logo Sign In

So, this is how the DVDs are going to look... — Page 6

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Mielr
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). Well that would be nice, but the improvement in quality would be minimal, and there's no guarantee they'd do it faithfully.Originally posted by: tellan
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.
Yeah I was going to say that. There's less colour information on Laserdisc too.

Besides they claim I'd be happy with this set "no matter what", but they're disappointed "no matter what".
Some were not blessed with brains.
<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!
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Mielr
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). Originally posted by: boris
Well that would be nice, but the improvement in quality would be minimal, and there's no guarantee they'd do it faithfully.
I think the improvement in quality would be substantial, unless you plan on watching nothing but a 4:3 TV the rest of your life. Why wouldn't they do it 'faithfully'?

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Mielr
wouldn't they do it 'faithfully'?
Watch the 2004 DVD.
Some were not blessed with brains.
<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!
Author
Time
Post link
If a Charles Bronson movie from 1974 can be transferred faithfully to anamorphic dvd, so can Star Wars. It can be done. It's done all the time.
Author
Time
Post link
another thing I noticed. the official star wars site has the slideshow comparison between 1977 and 2004 screenshots. the laughable thing is the fact they use some shots that show off how badly the new 2004 dvd was color corrected with poor contrast brightness etc.

When a woman says yes, she means no - when she says maybe, she means no.

http://www.auky37.dsl.pipex.com/falconlogo_web.jpg
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Vigo
YOU GOT TO FIGHT! *BOOM , BOOM* FOR YOUR RIGHT.... *FOR LOOOW QUALITYY!!!!!*


Vigo, too funny man, made my sides hurt. Everytime I read one of "those" posts I sing it....
YOU GOT TO FIGHT! *BOOM , BOOM* FOR YOUR RIGHT.... *FOR LOOOW QUALITYY!!!!!*

I love everybody. Lets all smoke some reefer and chill. Hug and kisses for everybody.

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: boris
There's less colour information on Laserdisc too.


How so?

Author
Time
Post link
Thanks looks cool
May the force be wth you .........
Author
Time
Post link
So will this release be of any use, and will it at least be easier for fans to make better OOT DVD versions? Will there be anamorphic version bootlegs now, etc.?

I don't condone doing anything illegal, but man, Lucas has REALLY upset me with what he is doing here and I wouldn't mind seeing anamorphic bootlegs made from the 09/12 release. If there is an easy way to do it myself please let me know, as I wouldn't mind buying the 09/12 release and converting them to anamorphic for myself, then selling the blasted originals...

Author
Time
Post link
well I can't speak for everyone ESHBG but depending on picture quality, I will certainly be lifting a number of scenes from ANH and sound cues to complete my ANH SE which I've been working on for a while. yes it'll need fixing, making anamorphic etc to fit my version but it's perfectly possible.
When a woman says yes, she means no - when she says maybe, she means no.

http://www.auky37.dsl.pipex.com/falconlogo_web.jpg
Author
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) Originally posted by: Mielr
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.
The fullscreen DVDs do actually have improved resolution in the selected 4:3 area. The same picture area in the anamorphic widescreen DVD uses less pixels horizontally. So, for Blackjack's purposes, the fullscreen versions will be better, as the OUT discs are indeed letterboxed with both versions.
Author
Time
Post link
Hello!

Look at this link: http://www.originaltrilogy.com/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=12&threadid=6375&STARTPAGE=1

Is there anyone who can help?
Author
Time
Post link
Just wondering? If the 'outnow' image (top) is actually from the upcoming 9/12 dvd release, why does the starfield match the 2004 dvd screen cap (bottom) and not the 1993 laserdisc starfield as it should?


http://img182.imageshack.us/img182/7411/sdcompbo3.jpg

Author
Time
Post link
Because the whole shot was recomposited. The starfield, the planets, and the ships are all separate elements. Whoever recomposited the shot left the matte lines the same as the LD release, didn't overdo the blue flare like the 2004 DVDs, and used the same starfield as the 2004 DVDs - which we now know is the original starfield from '77. Seeing as they either digitally created the opening crawl or used the same one as the Empire of Dreams documentary, the starfield used on the crawl/pan down/opening shot is the original and not the one from the pre-SE home video releases.

