If they transferred it again, and only removed large, visible, obvious deformities - it wouldn't be that different to the 1993 master, even if it was scanned at 720p or 1080p."
This is something a lot of people incorrectly assume.
If they fed the OT through one of the new arriscan machines, it would look immeasurably better than the 1993 transfers.
I kind of got that out wrong anyway, yes of course they would look better, more crisp and contain better quality - probably much better quality. But it would not look as good quality as the Special Edition. Also, I tend to confuse what I'm talking about (in other words, make it confusing for you, the reader) - most of the time I'm talking about "our" collective ability rather than Lucasfilm's abilities.
I also disagree with what you're saying about laserdisc quality - I've watched Laserdiscs projected by professional-grade mounted movie projectors (thanks to friends who are complete movie geeks - and it sounds like you've watched them too) and the quality is good. It's not fantastic, of course,
but it's still good enough to enjoy on a big screen. By the way, many independent films are filmed digitally at DVD resolution and are still more then acceptable theatrically. The full amusing thread:
http://www.originaltrilogy.com/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=2&threadid=6362&STARTPAGE=1
Yeah, sure, a Laserdisc can easily be shown theatrically, but you claim you can spot heavy usage of digital grain removal.
![](i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif)
Oh wait, it makes sense: as soon as a picture shows more detail, it HAS to be tinkered with, according to your (non)understanding and perception of film technology.
![](i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif)
Again, an amusing proof on how you percieve picture information:
Originally posted by: borisOriginally posted by: bactaOTHere is a comparison against a screen cap from the 2004 dvd release:
Can you guess which is which? Hmmmmm? Tough call I know.
Here's some more... All are