyway:The bottom image is a screen cap from the 2004 dvd taken at 1920 pixels width (Same width as monitor settings), and then simply scaled down to 720 width to match
the top 'outnow' review image reported to be from the upcoming 9/12 release.
you can see more detail then in yours - and it's saved at approximately the same size as the JPEG on OutNow.CH
Also, the difference in the film grain is more obvious. It should be noted the 2004 lens flare is digital and not identical to the OOT.
<blockquote>Originally posted by: BadAssKeith
You are passing up on a great opportunity to makes lots of money,
make Lucas lose a lot of his money
and make him look bad to the entire world
and you could be well known and liked
None of us here like Lucas or Lucasfilm.
I have death wishes on Lucas and Macullum.
we could all probably get 10s of thousands of dollars!
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: boris
BTW, in the following screenshot to me the OOT one looks better... which do you think looks better?
BTW, in the following screenshot to me the OOT one looks better... which do you think looks better?
The top one looks better to me, as the colors are better, the picture is sharper and it is not as blurry (althought the darkened colors wash out the tie fighters quite a bit). I am guessing the top one is the '04 version?
I have been noticing A LOT of changes in the '04 versions when compared with the '77 versions and that makes me feel a little better about things. What I am getting at: during the restoration process (or immediately after) a lot of the shots were changed digitally, hence there really is some truth to what is said and there really is no actual digital transfer of the OOT. But I HIGHLY doubt that there aren't cleaned up prints somewhere, and I don't believe a word of what Lucas says about that.
And I must admit that a lot of the really technical discussions are going WAY over my head. But one question: how hard is it to make a DVD anamorphic? Is it something fairly easy to do, or does it take a lot of time?
- Time
- Post link
1) Do we know if they used the 35mm or 70mm print to do this DVDs?
2) Is it a newly mixed audio or the 35mm or 70mm audio?
3) There gonna be a widescreen and Fullscreen set ?
4) They putting them out as a boxset ?
thank you for your time
- Time
- Post link
A3: Sadly, yes, there will be widescreen and fullscreen discs available in North America. Note that it's only the 2004 SE version that will be fullscreen, though: I believe both FS and WS versions will have the same non-anamorphic widescreen OUT included.
A4: It looks like at least Best Buy Canada will have an exclusive tin case containing all three films. The price at the moment is CA$ 87.99. But strictly speaking, the three films are available individually for the first time on DVD.
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: StarWarsFan1976
Here's a few questions I do not think I have seen addressed or asked yet...if they have sorry:
1) Do we know if they used the 35mm or 70mm print to do this DVDs?
2) Is it a newly mixed audio or the 35mm or 70mm audio?
3) There gonna be a widescreen and Fullscreen set ?
4) They putting them out as a boxset ?
1) When they did the then-new '93 transfers, they looked for the best film elements to make the masters. They most likely used 35mm prints.
2) It will be the '93 mix that was especially done for the Definitive collection.
3) All of the OOT DVDs will be widescreen/letterboxed- even the ones included with the fullscreen SE discs.
4) There's one in a collector's tin in Canada from Best Buy, I don't know of any others yet.
Originally posted by: boris
People are going to start buying HD-TV's. And HD TV's will see DVD players with better inbuilt scaling (in fact I've seen some excellent scaling just on set top boxes)... which will up scale both anamorphic and non anamorphic PAL/NTSC to an HD signal. Or you can buy a progressive scan DVD player ... or you can rip it and resize it yourself on your home PC. So why on earth does it matter so much that the disc is non-anamorphic? You're nitpicking it to death. It's standard procedure, and there are movies released on DVD - that were made after Star Wars - that are not available in anamorphic form.
Boris, I understand what you're saying about the scaling, but that still doesn't change the fact that non-anamorphic DVDs still have like 33% less resolution than anamorphic ones, due to all of the space taken up by the black bars. Here's a few questions I do not think I have seen addressed or asked yet...if they have sorry:
1) Do we know if they used the 35mm or 70mm print to do this DVDs?
2) Is it a newly mixed audio or the 35mm or 70mm audio?
3) There gonna be a widescreen and Fullscreen set ?
4) They putting them out as a boxset ?
1) When they did the then-new '93 transfers, they looked for the best film elements to make the masters. They most likely used 35mm prints.
2) It will be the '93 mix that was especially done for the Definitive collection.
3) All of the OOT DVDs will be widescreen/letterboxed- even the ones included with the fullscreen SE discs.
4) There's one in a collector's tin in Canada from Best Buy, I don't know of any others yet.
