- Time
- Post link
Thank you George Lucas!
- Time
- Post link
First Impressions of the OOT ... — Page 9
Thank you George Lucas!
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: boris
It would be an illegal DVD format without the DD track anyway, and you have to judge it based on how it *sounds*, not based solely on the technical specifications. That's why my non-anamorphic NTSC robocop looks better then my Anamorphic PAL one (I've provided some screen caps that demonstrate that as well).
I know what you're going to say "Boris, it's the SAME track as the uncompressed LD one"... maybe, but that doesn't mean there aren't flaws on the LD track that were ironed out for the DVD.
It would be an illegal DVD format without the DD track anyway, and you have to judge it based on how it *sounds*, not based solely on the technical specifications. That's why my non-anamorphic NTSC robocop looks better then my Anamorphic PAL one (I've provided some screen caps that demonstrate that as well).
I know what you're going to say "Boris, it's the SAME track as the uncompressed LD one"... maybe, but that doesn't mean there aren't flaws on the LD track that were ironed out for the DVD.
If I'm not mistaken, the DVD spec requires either DD or PCM. PCM is perfectly legal without DD needing to be present. That said, other than music DVDs, PCM movie soundtracks are exceedingly rare.
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: bbbb
I like the new DVD release of the OOT.
Thank you George Lucas!
I like the new DVD release of the OOT.
Thank you George Lucas!
Are you happy that there is 'motion ghosting' in this release?
That may have been ok as a cheap effect in a '70's rock music video,
but doesn't belong in a 2006 DVD movie release IMO.
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: bactaOT
Are you happy that there is 'motion ghosting' in this release?
That may have been ok as a cheap effect in a '70's rock music video,
but doesn't belong in a 2006 DVD movie release IMO.
Originally posted by: bbbb
I like the new DVD release of the OOT.
Thank you George Lucas!
I like the new DVD release of the OOT.
Thank you George Lucas!
Are you happy that there is 'motion ghosting' in this release?
That may have been ok as a cheap effect in a '70's rock music video,
but doesn't belong in a 2006 DVD movie release IMO.
It doesn't me. About two minutes in I forget about watching for flaws and watch the films.
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: gltaylor74It doesn't me. About two minutes in I forget about watching for flaws and watch the films.
I am genuinely pleased that you are able to watch the films without being distracted by the visual stepping of motion present in these DVDs.
Personally however, I unfortunately do find the 'motion ghosting' distracting, and don't really think that it acceptable by modern DVD standards.
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: caligulathegod
If I'm not mistaken, the DVD spec requires either DD or PCM. PCM is perfectly legal without DD needing to be present.
If I'm not mistaken, the DVD spec requires either DD or PCM. PCM is perfectly legal without DD needing to be present.
Correct. This has been discussed a couple of times on the Preservation Board, but a certain reader seems to have missed all the relevant posts.
Scruffy's gonna die the way he lived.
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: WaragainsttheCouncil
Here's where I disagree. This is one business model. Not the only one. Not even necessarily the best business model. It is purely one approach out of many.
Hold on, I didn't say that it is the only possible business model, and I didn't state without doubt that it's the best one either. I think what Lucasfilm is doing with Star Wars is reasonably sound if their motivation is to reap some good profit, though there are of course alternatives. I certainly don't support their business model though and would have done things very differently and would have brought quality releases to the market if I had the power to do so for sure, so that's another take on things right there.
I wasn't aware that LucasArts was part of Lucasfilm (though Lucas obviously has control of both), and I didn't know Lucasfilm was involved much with contemporary movie productions. If this is true, then I'll have to slightly update my view on things. I have to wonder if Lucas own ego, personal matters (aside from the money-making side of things) and old contracts plays a bigger role with regards to the lackluster OOT releases than what I've been thinking up until now.
Enough with the fancy words though, it's Monday.
Crap sells. Quality sells. But which one lasts in the marketplace and which one, almost always, sells more. Quality. Which one is ultimately remembered? Quality. Eventually, and this is proved in the market time and time again, crap is punished in the marketplace. Crap loses. George found this out with his ATTACK OF THE CLONES release. For a SW franchise title, it performed miserably.
Here's where I disagree. This is one business model. Not the only one. Not even necessarily the best business model. It is purely one approach out of many.
Hold on, I didn't say that it is the only possible business model, and I didn't state without doubt that it's the best one either. I think what Lucasfilm is doing with Star Wars is reasonably sound if their motivation is to reap some good profit, though there are of course alternatives. I certainly don't support their business model though and would have done things very differently and would have brought quality releases to the market if I had the power to do so for sure, so that's another take on things right there.
LFL does have many other revenue generators. THX, LucasArts, LFL (who worked on the most successful film of the year, PIRATES) and then the merchandising wings including EU. There is a plethora of revenue streams into that company. So LFL isn't dependent upon releasing and re-releasing and re-releasing SW again and again to survive.
