Sign In

1992 Full Screen versions are the best way to watch Star Wars

Author
Time
 (Edited)

I just watched these versions.

This is going to be controversial, but I think that you best get the feeling of the original movies by watching the pre-1993 movies.  They were lifted directly off of finished prints, so the colors are right and there is grain where it should be.  The sound and music and effects aren't mixed any differently unlike 1993.  The picture is really, really sharp because the whole movie didn't undergo a smearing process (like 1993 versions).

I said pan-and-scan (obviously widescreen would be ideal) because the resolution of VHS/LD isn't great and you can actually watch the actor's performances and see this beautiful lighting and color up close. 

The biggest difference I noticed besides the sound (which is actually mixed quite a bit different) is that there is a lot of contrast in the picture.  There are shadows and areas of hard light.  This "hard light", hard contrast look typical of movies back then was washed out of all of the newer versions, which look sanitized and wishy-washy.

To be fair, they do this with most remasterings of old movies too.  But I love the sharp, high contrast, hard light look.  And if you look at screenshots from theatrical prints of the originals, they will show you the same thing. 

I don't know- I just got the feeling that I was watching the actual movie as it was, far stronger with these editions.

I wish that I could just wish my feelings away...but I can't.  Wishful wishing can only lead to wishes wished for in futile wishfulness, which is not what I wish to wish for. 

Author
Time

You would crap your pants if you watched what Harmy's done.

"The other versions will disappear. Even the 35 million tapes of Star Wars out there won’t last more than 30 or 40 years. A hundred years from now, the only version of the movie that anyone will remember will be the DVD version [of the Special Edition], and you’ll be able to project it on a 20’ by 40’ screen with perfect quality. I think it’s the director’s prerogative, not the studio’s to go back and reinvent a movie." - George Lucas

<span> </span>

Author
Time

1990osu said:

I just watched these versions.

This is going to be controversial, but I think that you best get the feeling of the original movies by watching the pre-1993 movies.  They were lifted directly off of finished prints, so the colors are right and there is grain where it should be.  The sound and music and effects aren't mixed any differently unlike 1993.  The picture is really, really sharp because the whole movie didn't undergo a smearing process (like 1993 versions).

I said pan-and-scan (obviously widescreen would be ideal) because the resolution of VHS/LD isn't great and you can actually watch the actor's performances and see this beautiful lighting and color up close. 

The biggest difference I noticed besides the sound (which is actually mixed quite a bit different) is that there is a lot of contrast in the picture.  There are shadows and areas of hard light.  This "hard light", hard contrast look typical of movies back then was washed out of all of the newer versions, which look sanitized and wishy-washy.

To be fair, they do this with most remasterings of old movies too.  But I love the sharp, high contrast, hard light look.  And if you look at screenshots from theatrical prints of the originals, they will show you the same thing. 

I don't know- I just got the feeling that I was watching the actual movie as it was, far stronger with these editions.

Interesting.  But then you still have to deal with Star Wars having the 1981 opening crawl, to be fair.  I wouldn't mind watching these versions.  Are there bootlegs with them on DVD/Blu Ray out somewhere? 

-Someone, someday, needs to bring back the LIGHT SIDE to Star Wars.  Has anyone else noticed striking similarites between the character of Anakin/Vader and George Lucas, or is it just me? 

-It's called STAR WARS. NOT "Episode IV: A New Hope". Kids, get this straight.  

-Please read the Archie Goodwin daily SW comics: Too good to be forgotten! 

Author
Time

retardedteds '82 rental VHS is excellent for a fullscreen version, the technidisc preservation is the best letterboxed preservation IMHO

"Changing classic movies at all is just wrong." Puggo

"HA, Ha, you r ghey" was probably a hilariously insulting comment in Elementary and Middle School, but its not cooly insulting anymore and its certainly not funny: it makes people who say it look like, well, an "inbred monkey." TheSessler

"I'm still %20 the wiser. It amused me that after doing a google image search for "The Final Milf" the second picture is Roger Delgado followed by lots and lots of porn." Bingowings

Author
Time
 (Edited)

1990osu said:

I just watched these versions.

