logo Sign In

First Impressions of the OOT ... — Page 14

Author
Time
I think tolerance will only happen once the OOT gets the love it deserves and is made avaiable.

For me, once I get that, I don't feel any need to argue about anything Star Wars ever again. The PT lovers have their stuff, the SE lovers have theirs and the OOT lovers have theirs too. It's really quite simple. Just go and enjoy what you want to enjoy.

The OOT lovers have been denied that and that's caused a bit of animosity between all camps. The PT vs. OT debate, in terms of story and quality and merit will always continue though...
Author
Time
Scruffy, Zombie,

Thanks for a couple of really informative posts! While I've gathered from various reasonably credible sources over the years that Lucasfilm certainly has the means to do a full restoration of the OOT, its very interesting to get to know some more details!

Originally posted by: Scruffy
So, in 1997, we have 90% of the O-neg intact in the SE and the remaining 10% in the digital domain.


When I followed the coverage of the restoration work for the SE on various fansites on the net back in 1996 and 1997, I remember that I picked up from somewhere that the original films were eventually scanned digitally in their entirety, not just the selected shots that were to be updated with new CGI. What's been said here appears to contradict this though. Do we know within reasonable doubt that the movies were fully digitized only quite recently, as in after the turn of the century, or could there be indeed be older fully digital sources from the original SE work as well?
Author
Time
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
Thanks, I try to keep an open mind, and I try to be aware of the things I don't actually know as much as I can.

I'm similarly impressed by just about everyone here for not just attacking me outright due to my particular point of view.

I am getting this warm and fuzzy feeling that depending on how things go within this next year, the fanbase "rift" can be brought closer together if not closed entirely. We won't all ever agree about everything, but perhaps there will be more tolerance all the way around.


Like I've said, all it'll take is that proper OOT DVD release.

“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

Author
Time
Originally posted by: Cable-X1
I think tolerance will only happen once the OOT gets the love it deserves and is made avaiable.

Well, I'm not so sure better home releases will cause the fighting to cease. Even though I never plan to purchase the PT there was certainly potential in those films, though I just happen to think it went to waste for the most part.

On the other hand, there are a lot of differences between the OT and the PT I don't mind at all. I don't mind the very different style of the PT as compared to the OT for example. Somebody pointed out that this could be seen as a way of illustrating that life in the days of the Republic was very different from that in the days of the Empire, and I actually quite like that take on it. As for the CGI, I actually don't mind that much either. It's not perfect by any means and could've been improved on for sure, but the OT has its share of poor compositing, garbage mattes and other imperfections resulting from the limited technology available to the SFX makers at the time. Personally I really don't prefer the artifacts of either kind of effects over the other.

To me it's ultimately all about how the movies make me feel, and to me the PT unfortunately just feels like a dull and turgid marketing ploy. The timeless qualities of the story of the OT which cause the movies by and large not to feel dated even after 30 years has puzzled and amazed me from when I was quite young, and to me this is gone in the PT. I was hoping to relish in a little more of that same timeless and epic fairy-tale experience with the PT films, but alas, I was wrong. Others found what they were looking for in the new films, and that's good for them. I just moved on, because in the end, life really is just a short blip, and it's too precious to be wasted by spending time and energy on fighting the artistic preferences of others (not to mention a lot of other things which can make for a very long list really quickly).

Speaking of artistic preferences, my personal ideal Star Wars reflect quite specific tastes in terms of art too I'd say. My preferred version of the OT would be a cross-breed between the OOT and the SE. The movies would have the updated SFX of the SE, but a few of the biggest changes would be removed plus there would be some quite minor tweaks, so as to make them feel and flow more like the ultimate epic fantasy in a way that works for me. If we ever get some great releases of the OOT and the SE, I'll certainly try to put together this version of one of the greatest stories ever told in moving pictures.
Author
Time
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
Thanks, I try to keep an open mind, and I try to be aware of the things I don't actually know as much as I can.

Now there's a statement I find commendable! This is sort of off topic, but years ago, after a bad breakup, I decided that even though I was reasonably satisfied about who I was, I would spend some time over the next few weeks to think and reflect over myself in order to improve and become a better person. That little project continues to this day.
Author
Time
Did a thread from a Raul sock just get deleted? I remember it from minutes ago.

“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

Author
Time
Originally posted by: Cable-X1
I think tolerance will only happen once the OOT gets the love it deserves and is made avaiable.

For me, once I get that, I don't feel any need to argue about anything Star Wars ever again. The PT lovers have their stuff, the SE lovers have theirs and the OOT lovers have theirs too. It's really quite simple. Just go and enjoy what you want to enjoy.

The OOT lovers have been denied that and that's caused a bit of animosity between all camps. The PT vs. OT debate, in terms of story and quality and merit will always continue though...