I wasn't aware that LucasArts was part of Lucasfilm (though Lucas obviously has control of both), and I didn't know Lucasfilm was involved much with contemporary movie productions. If this is true, then I'll have to slightly update my view on things. I have to wonder if Lucas own ego, personal matters (aside from the money-making side of things) and old contracts plays a bigger role with regards to the lackluster OOT releases than what I've been thinking up until now.
Enough with the fancy words though, it's Monday.
Crap sells. Quality sells. But which one lasts in the marketplace and which one, almost always, sells more. Quality. Which one is ultimately remembered? Quality. Eventually, and this is proved in the market time and time again, crap is punished in the marketplace. Crap loses. George found this out with his ATTACK OF THE CLONES release. For a SW franchise title, it performed miserably. Yes, quality prevails in the long run, and a quality OOT release wouldn't be difficult for LFL to make at all. In general though, I'd say the reason we don't see more quality products than we do is that quality products in terms of original works of art are notoriously difficult to create, and there are so many examples of even experienced and talented artists and businessmen who let great opportunities slip by and go to waste simply because they didn't realize what they had on their hands until it was too late. In a competetive industry it's so much easier to just go with the run-of-the-mill way of things, since it's a much more predictable and proven way to do business. Quality on the other hand is often risky business, and as such it really has to bring the promise of paying off that much more than the average thing for investores to be bothered with it.
I do have to wonder though, whether Lucas found out anything much about quality in the last few years. Leading up to the release of TPM, I really got the impression that he thought he was on to something with The Slapstick Show starring Jar Jar Binks. He obviously wasn't but he still brought on Attack of the Clones, and even with all the nails solidly and thoroughly embedded in the coffin he kept on hammering with Revenge of the Sith.
- Time
- Post link
Lucas is making them according to his sense of quality. If you were in his position you would do the same. Hence your speculation wether or not Lucas will suddenly realize what it is -you- feel makes a quality release.
I think all the Star Wars home video releases to date have always represented the pinnacle of home video technology at the time.
The only reason he put the non anamorphic O-OT on this latest release was because we begged him to do it.
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
"Quality" is subjective right?
"Quality" is subjective right?
The quality of these OUT DVDs is not as good as it could have been. That is
NOT "subjective" opinion, that is FACT!
- A clean print is better than a dirty print.
- Anamorphic is better than non-anamorphic.
- Uncompressed sound is better than compressed sound.
- A transfer is better without DVNR, and other inherited LD artifacts than with them.
- An image looks better without excessive film grain than with it.
These are facts and not open to subjectivity, and you would have a very hard time indeed convincing anyone in the industry otherwise!
Oh, and Lucas also agrees! He did it for the SE!
- Time
- Post link
The O-OT was put on there in the best quality he had on hand to represent the starting point from which the SE was created from, and to be sure, it's the best the O-OT has ever looked on a home video release to date.
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
[snip]
[snip]
troll
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
To him the SE -is- the high quality presentation of the classic trilogy.
The O-OT was put on there in the best quality he had on hand to represent the starting point from which the SE was created from, and to be sure, it's the best the O-OT has ever looked on a home video release to date.
To him the SE -is- the high quality presentation of the classic trilogy.
The O-OT was put on there in the best quality he had on hand to represent the starting point from which the SE was created from, and to be sure, it's the best the O-OT has ever looked on a home video release to date.
(emphasis mine)
The SE was not created from a 1993 video master of the trilogy. It was created from a restored negative that was begun, IIRC, in 1995. Most Lucas apologists claim this negative no longer exists and no duplicates of it were made (though why such carelessness is considered meat for apologism is beyond be). You can say the 1993 master "represents" the later restored negative, but that's kind of stretching things. It represents the narrative starting point for the SE, but not the filmic starting point (except insofar as both the SE negative and the 1993 video come from the same original source).
Scruffy's gonna die the way he lived.
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: lord3vil
troll
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
[snip]
[snip]
troll
He's a troll because he gives an opinion that is different from yours.
-George Lucas
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: Scruffy
The SE was not created from a 1993 video master of the trilogy. It was created from a restored negative that was begun, IIRC, in 1995. Most Lucas apologists claim this negative no longer exists and no duplicates of it were made (though why such carelessness is considered meat for apologism is beyond be). You can say the 1993 master "represents" the later restored negative, but that's kind of stretching things. It represents the narrative starting point for the SE, but not the filmic starting point (except insofar as both the SE negative and the 1993 video come from the same original source).
The way I understand it, Lucas permanantly altrered the original negative in creating the SE version, which is why he no longer can use that negative to produce a brand new O-OT print.The SE was not created from a 1993 video master of the trilogy. It was created from a restored negative that was begun, IIRC, in 1995. Most Lucas apologists claim this negative no longer exists and no duplicates of it were made (though why such carelessness is considered meat for apologism is beyond be). You can say the 1993 master "represents" the later restored negative, but that's kind of stretching things. It represents the narrative starting point for the SE, but not the filmic starting point (except insofar as both the SE negative and the 1993 video come from the same original source).
