Originally posted by: JediRandy
mverta: There is a lot of evidence for deliberate image-quality reduction in the 2006 DVD. It's not a fact; it's an informed opinion.
mverta: In any case, the degradation of the imagery isn't an opinion, it's a quantifiable fact.
Nice flip-flop there. Which is it?Originally posted by: mverta
However, for the record, the images were NOT recomposited in the computer, eliminating the grain from optical effects. Lowry's method uses an algorithm to remove grain from the entire image as a flat element. The lack of grain in the optical effects is just from de-graining processing.
Thank you for backing up something I've been flamed at for, many times - on the issue of grain removal on the 2004 DVD's. I also know that they also manually removed deficiencies.Originally posted by: mverta
... Another curious move is making up shit to make yourself sound intelligent. Alright, there was no need for that.
Spot the difference.
Just a hint of ghosting on the OUT disc there.Originally posted by: mverta
in the interest of preservation, accuracy, and love for the trilogy, I'm not going to turn a blind eye to the deficiencies which are patently obvious in these transfers.
... Another curious move is making up shit to make yourself sound intelligent. Alright, there was no need for that.
Originally posted by: Obi Jeewhyen
It almost sounds like a conspiracy theory to say they added film grain. No...
I was really impressed by the level of detail in the 2004 DVD's. But honestly, it's not that much more then the detail in the OUT:It almost sounds like a conspiracy theory to say they added film grain. No...
Originally posted by: mverta
http://www.mikeverta.com/Posts/SW_Compare_1a.png
On the left, a pre-93 laserdisc image. On the right, the 2006 "1993-laserdisc-master" DVD. The image is grainier. This either means that the '93 laserdiscs were sourced from a different, and grainier print than the pre-'93 laserdiscs, which would mean they went through the re-issuing and quality actually went down in some respects, or this image has been artificially grained-up. There are some other differences in the images to suggest a different print, as well, so it's not 100% clear. The comment "mixed bag" is especially appropriate to describe the 2006 DVD, which is why I said I'd bet money, and not that I was definitively sure. Having done grain matching on more than 100 projects in the last 10 years, I see a good amount of evidence for post-added grain, which has a look you can recognize if you're familiar enough with it. Ditto the digital gate-weave added to the recreated crawl - it's very distinctive, and easily recognizable. This is a compelling compare; judge for yourself. NOW it sounds like a conspiracy theory!
In this case, the pre-93 laserdisc is unquestionably a touch softer than the 2006 transfer, but not by a significant enough margin to justify the extra grain; not by a long shot.
But Mike, Lowry Digital was told to do the highest level of grain removal for the 2004 SE.In fact, even Lucasfilm is aware the images are substandard: they're deliberately posting compares on the StarWars.com site to show you how shitty the OT DVD's you just bought are. http://www.mikeverta.com/Posts/SW_Compare_1a.png
On the left, a pre-93 laserdisc image. On the right, the 2006 "1993-laserdisc-master" DVD. The image is grainier. This either means that the '93 laserdiscs were sourced from a different, and grainier print than the pre-'93 laserdiscs, which would mean they went through the re-issuing and quality actually went down in some respects, or this image has been artificially grained-up. There are some other differences in the images to suggest a different print, as well, so it's not 100% clear. The comment "mixed bag" is especially appropriate to describe the 2006 DVD, which is why I said I'd bet money, and not that I was definitively sure. Having done grain matching on more than 100 projects in the last 10 years, I see a good amount of evidence for post-added grain, which has a look you can recognize if you're familiar enough with it. Ditto the digital gate-weave added to the recreated crawl - it's very distinctive, and easily recognizable. This is a compelling compare; judge for yourself. NOW it sounds like a conspiracy theory!
Originally posted by: mverta
I have personally seen the source files Lucasfilm claims don't exist to produce restored OT discs.
...
In the end, there are just too many of us, with too much material and expertise, too many inside contacts, and too many privileged sources to make the idea of a deliberately substandard release anything less than fact. Oh yeah, that certainly sounds like a conspiracy-theory to me!Originally posted by: Mentor
More grain is revealed simply because the DVD's are encoded from a higher resolution source than a laserdisc.
I think you've hit the nail on the head there.Originally posted by: mvertaI have personally seen the source files Lucasfilm claims don't exist to produce restored OT discs.
...
In the end, there are just too many of us, with too much material and expertise, too many inside contacts, and too many privileged sources to make the idea of a deliberately substandard release anything less than fact. Oh yeah, that certainly sounds like a conspiracy-theory to me!Originally posted by: Mentor
More grain is revealed simply because the DVD's are encoded from a higher resolution source than a laserdisc.
In this case, the pre-93 laserdisc is unquestionably a touch softer than the 2006 transfer, but not by a significant enough margin to justify the extra grain; not by a long shot.
Spot the difference.
Just a hint of ghosting on the OUT disc there.Originally posted by: mverta
in the interest of preservation, accuracy, and love for the trilogy, I'm not going to turn a blind eye to the deficiencies which are patently obvious in these transfers.
mverta: There is a lot of evidence for deliberate image-quality reduction in the 2006 DVD. It's not a fact; it's an informed opinion.
mverta: In any case, the degradation of the imagery isn't an opinion, it's a quantifiable fact.
Nice flip-flop there. Which is it?Originally posted by: mverta
However, for the record, the images were NOT recomposited in the computer, eliminating the grain from optical effects. Lowry's method uses an algorithm to remove grain from the entire image as a flat element. The lack of grain in the optical effects is just from de-graining processing.
Mike, I don't think you're a fool. I have a lot of respect for you, as I'm aware you do work in the industry. Some others may also realize this "authority" with which you speak. I was challenging your claims (and then others did as well). Enjoy the rest of your week Mike.