Amen.
Fuck the Jedi Council.
Author
Time
Originally posted by: WaragainsttheCouncil
http://www.starwars.com/episode-iv/release/video/f20040916/index.html
The Star Wars restoration process began with a 10-bit RGB high-definition scan of the original negatives. [...]

I'm not very familiar with film restoration, so can anyone please explain why 24/32 bit scans aren't used for this?
Author
Time
Originally posted by: Mike O
Did a thread from a Raul sock just get deleted? I remember it from minutes ago.


Who's Raul? Never heard of him.

You know of the rebellion against the Empire?

Author
Time
Originally posted by: Mielr
This is an example of film that has 'gone pink':
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c229/queen1970/rebelcel2.jpg

Interesting. And this is something that doesn't happen to technicolor prints?
Author
Time
Originally posted by: lord3vil
Originally posted by: Mielr
This is an example of film that has 'gone pink':
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c229/queen1970/rebelcel2.jpg

Interesting. And this is something that doesn't happen to technicolor prints?

Correct. Technicolor dye-tranfer prints use dye rather than unstable chemicals.
This is a cel from a dye-tranfer print of Robin Hood from 1937:
http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/oldcolor/technicolor-robinhood2.jpg
The technicolor process is explained on this site, if you're interested:click

Author
Time
I'm a bit of a layman when it comes to describing the picture quality, but I was pleased with how they looked. I'm glad to have the true Star Wars movies in a format that will hopefully be more resilient than the 1995 widescreen VHS tapes I still own.

Thumbs up for me, even if they are "bonus" discs.
Author
Time
The Kodak Eastman format of 35mm film overtook the technicolour process because it was very cheap and quick, with relatively good results--relatively speaking, of course. The technicolour film process literally uses layers of dye to produce the resultant image (to put it simply, of course, though it is more complicated than this); Kodak stock uses chemicals, and of course the life of a chemical agent is much less compared to the life of a dye-soaked film strip.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Star Wars restoration process began with a 10-bit RGB high-definition scan of the original negatives. [...]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I'm not very familiar with film restoration, so can anyone please explain why 24/32 bit scans aren't used for this?"


Each channle gets 10-bits each, so you end up with 30-bit colour space. This is (or was, i should say) the limit of digital video technology. 12 bit technology is now common.
Author
Time
zombie, the restoration discussion has been moved here.
I guess we should keep this thread free for specific discussions about the quality of the OOT DVDs.

Author
Time
Originally posted by: Scruffy
In or around 1997, the O-neg was restored. Certain portions were removed for SE alteration, and we can assume that those film elements are lost. But every one was scanned at 2k so the SE alterations can be made. Hard drive space is cheap, so we can assume the digital versions of these portions are not lost. So, in 1997, we have 90% of the O-neg intact in the SE and the remaining 10% in the digital domain. No it's not, it was entirely re-made the way zombie84 explained. They didn't re-create the crawls, but they did replace a lot of the film with alterations ranging from digital-re-composites, to digital characters. Also, I have a very strong feeling that they did the same thing again in 2004... ie they physically inserted the 2004 alterations.

Here's the catch. Digital mastering provides better quality prints because you can remove film flaws, like scratches dust and discolouration. Star Wars will never be released onto 35MM again without being digitally mastered, so even making a 35MM theatrical release will come from the 4k resolution digital master.Originally posted by: zombie84
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
Anyway, regarding what needs to be scanned for a complete OOT O-neg DI--yeah, its not that difficult. There are a number of ways a high quality OOT scan could be accomplished:
What would happen is he would use the o-neg, and whatever other sources he has to provide the best restoration... it wouldn't be just 1 source.
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
Originally posted by: boris
I have a very strong feeling that they did the same thing again in 2004... ie they physically inserted the 2004 alterations.
I guess everyone who wants to know already knows this isn't true.

Author
Time
Well, you know what, I caved and bought Star Wars yesterday and putting it on.... YOWSA!

You know, I don't have a widescreen TV, so the lack of anamorphic enhancement, although it means lower resolution, I can deal with it for the time being. And all I have to say is that despite the aliasing and the minor edge enhancement and the grain.... I wouldn't have it any other way. Sure, I like the PT and the SEs, but I don't think I'll be going back to the SEs unless I have some sort of six-film marathon. Without so much distracting CGI and the incorrect color (I HATE that!), I was pulled back "into" Star Wars for the first time in I don't know HOW long.

When I get the cash, I will certainly be picking up ESB and ROTJ. ESB, mostly because of the correctly colored lightsabers... the borderline pink saber nearly ruins the Cloud City fight for me. ROTJ.... I cannot stand "Jedi Rocks" and although I can live with Hayden, it's his performance in the scene itself that bugs me. He doesn't look inviting at all, and once again, the murky, ugly Lightsabers are too much, I can't focus on the fight because of it.