Originally posted by: boris
People are going to start buying HD-TV's. And HD TV's will see DVD players with better inbuilt scaling (in fact I've seen some excellent scaling just on set top boxes)... which will up scale both anamorphic and non anamorphic PAL/NTSC to an HD signal. Or you can buy a progressive scan DVD player ... or you can rip it and resize it yourself on your home PC. So why on earth does it matter so much that the disc is non-anamorphic? You're nitpicking it to death. It's standard procedure, and there are movies released on DVD - that were made after Star Wars - that are not available in anamorphic form.
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: Vigo
You can not add picture information where there is nothing. [...] Again: YOU CAN NOT ENHANCE THE PICTURE QUALITY BY UPSCALING A NON-ANAMORPHIC FRAME TO ANAMORPHIC.
You can not add picture information where there is nothing. [...] Again: YOU CAN NOT ENHANCE THE PICTURE QUALITY BY UPSCALING A NON-ANAMORPHIC FRAME TO ANAMORPHIC.
Sure you can. You've got more pixels to play with, and thus you certainly can "enhance the picture quality." It won't be as good as a real anamorphic transfer -- you are certainly correct in implying that there is no new real picture information available by upsampling -- but with clever algorithms it is definitely possible to make an upsample look nicer than the input. Check out Doom9.org to see examples.
- Time
- Post link
is that confirmed? because I like to use the 2004 editions to take screencaps of my favorite un-destroyed scenes, and having the full screen 2004 versions will allow for higher-res stills. that would make the 2004 discs worth buying again (but only if the OOT discs weres still widescreen)
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: Blackjack
"All of the OOT DVDs will be widescreen/letterboxed- even the ones included with the fullscreen SE discs."
is that confirmed? because I like to use the 2004 editions to take screencaps of my favorite un-destroyed scenes, and having the full screen 2004 versions will allow for higher-res stills. that would make the 2004 discs worth buying again (but only if the OOT discs weres still widescreen)
"All of the OOT DVDs will be widescreen/letterboxed- even the ones included with the fullscreen SE discs."
is that confirmed? because I like to use the 2004 editions to take screencaps of my favorite un-destroyed scenes, and having the full screen 2004 versions will allow for higher-res stills. that would make the 2004 discs worth buying again (but only if the OOT discs weres still widescreen)
Apparently it has been confirmed, yes:
**Widescreen Feature (For Both Versions Full Screen and Widescreen) - original theatrical movie version in dolby 2.0 surround
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000FQJAIW/sr=1-5/qid=1156714807/ref=sr_1_5/103-1256719-4185443?ie=UTF8&s=dvd
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: Blackjack
I like to use the 2004 editions to take screencaps of my favorite un-destroyed scenes, and having the full screen 2004 versions will allow for higher-res stills. that would make the 2004 discs worth buying again (but only if the OOT discs weres still widescreen)
I like to use the 2004 editions to take screencaps of my favorite un-destroyed scenes, and having the full screen 2004 versions will allow for higher-res stills. that would make the 2004 discs worth buying again (but only if the OOT discs weres still widescreen)
Really, I don't think the full-screen DVDs will give you more resolution than the anamorphic widescreen DVDs- they only differ in that the full-screen DVDs have the sides chopped off. The only benefit I can really see to owning the full-screen DVDs is if you have a 4:3 TV (one without a 'widescreen mode'), and you want to make full use of all your TV's scan lines, but otherwise there's no real inherent resolution advantage for full-screen DVDs.
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: Mielr
Boris, I understand what you're saying about the scaling, but that still doesn't change the fact that non-anamorphic DVDs still have like 33% less resolution than anamorphic ones, due to all of the space taken up by the black bars. 25% less resolution ... but then if they did release it in anamorphic they would have only been scaled, as the master tape isn't anamorphic. People would then instead complain that LFL is pretending that it's anamorphic...Originally posted by: StarWarsFan1976
Here's a few questions I do not think I have seen addressed or asked yet...if they have sorry:
1) Do we know if they used the 35mm or 70mm print to do this DVDs?
2) Is it a newly mixed audio or the 35mm or 70mm audio?
3) There gonna be a widescreen and Fullscreen set ?
4) They putting them out as a boxset ?
thank you for your time
1. They used the master reels to do their digital masters both in 1993 and in 2004. The master reels were permanently altered doing both of these restorations.Boris, I understand what you're saying about the scaling, but that still doesn't change the fact that non-anamorphic DVDs still have like 33% less resolution than anamorphic ones, due to all of the space taken up by the black bars. 25% less resolution ... but then if they did release it in anamorphic they would have only been scaled, as the master tape isn't anamorphic. People would then instead complain that LFL is pretending that it's anamorphic...Originally posted by: StarWarsFan1976
Here's a few questions I do not think I have seen addressed or asked yet...if they have sorry:
1) Do we know if they used the 35mm or 70mm print to do this DVDs?