This is going to be controversial, but I think that you best get the feeling of the original movies by watching the pre-1993 movies.  They were lifted directly off of finished prints, so the colors are right and there is grain where it should be.  The sound and music and effects aren't mixed any differently unlike 1993.  The picture is really, really sharp because the whole movie didn't undergo a smearing process (like 1993 versions).

I said pan-and-scan (obviously widescreen would be ideal) because the resolution of VHS/LD isn't great and you can actually watch the actor's performances and see this beautiful lighting and color up close. 

The biggest difference I noticed besides the sound (which is actually mixed quite a bit different) is that there is a lot of contrast in the picture.  There are shadows and areas of hard light.  This "hard light", hard contrast look typical of movies back then was washed out of all of the newer versions, which look sanitized and wishy-washy.

To be fair, they do this with most remasterings of old movies too.  But I love the sharp, high contrast, hard light look.  And if you look at screenshots from theatrical prints of the originals, they will show you the same thing. 

I don't know- I just got the feeling that I was watching the actual movie as it was, far stronger with these editions.

 

Excellent post---- and I understand 100%  where you are coming from.

I actually get off watching the 1982 VHS original 1st release----it probably does not match the 1991/92 version for contrast ratio and colour balance(I do have the widescreen 1991/92 tapes----but so much image information is lost due to the presense of the black bars)

But all the imperfections------dirt,scratches,sprocket tears,bobbles,gate hairs(all part of the theatrical experience) of a release print   are captured in these pre-THX VHS/laserdisc transfers.

Such a shame that  VHS could not capture the dynamic range and latitude of film------ having said that ----- the quality of release prints would vary depending on the caliber of theater you saw the film in-----and also at what point you saw it:

 

The 1982 reissue had a trailer for the next film, which was initially titled Revenge of the Jedi. Now that was cool. I still remember the 18 frame segment of the never- used sandstorm scene. I saw this at the Bellevue Theater, in Upper Montclair. I also saw it at the old Jerry Lewis Cinema in Union. It was here that I noted that the print was pink. I couldn't believe a film of this recent vintage had already started to fade. This gave me my first hint at just how bad DeLuxe labs were. By the way, the Bellevue has been cut into a multi screen and the Jerry Lewis Cinema has been wiped off the face of the earth. Is there no respect left for the movie palaces of our youth?

http://www.cinemaretro.com/index.php?/archives/83-Star-Wars-at-30-Years-Old-A-Lifes-Journey.html.

 

 

The worst was Deluxe Color. They turn pink the quickest. I ran a three year old Deluxe print of "Star Wars" in 1980. There was very little color other than pink.

ttp://cinematreasures.org/polls/167_0_6_0_C/

 

 

 

I saw Star Wars in 1977. Many, many, many times. For 3 years it was just Star Wars...period. I saw it in good theaters, cheap theaters and drive-ins with those clunky metal speakers you hang on your window. The screen and sound quality never subtracted from the excitement. I can watch the original cut right now, over 30 years later, on some beat up VHS tape and enjoy it. It's the story that makes this movie. Nothing? else.

kurtb8474 1 week ago

http://www.youtube.com/all_comments?v=SkAZxd-5Hp8


Author
Time

danny_boy said:

I actually get off watching the 1982 VHS original 1st release----it probably does not match the 1991/92 version for contrast ratio and colour balance(I do have the widescreen 1991/92 tapes----but so much image information is lost due to the presense of the black bars)

Whaaaa?  The "black bars" are there to keep you from losing image information...

There is no lingerie in space…

C3PX said: Gaffer is like that hot girl in high school that you think you have a chance with even though she is way out of your league because she is sweet and not a stuck up bitch who pretends you don’t exist… then one day you spot her making out with some skinny twerp, only on second glance you realize it is the goth girl who always sits in the back of class; at that moment it dawns on you why she is never seen hanging off the arm of any of the jocks… and you realize, damn, she really is unobtainable after all. Not that that is going to stop you from dreaming… Only in this case, Gaffer is actually a guy.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Gaffer Tape said:

Whaaaa?  The "black bars" are there to keep you from losing image information...

