danny_boy said:
It does not matter if the OUT is released on Blu Ray or 4K............you will never be satisfied due to viewing oversaturation spanning 3 decades.
Speak for yourself. There are many films that I have been way overexposed to in a similar manner from time to time through the years but I was perfectly satisfied with their video releases and I enjoy them immensely. Like I said in my earlier post, I can personally enjoy Star Wars in crude form, but we have basically been forced to enjoy it that way since it left the theater. I think fans and film lovers deserve something better.
danny_boy said:
So you channel your anger at Lucas' s unwillingness to release the OUT or the changes he has made(both cosmetic and story wise)to the "special edition".
You very immaturely call a video technician who worked on the 2004 DVDs ,Vidiot(of the SteveHoffman forum) an Idiot for straying too far from the original colour pallete despite THE FACT you have absolutely no clue as to what the original colour pallete is.
Sure....you own a few transperencies(35mm or 70mm) and you have seen a few screen shots of the senator theater showing in 2010 ...... but that does not give you the authority(or anyone-else on this forum) of having a say in exactly how these film looked originally.....when the FACT of the matter is that the quality of resolution and colour reproduction of any theatrical viewing of SW in the late 70's or early 80's would have varied from cinema to cinema and from print to print(be it 35mm or 70mm) .
It is one of the main reasons why 35mm is being phased out in favour of digital (2K or 4K both of which have been scientifically proven to be better than 35mm projection).
No, no I didn't call him an idiot for straying too far from the original color palette, that's your words and also an indication that you are indeed aware that they are far removed from the original. I was only making a jokey guess on what it may have been that he was surprised of being green colored. ;) It is actually a pretty well known fact that the lightsaber Luke wields in the 1977 Star Wars is blue colored, and that the green lights on Vader's belt are consistently green throughout the film. You don't really need an authority on these matters. But that is only scratching the surface of the poor 2004 color grading...
It is one thing to make a film look more modern for todays audience (as clearly was the intention in this case) but let's be honest and call it what it actually was - a technically subpar product, period. Lucasfilm even tried to shamelessly find a way to use some of the "deliberate creative decisions" made in 2004 to their advantage as an before and after example in a promotional piece on the official site when it was time for the BD release of that same master: http://starwars.com/news/saga_bluray_restoration.html
Completely ridiculous. From what I've heard the majority of the transfers still look exactly the same. But at the end of the day this is what Lucas himself wanted and approved so the colorists shouldn't really be blamed too much.
I'm no authority on it but I have absolutely a clue as to what the original color palette is. I also saw a LPP projected last year. However, if you want real evidence of how prints look in comparison to the 2004 master I'm sure we could get a few examples displayed for you as there's a guy on this forum who we can pretty much refer to as an authority on these matters as he have access to LPP's and happens to own a IB-Tech print but it would be quite pointless when the flaws of those SE masters are pretty well known. You may as well continue to live in your fantasy world where you think it was possible for a print to look like that in the 70's.
danny_boy said:
And if you cant enjoy it(any version on any format) then dont watch it.
Again, like I said, I can personally enjoy 1977 Star Wars in crude form. I can however not enjoy what currently is passed off as Star Wars by Lucasfilm in any form.
danny_boy said:
LexX said:
I like how every post from danny has to include the remark of him owning some 4K equipment, like we should be in awe or something.
No I don't expect anyone to be in awe of 4K.
I want them to understand that it is not some magic number that will resolve all the flaws that maybe inherent in an anlogue production like the original Star Wars.
Yeah, but I think people here fully understand that, and we get that you are worried about it.
danny_boy said:
4K will merely highlight the limitation of the resolution of the optical dupes that constituted large parts of the original camera negative. that made up Star Wars back in 1977.
4K works best with footage that has been shot "in camera".
2001 Space Odyssey and Alien fit into this bracket.
Close Encounters,Superman I and Star Trek The Motion Picture(and Star Wars) on the hand featured so many optical composites that 4K scans(and subsequent projection) would accentuate the disprecancies that exist between 1st generation negative (that features no optical compositing) and dupe negative(for all the VFX).
This makes for a very uneven presentation.
The lower resolution of 35mm projection(relative to 2K or 4K) and the obviously even much lower resolution of VHS and laserdisc obscured these same discrepancies.
You are of course absolutely right about higher resolutions being much less forgiving when it comes to the shortcomings of the source material in a film such as Star Wars, that's why you preferably scan a theatrical interpositive like they did with the 1982 Blade Runner. Could be done this week if Lucasfilm wanted to. Some of the discrepancies should be there, it's a product of its time. Sure there would be fans such as you with their fancy 4K projectors that would still complain about the softness and grain if it was done correctly, there always are but that's what your Special Edition is for - a grain reduced Frankenstein Monster straight from the negative. (upscaled to 4K in your case. ;)
And you may not know this but there are advantages and benefits for restorations to be done in 4K or higher even if the end product is 2K/1080p.