2) Is it a newly mixed audio or the 35mm or 70mm audio?
3) There gonna be a widescreen and Fullscreen set ?
4) They putting them out as a boxset ?
thank you for your time
2. It's most likely the same as the audio on the 1993/1995 LD's, but anything's possible.
3. No. Only America gets shafted with an additional fullscreen release, no other country will accept them. The "OUT" is not available in fullscreen on DVD.
4. No. Certain retailers may try to put them into exclusive boxes as a sales incentive to get people to buy from them - but they're being released individually. So, if you're a big Empire Strikes Back fan and can live without the other movies, you can just get the one DVD. It is a limited edition, though, and will go out of print by the end of the year.
<blockquote>Originally posted by: BadAssKeith
You are passing up on a great opportunity to makes lots of money,
make Lucas lose a lot of his money
and make him look bad to the entire world
and you could be well known and liked
None of us here like Lucas or Lucasfilm.
I have death wishes on Lucas and Macullum.
we could all probably get 10s of thousands of dollars!
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: boris
Originally posted by: Mielr
Boris, I understand what you're saying about the scaling, but that still doesn't change the fact that non-anamorphic DVDs still have like 33% less resolution than anamorphic ones, due to all of the space taken up by the black bars.
25% less resolution ... but then if they did release it in anamorphic they would have only been scaled, as the master tape isn't anamorphic. People would then instead complain that LFL is pretending that it's anamorphic...Boris, I understand what you're saying about the scaling, but that still doesn't change the fact that non-anamorphic DVDs still have like 33% less resolution than anamorphic ones, due to all of the space taken up by the black bars.
Nobody is asking them to use the 1993 master tapes to make fake anamorphic DVDs (if you want the letterboxed image to fill your widescreen TV, you just have to hit the 'zoom' button).
I'm talking about letterboxed DVDs VS. doing a proper anamorphic transfer from film (or from all of the raw footage that was already scanned prior to the release of the 1997 SEs).
- Time
- Post link
then I can use my filters, colour correction etc to bring the footage up. Russ15 knows what my filters can do after I showed him some samples from when I fiddled with the editdroid version.
Yo can not add picture information where there is nothing.
I never said that. I'm not saying I'm adding picture information. what I can do is sharpen the image, improve contrast and brightness. saturation and color correct and then present a better looking image. I've already run tests on this and its possible.
besides, you're using a spurious argument because XO project team have PROVED picture detail can be recovered from the LD transfers 'ie the starfields.
Quote
of course. all the work being done by X0 project is relevant because as the LD and the new OUT DVD is struck from the same master tapes, then the footage suffers from the same problems of dirt, grain, damaged frames etc.
No, because they are hand-fixing these problems. I believe that in the end, the X0 transfer will look better than the official DVD´s. They are working with raw uncompressed images while when workind with the DVD, you have to re-compress everything, introducing more digital artifacts.
yeah, they're hand fixing problems. so what? if the OUT DVD is taken from the same mastertapes, then it will suffer from the same spotting, splicing problems, etc just like the DE LD's they've captured from. therefore, if its framed the same, they can apply the same changes to it and recover the same detail, and correct the same way.
they're working with raw uncompressed images? really. yeah uncompressed from an analogue capture which in its own turn can introduce artifacting of its own depending on the equipment used. they're using the XO machine which is top notch to eliminate this issue but it won't be completely gone.
and like I've said. the OUT DVD will a few steps closer to the original film material than the LD captures are.
Quote
so, while this release isn't exactly top, we were already adjusting non anamorphic LD to be anamorphic, so nothing changed there, we have an original source to look at.
Again: YOU CAN NOT ENHANCE THE PICTURE QUALITY BY UPSCALING A NON-ANAMORPHIC FRAME TO ANAMORPHIC.
never said I was introducing more detail, but you've said the OUT DVD lacks contrast etc. well that CAN be corrected as can saturation and color correction. upscaling non-anamorphic to anamorphic is more than just about picture detail.
have you watched a non anamorphic DVD on a 16:9 LCD screen. it looks horrible because it has to upscale, ie zoom the source material to fill the screen and maintain the correct aspect ratio. if I already do it. yes, the upscaling softens things, but then you can use filters in the likes of virtualdub to bring that sharpness back so your upscaled image, looks as good as the non-anamorphic version or better.
I've done this. I'm familair with avisynth and virtualdub and I have done this before. it's not about gaining additional picture detail, it's about using filters etc to sharpen what is already there and give a more vibrant lively image that isn't so flat due to poor contrast etc.
capiche?