He means image *resolution*. He's right - as we know with the GOUT, a lot of vertical resolution and image detail is lost in 4:3 letterbox. I loathe pan and scan, but even I can admit this shortcoming.

In fact, I calculated it, and only with the advent of HD does letterboxed 2.35:1 finally surpass the vertical resolution of pan-and-scan 480i.

Even though these versions are butchered, they still need to be preserved for the sake of posterity. The P&S transfers, and specifically the PAL versions, probably have the most detailed starfields of any version (though Harmy has gotten an impressive amount of starfield detail out of the crushed Blu-ray transfers).

And finally, someone who notices that modern Blu-ray transfers often lose that hard-light/high-contrast look of 70s/80s film. (Though the old P&S transfers of the SW trilogy also have an overly bright, flat-contrast look at times...but of a different kind than modern Blu-ray transfers.)

Author
Time

The "pan and scan has more resolution in the square box than the letterbox has in that same square box" defense is sometimes true. I said this of the DVDs- that the P&S versions had ~3 times the number of pixels for the space... except someone who knew told me that the P&S version was a blow-up of the Widescreen, so that extra resolution was all garbage anyways.

Oh, and if we could only get these '92 P&S VHS versions, I would like to upscale them to BD and make them 3D. Who wants to help me?!?!

IT'S MY TRILOGY, AND I WANT IT NOW!

"[George Lucas] rebooted the franchise in 1997 without telling anyone." -skyjedi2005

"Yeah, well, George says a lot of things..." a young 1997 xhonzi on RASSM

"They're my movies." -George Lucas. 19 people won oscars for their work on Star Wars (1977) and George Lucas wasn't one of them.

Rewrite the Prequels!

 

Author
Time

xhonzi said:

Oh, and if we could only get these '92 P&S VHS versions, I would like to upscale them to BD and make them 3D. Who wants to help me?!?!

 ...wait a minute, where have I heard that line before??

This signature uses Markdown syntax, which makes it easy to add formatting like italics, bold, and lists:

Author
Time
 (Edited)

xhonzi said:

The "pan and scan has more resolution in the square box than the letterbox has in that same square box" defense is sometimes true. I said this of the DVDs- that the P&S versions had ~3 times the number of pixels for the space... except someone who knew told me that the P&S version was a blow-up of the Widescreen, so that extra resolution was all garbage anyways.

In the case of the DVDs, this is partially right, I believe both were sourced from the same HD master. But back in the old days, P&S transfers and widescreen transfers were done separately, at native NTSC or PAL resolution.

And BTW, I'm not defending P&S, I hate it as much as you do. It's just an unfortunate truth that until the late 90s, the image detail of widescreen transfers was restricted by the fixed resolution.

That said, I repeat that I loathe P&S with every fiber of my being, and I still prefer to watch widescreen, no matter how low the resolution. I just think the P&S laserdiscs (not VHS tapes) should be digitized for posterity.

Author
Time

xhonzi said:

Oh, and if we could only get these '92 P&S VHS versions, I would like to upscale them to BD and make them 3D. Who wants to help me?!?!

Kickstarter!

Author
Time

Oh, man... I wonder how much money we could raise...

IT'S MY TRILOGY, AND I WANT IT NOW!

"[George Lucas] rebooted the franchise in 1997 without telling anyone." -skyjedi2005

"Yeah, well, George says a lot of things..." a young 1997 xhonzi on RASSM

"They're my movies." -George Lucas. 19 people won oscars for their work on Star Wars (1977) and George Lucas wasn't one of them.

Rewrite the Prequels!

 

Author
Time

TV's Frink said:

Kickstarter!

What do I get if I pledge to donate $1000?

This signature uses Markdown syntax, which makes it easy to add formatting like italics, bold, and lists: