Harmy said:
OK, so I just had to do it... Here's a comparison between the GOUT upscaled to 1080p, the 2011 BD scaled down to 720x576 and the back up to 1920x1080 and the BD in its native resolution - I'd say, that it's pretty clear, that the difference between the GOUT vs. ANAMORPHIC is more pronounced then the difference between anamorphic vs 1080p. And yeah, I know that the official SW BD is far from being reference material but the difference here is so large, that I think it's definitely enough to show the GOUT's horrendity and terribleness ;-)
And I'd say, that the biggest flaw of the GOUT transfer is simply its age - the technology used to make the transfer in 1993 is just hopelessly outdated and was already hopelessly outdated in 2006 (hell, the transfer in this comparison was made in 2004) and the transfer was mediocre even for the technology for which it was originally made, as evidenced by LD fans and home-video enthusiasts complaining about it back then.
The number of pixels in the digital master is one thing but the actual resolution is another - just like it's been demonstrated that the BD doesn't actually resolve as much detail as 1080p could, the GOUT also seems to resolve less detail than the 274 lines of resolution could.
As you've said, the 2011 BD doesn't even qualify as a "good BD". Plus, I don't have a massive screen (which would take full advantage of the quality of a good BD and exploit the deficiencies of DVD resolution) to look at your picture on.
Also, what happened to the detail/grain in your GOUT screenshot? It looks slightly posterized. This is what it should look like (mine on the right, yours on the left):
