logo Sign In

4K restoration on Star Wars — Page 49

Author
Time

MaximRecoil said:

I didn't reply to anyone who said it was a "horrible release", I replied to someone who said:

"Regardless of how horrendous the quality was"

 And my mind has yet to be changed

The Person in Question

Author
Time

AntcuFaalb said:

MaximRecoil said:

Your imagination is wildly disconnected from reality, or from anything which logically follows from reality.

I was clearly joking around.

I get that you're all fired up about this, but you've reached an annoying level of pedantry in an effort to support your argument. This level of pedantry does nothing to convince the people with whom you're arguing that your argument has merit and only serves to drive them away. As I'm sure you know, clearing the room of your opponents isn't the same as winning an argument against them.

If you're so sure that your opinion on this matter is the correct one, then walk away and let this thread return to on-topic discussion. There's a lot of wrong information on the WWW and your crusade to remove one item from that set is nothing more than a drop in the bucket.

Most of what you've typed here is a non sequitur. For example, that you were "clearly joking around" is not in dispute, and is irrelevant. Also, I'm not "fired up" about anything; this is a run-of-the-mill argument. Third: you've confused arguing with persuasive writing. I have no interest in the latter.

By the way, I can't "let this thread return to on-topic discussion", because I can't prevent it in the first place, nor would I care to prevent it even if I could. If this thread returns to on-topic discussion, it will be because people decide to make on-topic posts, and they won't ask me for permission to do so. Recently, the people who have posted in this thread have decided they'd rather argue with me (or throw paper cups from the sidelines) than post about "4K restoration on Star Wars".

Author
Time

MaximRecoil said:

WedgeCyan said:

OK... but weren't the widescreen discs for the '04 SE anamorphic? There is literally no reason to have made the GOUT non-anamporphic other than to insult the fans who asked for it.

Yes, there is a reason, and it has already been pointed out. In short, the masters they used were essentially glorified 4:3 DVDs to begin with. To go from a 4:3 DVD source to a 16:9 DVD, you have to upscale the vertical resolution of the picture area. Upscaling the master when authoring a DVD isn't normally done by professionals unless they absolutely have to.

The SE DVDs came from far superior masters (probably 4K scans) rather than 720x480 4:3 D1 tape, so they had way more resolution than they needed to properly make 16:9 DVDs. Unfortunately, these far superior masters were scanned from negatives which had been vandalized by George Lucas and co. in 1997, and then they vandalized the masters even more (additional retcons, bad colors, washed-out lightsabers, way too much grain removal, etc.) in 2004 before using them to author the SE DVDs. These masters obviously couldn't be used to make Star Wars trilogy DVDs, because they were glorified fan edits, rather than the real Star Wars trilogy.

Anyone else who spends any amount of time on TFN may recognize this as the infamous "you're getting what you deserve" mantra.

Only people who don't read so well, given that I haven't said, suggested, nor even hinted at any such thing.

If I owned Lucasfilm, there would be no "GOUT", nor would the underlying abbreviation "OUT" even exist, because there would be no need for it. The work done in '97 would have strictly been a restoration and scanning process. 16:9 DVDs would have been released soon thereafter. When Blu-ray came along there would have been a new release, following a new 4K scan (scanning equipment has improved since '97). Both releases would have been available in boxsets and individual discs. Film grain would have been left intact in both cases.

AntcuFaalb said:

I can just imagine him approaching and hugging his GOUT DVDs like Robin Williams in Good Will Hunting.

"It's not your fault!"

"It's not your fault!"

"It's not your fault!"

Your imagination is wildly disconnected from reality, or from anything which logically follows from reality. Assigning the fault to a DVD because it doesn't work ideally on a TV it wasn't designed for, is absurd. It is not the DVD's fault, it is not the DVD player's fault, and it is not the TV's fault. The fault obviously lies with the person who is trying to fit a square peg into a round hole, so to speak.

By the way, I'm using the word "fault" literally; I'm not anthropomorphizing the GOUT. Saying that it is not the DVD's fault is exactly the same thing as saying that the source of the problem (i.e., the fault) is not the DVD.

Similar things happen when people connect old video game consoles to 16:9 digital TVs, and it is equally absurd to blame the video game console for the results being less than ideal.

And it keeps going and going and going....

What’s the internal temperature of a TaunTaun? Luke warm.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

A call has been made to point out the logical fallacies and misinformed parts of your post, the ones that made Harmy too nauseous to respond to.  Much as I think no actual person on earth could be so unaware of the world in which they live, I'm going to respond one more time as if you were not just trolling us.