My Projects:
[Holiday Special Hybrid DVD v2]
[X0 Project]
[Backstroke of the West DVD]
[ROTS Theatrical DVD]

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Zion
Because the whole shot was recomposited. The starfield, the planets, and the ships are all separate elements. Whoever recomposited the shot left the matte lines the same as the LD release, didn't overdo the blue flare like the 2004 DVDs, and used the same starfield as the 2004 DVDs - which we now know is the original starfield from '77. Seeing as they either digitally created the opening crawl or used the same one as the Empire of Dreams documentary, the starfield used on the crawl/pan down/opening shot is the original and not the one from the pre-SE home video releases.


Thanks for the reply Zion!

Just to clarify, do you mean that the whole opening sequence, including crawl/pan down/opening star destroyer shot, has been recomposited for this new dvd release and they haven't used the opening sequence from the 1993 laserdisc masters at all?

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: THX
The fullscreen DVDs do actually have improved resolution in the selected 4:3 area. The same picture area in the anamorphic widescreen DVD uses less pixels horizontally. So, for Blackjack's purposes, the fullscreen versions will be better, as the OUT discs are indeed letterboxed with both versions. Yes, the video was scaled down from HD in 2004. The reason they're not doing a fullscreen OOT (for Nth America) is because they would have to scale it up to fullscreen as their digital master is standard definition.Originally posted by: bactaOT
Just to clarify, do you mean that the whole opening sequence, including crawl/pan down/opening star destroyer shot, has been recomposited for this new dvd release and they haven't used the opening sequence from the 1993 laserdisc masters at all?
We don't know for certain that it's not on the 1993 master... but it's not the shot they used on home video in 1993/5. It appears that it's from another source, one which includes the original crawl. This is not a reason to get upset and say "well why didn't do this for the entire film", because it's only speculation and the costs and resources involved would be a lot more if they were doing the entire film compared to just one shot. Besides they probably restored that shot before this year.
Some were not blessed with brains.
<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!
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Karyudo
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).


Actually, it is more often the other way around; R4 releases generally get all the same features as R1 (or even more in many cases), but with PAL resolution. As boris mentioned, pretty much all R2 and R4 releases are the same. A good R1/R4 comparision site is michaeldvd.com.au. Of the DVDs they've reviewed they considered 3,636 releases to be even, 1,275 R1 releases to be better and 2,629 R4 releases to be better.

I'd say the real reason for the high adoption of region-free players isn't because we all buy R1 releases (I don't know anyone that does, I don't even know many that have a clue what region-coding is), but because in New Zealand region coding was actually deemed illegal and all players HAVE to be sold region-free, whereas in Australia it was seen as anti-competitive so all retailers had to mod the players on request, or often just did it anyway. Recently a retailer was trying to convince me that the opposite is now true in Australia due to the free trade agreement with the US, hadn't heard about that anywhere, but probably just because no one here cares about R1!

EzyDVD (the store boris mentioned) and JB Hifi are probably your best bets. JB Hifi usually is a little cheaper, but EzyDVD probably ships cheaper (and often have more bonuses, half their items tend to be in 'limited edition tin cases'!).

http://www.kineticpast.com/starwars/thecheatlaserdisc.gif
Ooh, a laserdisc. The Cheat's playin' something on a laserdisc.
Everything is better on a laserdisc. Whatever happened to the laserdisc? Laserdisc!

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Gillean
I'd say the real reason for the high adoption of region-free players isn't because we all buy R1 releases (I don't know anyone that does, I don't even know many that have a clue what region-coding is), but because in New Zealand region coding was actually deemed illegal and all players HAVE to be sold region-free,
They have to be sold region free because region coding is a way of price fixing. The bottom line is if a cheaper legal copy can be sourced overseas, then retailers can pass on that saving. It should be the same with consoles too... their region coding is a way of price fixing as well.

