STAR WARS - Special Widescreen Edition (Technidisc) (Released) — Page 13

msycamore said:

With all my talk of incorrect aspect ratio... when I did the correction on the Technidisc I noticed that it almost perfectly match the 2004 DVD for the most part when I resize that transfer to 704x480, I also noticed that the GOUT-print is pretty badly warped, the distortion is worst in the left part of the frame, anyway what's interesting is that I also discovered that the lightsaber shot in Ben's hut in the GOUT transfer is vertically stretched or horizontally squished, it seems to me that they spliced in that part from a different source, probably because of the "split-saber syndrome" in the '93 transfer we talked about earlier in the thread.

Can someone please post this frame:

from the '95 "Faces" transfer, I'm just curious to know if the GOUT source actually match the "Faces" release rather than DC.

done:

I hope a wee bit of "herringbone" doesn't stop you?

I really like how your first version looks, so I'm still looking forward to your upgraded version. :)

dave88 said:

I really like how your first version looks, so I'm still looking forward to your upgraded version. :)

 same here!

-G

This clip of your redone technidisc looks good. More naturalistic with less popping colours than the original. These old formats always seem dark to me when they are on computer screens as compared to how bright they come out on televisions, so for me I would always go for boosting the brightness in a media player when playing back on computer something like this:

 http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/73265

Although this extreme wouldn't be accurate

Crispy!

May the 4th be with you :)

Fook yeah! This is great, msycamore!

-G

I keep checking in, just in case :)

N/A

I might be buying a mint condition copy of the Widescreen Edition of Star Wars on LaserDisc from a gentleman who lives near me, he is slowly selling his LaserDisc Collection, and I am not sure on which version he is selling. He sent me a photo and it is the edition from 1992 with the 20th Century Fox Logo on the bottom of the cover. But I don’t know if the actual LaserDiscs themselves are the Technidisc Pressings from 1993.

Thanks for the info.

The seller sent me some pictures of the actual discs themselves and the mint marks confirm that it is the Mitsubishi Pressing from 1992. I am aware that the Technidisc Pressing from 1993 suffers from Crosstalk whereas the Mitsubishi Pressing doesn’t.

Is it still worth grabbing the Mitsubishi Pressing from 1992? The condition of the copy I may buy is like new!

How bad is the Crosstalk on the Technidisc Pressing of Star Wars?

The seller also told me that he has a copy of the Widescreen Edition of Return of the Jedi, he sent me some photos of it and the condition is also like new. Maybe I should grab both?

If I do grab both titles I’ll keep looking for the Technidisc Pressing of Star Wars.

As of right now I don’t plan on tracking down the Definitive Collection or the THX (Faces) Editions because it seems redundant. I already own the 2-Disc DVD Editions of The Star Wars Trilogy from September of 2006 and the Letterboxed DVDs of the Original Versions included in those sets were sourced from the same Video Masters used for those specific LaserDisc Editions.

I also own the LaserDisc Set of the 1997 Special Edition Versions.

riddler95 said:

As of right now I don’t plan on tracking down the Definitive Collection or the THX (Faces) Editions because it seems redundant. I already own the 2-Disc DVD Editions of The Star Wars Trilogy from September of 2006 and the Letterboxed DVDs of the Original Versions included in those sets were sourced from the same Video Masters used for those specific LaserDisc Editions.

There is merit in having both the DC or Faces and the GOUT. The GOUT has much better video quality, but the LDs have much better audio quality.

Wazzles said:

riddler95 said:

As of right now I don’t plan on tracking down the Definitive Collection or the THX (Faces) Editions because it seems redundant. I already own the 2-Disc DVD Editions of The Star Wars Trilogy from September of 2006 and the Letterboxed DVDs of the Original Versions included in those sets were sourced from the same Video Masters used for those specific LaserDisc Editions.

There is merit in having both the DC or Faces and the GOUT. The GOUT has much better video quality, but the LDs have much better audio quality.

I’ve seen comparisons and yes the 2006 Letterboxed DVDs do look noticeably super to the Definitive Collection and the THX (Faces) Editions. But yes the audio on the LaserDiscs is superior because they use PCM Stereo which is lossless whereas the DVDs uses Dolby 2.0 Surround which is lossy.

Maybe in the near future I’ll change my mind and track down either the Definitive Collection or the THX (Faces) Editions but as of right now I’m okay without them.

Thanks for these couple of topics on the Star Wars SWSE Technidisc LD (1993), on which I was recently coming up to speed. I had been looking around and came across one that didn’t have the mint-marks of either of the 2 same-cover, FOX Video-released laserdiscs, as described at the LaserDisc Database:

LaserDisc Database: Star Wars: A New Hope (FOX) (1977) [1130-85] wrote:

Mint Marks sample

Mitsubishi (1992):
C1130-85 A 03 A20E05213
C1130-85 B 03 B20E05217
C1130-85 C 01 C20E02637
ADD M 69 D40J2175

Technidisc (1993):
#433-083278B 08/21/93K FOX VIDEO “STAR WARS” SIDE A
#433-083279B 08/21/93O FOX VIDEO “STAR WARS” SIDE B
#433-083280B 08/21/93G FOX VIDEO “STAR WARS” SIDE C

Additional Information by svenge (1) 19/10/2011
According to the OriginalTrilogy forums, the Technidisc pressing actually has a different video master that fixes the “Incredible Shrinking Ratio” problem and has less DVNR, albeit with the downside of high cross-talk levels that Technidisc was (in)famous for in their pressings…

Would there be any accounting of mint marks that don’t match these documented ones?

It had the proper disc labels printed Fox Video, Special Wide Screen Edition, and 1130-85. But, for example, disc “side 1” had a mint-mark of B21B13975 (or something close; fuzzy photo) and “side 3” had D30D00816 (sharp photo).

Gut feeling says Mitsubishi because they start with letters (Techidiscs start with numbers), but those numbers are undocumented in our main resource (LDDb).