So sue me, I even like the grain. A small wash to remove some of it would be nice, but I'd like some grain left in. I totally understand what people mean when they say it adds charm... it totally does.

The only things I'll miss from the SEs are the digital recompositing and most of the SE Death Star stuff for the Battle of Yavin.

I can live with 80% of the SE additions. I even like the PT (overall). But not releasing the OOT in respectable condition? That's unacceptable.

Author
Time
I like this release of the Star Wars discs. I never bought Star Wars on DVD before so I wasn't double dipping. I have OCP's Star Wars Classic Edition bootlegs. I really enjoy them. The theatrical bonus discs included in the current original trilogy release is really awesome. I will buy whatever comes out next year. I don't own any of the PT except Revenge of the Sith.
Author
Time
I just spoke to my brother who works at Blockbuster Video in England. He told me that interest in the DVDs has been limited to customers who want the OT. He also told me that one customer came back complaining about the quality, saying it looked like they had taken a videotape and stuck it on a DVD, but despite the poor quality he still bought Empire and Jedi because he wants the original versions - just goes to show how George has us by the balls. I told my brother that if anyone else comes in with similar complaints he should direct them to OT.com.

War does not make one great.

Author
Time
Next year will have the saga box set, which i feel probably wont sell very well unless they include the OOT in a restored form.


(Coming in late, but...) Zombie I agree with you.

I have the 2004 DVD's and I just purchased the GOUT's, and unless there's a restored version of the OOT -or- unless there's some major change to the 2004 DVD's, there is absolutely no reason to purchase a "Saga Set".

I'm in the minority group of this sight, in that I pretty much enjoy the SE-OT and (blasphemy!) I even enjoy the PT.

My only complaints about the SE-OT are pretty much the most common complaints: "Greedo shooting first" and the Jedi Rocks sequence in ROTJ. I'm on the fence on the Christian Hayden sequence at the end of ROTJ, but other than what was mentioned, I pretty much like the SE changes.

May be somebody can answer me this question: How come nobody acknowledges (if not praises) how much better the Battle at Yavin looks in the SE-ANH? I can pretty much understand every complaint except this one. The newer Battle at Yavin looks SO much better than it did in the OOT (and I was there in 1977 being 12 yrs old at the time).
Author
Time
Oh yeah, the additions and updates to the battle of Yavin are very good.

But then again, I am even more a minority here than you are.

I love all the SW movies, and don't mind Greedo shooting first or the Jedi Rocks sequence.
Your focus determines your reality.
Author
Time
Originally posted by: Daniel
Next year will have the saga box set, which i feel probably wont sell very well unless they include the OOT in a restored form.


(Coming in late, but...) Zombie I agree with you.

I have the 2004 DVD's and I just purchased the GOUT's, and unless there's a restored version of the OOT -or- unless there's some major change to the 2004 DVD's, there is absolutely no reason to purchase a "Saga Set".

I'm in the minority group of this sight, in that I pretty much enjoy the SE-OT and (blasphemy!) I even enjoy the PT.

My only complaints about the SE-OT are pretty much the most common complaints: "Greedo shooting first" and the Jedi Rocks sequence in ROTJ. I'm on the fence on the Christian Hayden sequence at the end of ROTJ, but other than what was mentioned, I pretty much like the SE changes.

May be somebody can answer me this question: How come nobody acknowledges (if not praises) how much better the Battle at Yavin looks in the SE-ANH? I can pretty much understand every complaint except this one. The newer Battle at Yavin looks SO much better than it did in the OOT (and I was there in 1977 being 12 yrs old at the time).


The problem with the SE DVD Battle of Yavin is the removal of the music from the first part of the battle.


Author
Time
Like all these things, it's a question of subjective taste. I honestly don't think the newer Battle at Yavin looks better than it did in the OUT. Having fake-looking ships move closer to the "camera" doesn't, IMHO, make the shots more dynamic. However, it does pull me out of the otherwise real feel of the sequence.

Cue Go-Mer/Jumpman thread hijack.
Author
Time
Post #2

I did a comparison of the opening scene of ANH comparing the TR47, Cowplops V1, Editdroids and the GOUT versions and the GOUT version seems sharper and more vibrant (colorwise) to any of the previous 3 excellent transfers.

It may not be perfect but as far as I can tell, because of the GOUT version, I don't need my copies of the TR47, Cowplops V1 or the Editdroid version anymore.

Thanks to the fine folks here w/ their GREAT transfers, I think it showed LFL that there is a definite hunger for an Unaltered version of SW. May be next year there WILL be a higher quality version of the GOUT version, but until them I'm pretty happy w/ this 2006 release.

Sorry everyone, I'm probably part of the problem you guys are struggling with, in that I did purchase the 2006 OUT and will probably buy a higher quality copy of the OUT if it comes out.