But one of the great benefits of importing from foreign markets is the number of films available. The USA has I think 40-50x more DVDs released locally then we do - so for every DVD movie released by local distributors, the USA release 40-50 into their market. I also find it disturbing that not only does the USA still get fullscreen releases, but they also get DVD players that are NTSC-only. There has never been a DVD player made that can play PAL but not NTSC (from what I hear not all US TV’s are multistandard either, whereas all ours most certainly are).

And asian releases, etc you can't get without special order. And it's good to have a place like JB (the store Gillean mentioned) where you can walk in and ask them to source for you a DVD (or CD), even if it's not released in the local market, and they'll import it for you. It's no substitute for ordering online, of course - but with releases which you can't buy any other way (because it might be an Indain DVD or a German DVD and you can't order online from their stores because don't speak gobilygook) it's handy.
Some were not blessed with brains.
<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!
Author
Time
Post link
I don't get something. Those images look wide-screen. But I thought the upcoming editions WEREN'T in wide-screen? I'm ... confused.
Author
Time
Post link
Oh they're widescreen allright. They're just not Anamorphic

“I love Darth Editous and I’m not ashamed to admit it.” ~ADigitalMan

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: THX The fullscreen DVDs do actually have improved resolution in the selected 4:3 area. The same picture area in the anamorphic widescreen DVD uses less pixels horizontally.
I assume you're referring to the difference between the aspect ratio of the standard 16:9 widescreen format and the sometimes "thinner" native aspect ratio of the film itself (and the scan lines that are wasted in the resulting thin black bars that fill in the difference), and a Pan and Scan transfer which extends all the way to the top and bottom of the screen, with no scan lines wasted on black bars?



Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: StarWarsIsUs
I don't get something. Those images look wide-screen. But I thought the upcoming editions WEREN'T in wide-screen? I'm ... confused.

I don't have a diagram handy, so I'm going to steal Neil's signature image.

If you look at the larger image in the black box (the one that extends all the way to the left and right) that is how an "anamorphic widescreen" DVD image would fill the screen space of a widescreen TV.

The smaller image in the center of the box is how a "NON-anamorphic widescreen" DVD image would fill the screen space of a widescreen TV.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v293/Indysolo/dvd_anamorphic_top.jpg

On a standard "square" TV, the two will look pretty much the same.

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: boris
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.

Did you actually watch the 2004SE so far (on proper equipment)? In all scenes, you can see natural film grain. They did NOT remove it. Many faults in the film material, like flickering and colour shifting during the end of a scene have remained uncorrected. As I said earlier, transfers taken directly from the negative have a lot less film grain that taken from 35mm n-generation copies. But again, you wouldn´t answer to this, right, because it would actually show your lack of knowledge.


A new transfer would look a little bit better, yes, but not by much.

*LOL* Sorry, but you have absolutely no clue. A new transfer would look substantially better, since it would be made with modern equipment (digital film scanners like the Spirit Datacine), which yields much more clarity and resolution than the old telecining equipment involved in making transfers in the early nineties. You have already been corrected many times in the 35mm thread, by people who actually work in the industry, but you keep on spreading your false informations here. The worse part is, people which have as much lack of knowledge as you do will read your statements and actually believe them...


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.

This may be, but it is still the same blurry transfer, which is the main cause of the shitty picture quality. And besides being blurry, it is still non-anamorphic.

I´m going to remind you of all your statements you are making here during this thread when the release comes out. This is going to be very embarassing for you.



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.

You are good in twisting your own statements, are you.

What you said was this:

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.

And the source material of the OOT is NOT non-anamorphic. I was shot on 35mm. According to 2006 standards, THIS source has to be used. It is standard procedure. Few A-movies have been released on DVD using an old non-anamorphic video master. The last DVD´s from major studios which came out this way date back more than 5 years ago.

Nice try, but no cigar.


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.


Again, you are mixing. The LASERDISCS have apparently been mastered from PAL mastertapes. But since the OOT is supposed to be Bonus material on this DVD release, they are going to treat it as Bonus material on PAL discs, which is: upscaling the NTSC material.