MaximRecoil said:

Yes, there is a reason, and it has already been pointed out. In short, the masters they used were essentially glorified 4:3 DVDs to begin with. To go from a 4:3 DVD source to a 16:9 DVD, you have to upscale the vertical resolution of the picture area. Upscaling the master when authoring a DVD isn't normally done by professionals unless they absolutely have to.

The SE DVDs came from far superior masters (probably 4K scans) rather than 720x480 4:3 D1 tape, so they had way more resolution than they needed to properly make 16:9 DVDs.

So here's your first few.  Lucasfilm was sitting on some masters--a 4:3 Laserdisc master for the GOUT and a 16:9 DVD master for the SE.  For the release we're talking about, you say they shouldn't scale the existing 4:3 master (fallacy 1: strawman--nobody's suggested that they do this).  Of course, they could have created an entirely new master for the OOT. (misinformed 1: this happens all the time, especially for popular titles; misinformed 2: those were not 4k scans for chrissake! This is Lucasfilm, not Sony!)

Assigning the fault to a DVD because it doesn't work ideally on a TV it wasn't designed for, is absurd. It is not the DVD's fault, it is not the DVD player's fault, and it is not the TV's fault. The fault obviously lies with the person who is trying to fit a square peg into a round hole, so to speak.

Fallacy 2: thinking that the person trying to fit a square peg into a round hole is someone other than the person releasing an anamorphic DVD in 2006.

Similar things happen when people connect old video game consoles to 16:9 digital TVs, and it is equally absurd to blame the video game console for the results being less than ideal.

Fallacy 3: false equivalence. A video game console released in 2006 that had troubles with HDTVs would and should be pilloried (this would be equivalent to the GOUT). Video game consoles released around the turn of the millennium or earlier would and should be given a pass (this is what you're talking about, and it's unlike the GOUT).

Yeah, I'm gonna retch now. Harmy was right, just let it go. Darwin will take care of this for us eventually.

Project Threepio (Star Wars OOT subtitles)

Author
Time

Harmy said:

now I've compared the sabres there with a scan of an I.B. Print and the glows are definitely not the originals, which were much more diffused but the cores actually look very close

What do the originals look like? I always remembered the video tapes being the fat cores of the lightsabers. 

Author
Time
 (Edited)

MaximRecoil said:

Most of what you've typed here is a non sequitur. For example, that you were "clearly joking around" is not in dispute, and is irrelevant. Also, I'm not "fired up" about anything; this is a run-of-the-mill argument. Third: you've confused arguing with persuasive writing. I have no interest in the latter.

This isn't enough. You need to breakdown my post Point. By. Point.non sequiturs included—if you want to earn an A by the end of the semester.

I want a full paper submitted by no later than Monday.

Also, please don't forget to include a discussion on... well... the point of my post. I think you're certainly smart enough to find the STFU hiding somewhere in my litany of non sequitur sentences.

A picture is worth a thousand words. Post 102 is worth more.

I’m late to the party, but I think this is the best song. Enjoy!

—Teams Jetrell Fo 1, Jetrell Fo 2, and Jetrell Fo 3

Author
Time

AntcuFaalb said:

I think you're certainly smart enough to find the STFU hiding somewhere in my litany of non sequitur sentences.

When times get hard, I always think a Haiku contest lightens things up a bit.

Stubborn ignorance
Typing garbled messages
Finally giving
Up

Damn, I got an unnecessary linefeed in that third line. I've been hanging around with -1 too much. Sorry, that's supposed to be three lines.

Project Threepio (Star Wars OOT subtitles)

Author
Time

MaximRecoil said:

4:3 DVDs from D1 masters were common in the '90s and early '00s, and they looked about the same as the GOUT.

You are aware that the GOUT only came packaged with the 2004SE in 16:9 aren't you? Does that not strike you as odd?

VIZ TOP TIPS! - PARENTS. Impress your children by showing them a floppy disk and telling them it’s a 3D model of a save icon.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

MaximRecoil said:

Yes, there is a reason, and it has already been pointed out. In short, the masters they used were essentially glorified 4:3 DVDs to begin with. To go from a 4:3 DVD source to a 16:9 DVD, you have to upscale the vertical resolution of the picture area. Upscaling the master when authoring a DVD isn't normally done by professionals unless they absolutely have to.

I have a question for you for whomever might know...