- Time
- Post link
a) Effectively the complete original negative, with the caveat that some parts were Technicolor three strip inserts and some parts only exist in digital form, and
b) the Technicolor masters themselves. (Reports vary on the quality of these, but the consensus seems to be that they're a stable, perfect copy of a less than perfect negative.)
Evidently, using the Technicolor elements is almost a "lost art," and the expense was greater than hiring people to physically clean the extant negatives. If it really is cost prohibitive to make a new negative from the Technicolor elements, then Lucas really was careless IF he chopped up his only Star Wars negative in the nineties. Or at least, one can say he is not risk averse; if something calamitous were to happen to his negative during the SE process, he'd have to go back to the more expensive Technicolor process instead of falling back on his prepared second negative.
In any case, the fact remains that a 1993 video was not the "starting point" for the Special Editions. The starting point was a 1994 film restoration project.
Scruffy's gonna die the way he lived.
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
"Quality" is subjective right?
"Quality" is subjective right?
Not according to the greatest thinkers and philosphers of western history. But you're welcome to accept any unfounded opinions you like.
"Now all Lucas has to do is make a cgi version of himself. It will be better than the original and fit his original vision." - skyjedi2005
- Time
- Post link
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
What good is thinking if it's just going to make you realize everything sucks?
What good is thinking if it's just going to make you realize everything sucks?
Because, striving for perfection is a worthwhile goal. And some works are less perfect than others . . . sometimes much less.
"Now all Lucas has to do is make a cgi version of himself. It will be better than the original and fit his original vision." - skyjedi2005
- Time
- Post link
- Time
- Post link
And Go-mer, ignorance is bliss as they say. The truth hurts sometimes but living in denial just lets things get worse. If you want to change the world for the better then you have to realise that it sucks and then strive to improve it. Its called the progression of civilisation and its why humanity is the most advanced species in the known universe.
- Time
- Post link
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: zombie84
I'm actually concerned for future version of the much, much, much superior Theatrical Cut of Apocalypse Now, since the original negative has been altered for Redux. I guess they could just look at the records and re-construct it for a new O-neg scan but I'm afraid they'll be too lazy and just use an IP or regular print for future releases.
And Go-mer, ignorance is bliss as they say. The truth hurts sometimes but living in denial just lets things get worse. If you want to change the world for the better then you have to realise that it sucks and then strive to improve it. Its called the progression of civilisation and its why humanity is the most advanced species in the known universe.
I'm actually concerned for future version of the much, much, much superior Theatrical Cut of Apocalypse Now, since the original negative has been altered for Redux. I guess they could just look at the records and re-construct it for a new O-neg scan but I'm afraid they'll be too lazy and just use an IP or regular print for future releases.
And Go-mer, ignorance is bliss as they say. The truth hurts sometimes but living in denial just lets things get worse. If you want to change the world for the better then you have to realise that it sucks and then strive to improve it. Its called the progression of civilisation and its why humanity is the most advanced species in the known universe.
Yes, but Coppola hasn't gone on a fan-hating spree to destroy the original negative either. I'm sure that if someone offered to do the work, he'd take it. Plus, as I understand it, the theatrical DVD looks reasonably good. I ought to rent it. The film is something of an oddity to me. I wonder if we'll ever see a legal release of the Rough Cut or Heart of Darkness: A Filmaker's Apocalypse?
“What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one.”
Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: Guy Caballero
Hey zombie, in your opinion what is the source of the theatrical version of Apocalypse Now on the new set? I can't tell. It looks pretty excellent to me.
Hey zombie, in your opinion what is the source of the theatrical version of Apocalypse Now on the new set? I can't tell. It looks pretty excellent to me.
The transfer is not all that great, especially in two particular night scenes but otherwise its decent. Judging by the somewhat muted colours and the many scracthes and flaws in the print itself i would say its either a good-quality print or a deteriorating IP. Redux looks jaw-droppingly gorgeous though due to the fact that its from a newly-sourced Technicolour print from the O-neg. The colours! Too bad Redux sucks. I never noticed how good Redux looked until i got the new DVD set--watched the TE, thought it looked okay, then watched Redux and was blown away. Imagine Star Wars looking like this?? My god. And the exciting thing is that it can--Lucas even has the pristine Technicolour seperation masters still. A newly scanned DI of this would be the best source for a new copy of the original film, even better than the O-neg since it wouldn't require any re-timing effort nor any time-consuming O-neg restoration to reconifigure it.
- Time
- Post link
Not that my preference would take me as far as to say the original of any film should not be preserved and kept available.