Originally posted by: boris
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*
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...
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
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.
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.
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:
16MM is roughly equivalent to standard definition, and 35MM is roughly equivalent to high definition.
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.
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: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.
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 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.
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.
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:
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.
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:
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.
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.
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*
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!!!!!*
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),
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!!!!!*