While I understand (now) that the LD master was letterboxed, presumably that master was made from some earlier scan.  I'd also imagine that that scan was better resolution than letterboxed 4:3.  Are we to presume that the scan from which that LD master was made no longer exists?  Would it be customary for a studio to make an LD master from a scan, and then discard the scan?

An answer of "yes" would support your description that upscaling would be necessary to produce an anamorphic DVD.  It would also surprise me, but I don't really know what constituted normal practices at that time.

An answer of "no" would support that this really was an intentional f-u to fans.  Because it's hard to imagine that it would be so hard to generate a higher-res, standard anamorphic master if the scan was still available.  I did essentially the same thing to make Puggo Grande and I was using a 1999 workstation.

"Close the blast doors!"
Puggo’s website | Rescuing Star Wars

Author
Time
 (Edited)

CatBus said:

Stubborn ignorance
Typing garbled messages
Finally giving
Up

oh no he didn't

it's on now, melonfarmer

you gonna take that?

Dboman said:

I don't care about spelling! I just want to find a mirror!

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Ryan McAvoy said:

MaximRecoil said:

4:3 DVDs from D1 masters were common in the '90s and early '00s, and they looked about the same as the GOUT.

You are aware that the GOUT only came packaged with the 2004SE in 16:9 aren't you? Does that not strike you as odd?

 Actually there was a release with the 04 in 4:3 FS and the OUT in non-anamporphic WS. They're the ones I have, I got them from someone who didn't know the difference between full and wide screen...

Dboman said:

I don't care about spelling! I just want to find a mirror!

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:

While I understand (now) that the LD master was letterboxed, presumably that master was made from some earlier scan.  I'd also imagine that that scan was better resolution than letterboxed 4:3.

I'm pretty sure a fairly direct film->...->D-1 pipeline was used. The storage costs for a digital scan of a film at >NTSC resolution would have been massive in '92/93 and it still would have been on tape.

A picture is worth a thousand words. Post 102 is worth more.

I’m late to the party, but I think this is the best song. Enjoy!

—Teams Jetrell Fo 1, Jetrell Fo 2, and Jetrell Fo 3

Author
Time

WedgeCyan said:

Ryan McAvoy said:

MaximRecoil said:

4:3 DVDs from D1 masters were common in the '90s and early '00s, and they looked about the same as the GOUT.

You are aware that the GOUT only came packaged with the 2004SE in 16:9 aren't you? Does that not strike you as odd?

 Actually there was a release with the 04 in 4:3 FS and the OUT in non-anamporphic WS. They're the ones I have, I got them from someone who didn't know the difference between full and wide screen...

Oh yes I forgot about those "Oops". Even stranger though that George should make a version of the SE especially for people to watch on 4:3 TVs but still include the GOUT in widescreen inside a 4:3 frame. Almost as if he wanted the GOUT to look terrible on both types of TVs... naaaah LOL.

VIZ TOP TIPS! - PARENTS. Impress your children by showing them a floppy disk and telling them it’s a 3D model of a save icon.

Author
Time

Ryan McAvoy said:

Almost as if he wanted the GOUT to look terrible on both types of TVs... naaaah LOL.

I think you mean "unwatchable". :-D

A picture is worth a thousand words. Post 102 is worth more.

I’m late to the party, but I think this is the best song. Enjoy!

—Teams Jetrell Fo 1, Jetrell Fo 2, and Jetrell Fo 3

Author
Time

AntcuFaalb said:

I think you mean "unwatchable". :-D

 It looks... not watchable... but "viewable within reason" on a really big 4:3 CRT. Still highly disappointing.   

Dboman said:

I don't care about spelling! I just want to find a mirror!

Author
Time

CatBus said:

A call has been made to point out the logical fallacies and misinformed parts of your post, the ones that made Harmy too nauseous to respond to.  Much as I think no actual person on earth could be so unaware of the world in which they live, I'm going to respond one more time as if you were not just trolling us.

Consider this baseless and irrelevant editorial of yours dismissed.

So here's your first few.  Lucasfilm was sitting on some masters--a 4:3 Laserdisc master for the GOUT and a 16:9 DVD master for the 1997 SE.  For the release we're talking about, you say they shouldn't scale the existing 4:3 master

I never said any such thing. I said that it isn't usually done. Practically all DVDs which were made from D1 masters were 4:3 (feel free to list some exceptions if you know of any).

(fallacy 1: strawman--nobody's suggested that they do this). 

First: your fallacy claim is based on a false premise (see above), which inherently negates the claim. Second, at least one person has suggested that they should have done this (see post 1118).

