Anchorhead said:
danny_boy said:
Lucas could have released this footage on the home video market at any point from 1982 onwards.
I am just grateful to see it.
The dirt and scratches actually give it character.
Dirt ,scratches,weave,occasional soft focus(intentional or otherwise) are synonimous with film.....
I would hazard a guess that the print you saw of SW in 77' was scratched up as well.
Correct on all points and I agree. Not the point I was trying to make.
Regarding who cares; I do. Character of film vs digital is wonderful - and I'm all for it. However, does it really have to be left in as bad a condition as possible? For the record, I don't know what it takes to clean old film, so maybe it does have to be left that way. My point was - I'm suspect.
Yeah!, sorry I care too.
I think context is important.
In the digital age of razor sharp 1080p/2k and 4K theatrical presentations and home cinemas(bluRay and DVD) where the audience/fan base is very attuned to the slightest bit of pixelization or granularity in video transfers---any anomalies(such as dirt/scratches ect) in picture quality are immedietetly identified and frowned upon.
I just chucked in my trusty ol' 1982 Star Wars VHS tape and checked out a few scenes and found that the telecined transfer contains a lot of scratches/dirt.
And the print at the point that this telecine was done (1981/82) would have been merely 4 years old!
Now I have watched this tape a 1000 times over the last 29 years!
But when it first came out in 82/83' I did not care about the quality of the transfer(which is quite good in my humble opinion--even by today's VHS standards).
At the time I just enjoyed the story and the film. Now I may have only been 9 years old at that point but I am pretty sure that "mature" videofiles of the early 80's would have been quite happy with the relative quality of the tape(or laserdisc).
It is our own standards and expectations which have skyrocketed.
But in doing so our ability just to enjoy a film for a film's sake has diminished.