Originally posted by: Vigo
If you don´t care about quality, fine. Converting.non-anamorphic.SD.to.anamorphic.SD.will.not.improve.the.quality.


*LOL* Do you actually read what I´m writing here in this thread? Or do you just deliberately put my statements out of context to hide your lack of knowledge.


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.

You are right, you just claimed the following. In full context, so that no-one can blame me that I´m putting your comments out of context:

Let me put it to you like this. We all know that for everything Lucas is, he's a perfectionist - right? Quality to Lucas comes well before any other sensibilities. However he's also artistic which is why he's a filmmaker - though he often tries to do "too much" himself and in my opinion could benefit from the input of others. With this in mind, Lucas shot both ep 2 and ep 3 in HD. That's in 1080p. Now, there are many obvious advantages to digital such as being able to see what you've shot right away, being able to edit scenes earlier, you don't have the problem of being on your last reel of film, etc - and it's cheaper then traditional filming (though as it was "cutting edge technology" this may not have been a draw card at the time). And the quality is amazing, as far as digital is concerned. Even at "laserdisc resolution" (roughly equal to non-anamorphic DVD) you can show a movie theatrically.

And this


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. 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.

Again, an amusing proof on how you percieve picture information:

Originally posted by: boris
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's some more... All are identical film frames:

http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/4420/06atk9.jpg
http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/1603/06blb0.jpg


Yes, claerly all IDENTICAL film frames. *LOL* And it is of course, apart from the obvious, sooo hard to spot the superior image....



Originally posted by: Vigo
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.


But you imply clearly, that scaling and making a new anamorphic transfer is roughly the same:

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.


Either you do this on purpuse, or you have, after all, really no understanding about what anamorphic really is.


Originally posted by: Vigo
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.


Which clearly shows your inability to understand the technology behind making films and the processes involved in making it available for home useage.


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.


Hahahaha...


3. The colours will be better and more consistent then the 2004 version.
4. This release could have been much worse.


Yes,it could have been mastered from the 1982, 1985, 1986 VHS tapes....


5. This release will be decent DVD quality (I expect video to be 7 or 8/10).


BUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! This is going to e VERY embarassing for you when the DVD´s get out.



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:

16MM is roughly equivalent to standard definition, and 35MM is roughly equivalent to high definition.


Which is complete nonsense, but we can, of course, start the 35mm thread again here, with people working in the industry opposing your amateurish claims.


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).


What is the difference between the resolution and the format? And again: nonsense.


In the same way, HD resolution is capable of reproducing all the detail in a 35MM frame.


Again: the biggest nonsense.


This is widely accepted to be true


Sure.


- 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.


The only parts replaced were the ones which used new CGI footage. The original negatives, while faded and dirty, still retained all of their picture information. Again, you are spreading bullshit here. Even if they had to replace parts of the negative with other film stock, it would still be superior to HD and of course vastly superior to 720x480.....


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


In the 2004 SE you see no difference between the shots which are clearly unaltered and the new cgi shots. Again, a hint that you actually did not watch the 2004 SE very careful. Funnily, even in the new, digital recomposited shots, you can clearly see film grain.


- I stand by that with this as my proof:

*various images*



Ummm, what proof?

YOU GOT TO FIGHT! *BOOM , BOOM* FOR YOUR RIGHT.... *FOR LOOOW QUALITYY!!!!!*
Author
Time
Post link
Well said once again. Vigo you are very articulate. However you forgot the "You got to fight *BOOM BOOM* For your right *BOOM BOOM* For loooowww quallllity!"
THAT WAS priceless.....funniest thing I have ever read on a forum of ANY kind. Keep up the good work Vigo.

I love everybody. Lets all smoke some reefer and chill. Hug and kisses for everybody.

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: vbangle
Well said once again. Vigo you are very articulate. However you forgot the "You got to fight *BOOM BOOM* For your right *BOOM BOOM* For loooowww quallllity!"
THAT WAS priceless.....funniest thing I have ever read on a forum of ANY kind. Keep up the good work Vigo.


Whooopsey, sorry, corrected that.