Of course, they could have created an entirely new master for the OOT.

Irrelevant, given that I never said they couldn't have. In fact, in post 1079 I said:

"I know, which is why I said it wasn't nearly as good as it could've been (i.e., it could have been an anamorphic 16:9 transfer from a new 4K film scan, had they invested the time and money)."

(misinformed 1: this happens all the time, especially for popular titles;

Negated by your false premise. See above.

misinformed 2: those were not 4k scans for chrissake! This is Lucasfilm, not Sony!)

I said: "probably 4K scans" (does the bolding help)?

Fallacy 2: thinking that the person trying to fit a square peg into a round hole is someone other than the person releasing an anamorphic DVD in 2006.

A 4:3 DVD released at any time, whether in the 1990s or 50 years from now, is designed for a 4:3 TV, period. It is up to the consumer to decide whether they want it, and whether they want an ideal display for it. It was not advertised as being designed for 16:9 TVs, which negates your bizarre "theory".

Fallacy 3: false equivalence. A video game console released in 2006 that had troubles with HDTVs would and should be pilloried (this would be equivalent to the GOUT). Video game consoles released around the turn of the millennium or earlier would and should be given a pass (this is what you're talking about, and it's unlike the GOUT).

No, there is no "false equivalence", given that the analogy focuses on where the fault logically lies. It has nothing to do with people's disappointment. Anything can be released at any time, and it is always the responsibility of the consumer to know the specifications and decide whether he wants it or not. As long as the manufacturer doesn't misrepresent the product, then logically no fault can be placed on them for any problems or dissatisfaction the consumer has trying to make it work with hardware for which it wasn't designed.

By the way, new hardware based on the Atari 7800 and ColecoVision has been released, or is in the process of being released, and no, it doesn't output an HDTV signal, obviously. For someone to buy it, and then blame the hardware for not looking good on their HDTV would be absurd (and illogical).

Author
Time

I'm starting to feel a familiar vaderisnothayden vibe ...

Author
Time

TV's Frink said:

I'm starting to feel a familiar vaderisnothayden vibe ...

 Naw, can't be, two accounts is a bannable offense.

Project Threepio (Star Wars OOT subtitles)

Author
Time

Short Round said:

Harmy said:

now I've compared the sabres there with a scan of an I.B. Print and the glows are definitely not the originals, which were much more diffused but the cores actually look very close

What do the originals look like? I always remembered the video tapes being the fat cores of the lightsabers. 

 Yeah, in the I.B. scan, the thickness of the cores is pretty much the same as in that RMV video but the glow is far far more diffused - there is no clear edge to the glows - at least in the shot I was comparing.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Harmy said:

Short Round said:

Harmy said:

now I've compared the sabres there with a scan of an I.B. Print and the glows are definitely not the originals, which were much more diffused but the cores actually look very close

What do the originals look like? I always remembered the video tapes being the fat cores of the lightsabers. 

 Yeah, in the I.B. scan, the thickness of the cores is pretty much the same as in that RMV video but the glow is far far more diffused - there is no clear edge to the glows - at least in the shot I was comparing.

Sorry to keep dredging up the tired discussion about lightsabers (even though it's now probably less tired than whatever the hell is being "argued" about now) but I wasn't aware of that. Could this mean that it's a re-composite of the original elements, like what the SE was originally supposed to be, or a new effect entirely?

Author
Time

I'm not sure what you mean. The 2004 SE lightsabers in the Vader Ben duel are recomposited original elements (at least for the most part) and the RMV video seems to be exactly the same way, just with much better colors.

Author
Time

Harmy said:

I'm not sure what you mean. The 2004 SE lightsabers in the Vader Ben duel are recomposited original elements (at least for the most part) and the RMV video seems to be exactly the same way, just with much better colors.

 Oh, OK. I was always under the impression that the lightsabers in the 2004 DVD were just some kind of digital addition, like the extended cell corridor. If Disney were to restore the "unaltered" films, would they likely recomposite the original elements, like what was original plan for the SE?

Author
Time

I believe that this has been discussed to death somewhere in this thread too.

If they did recomposite the effects, it would no longer be the original version - how much it would bother individual people is a different question but it would irrefutably no longer be the original version.

Author
Time

Harmy said:

I believe that this has been discussed to death somewhere in this thread too.

If they did recomposite the effects, it would no longer be the original version - how much it would bother individual people is a different question but it would irrefutably no longer be the original version.

 That's why I put the word, "unaltered", in quotes. I was just asking if that was a likelihood