4K restoration on Star Wars — Page 234

Possessed said:

I don’t quite get how high definition is an alteration but okay. What, do they think the original films were shot on vhs or something? That’s a common misconception that bugs the crap out of me with ignorant people, that hi def is a new thing. Sure it’s new for HOME MEDIA but films have always been made at a high resolution, or whatever the analog term for that would be.

I have never seen this misconception except in the case of Star Wars. It’s baffling that it keeps being repeated.

They did exist for broadcast and industrial use, but ill suited for taping movies off HBO. Not sure about the Pioneer editing system I saw in a trade magazine back in the day, but the other recordable videodisc formats wouldn’t have been compatible with LD.

NeverarGreat said:

Possessed said:

I don’t quite get how high definition is an alteration but okay. What, do they think the original films were shot on vhs or something? That’s a common misconception that bugs the crap out of me with ignorant people, that hi def is a new thing. Sure it’s new for HOME MEDIA but films have always been made at a high resolution, or whatever the analog term for that would be.

I have never seen this misconception except in the case of Star Wars. It’s baffling that it keeps being repeated.

There is a belief that “old” movies aren’t HD or won’t look good in HD. It’s not just Star Wars. Not sure where it comes from. The people citing it specifically about the OT are just grasping for straws at this point.

I think it’s because people hear high definition technology marketed as a new thing and see TV shows shot on tape as the old thing. I’m not sure if people really know how high-quality 35 mm film can be.

Tv shows are still being shot on tape, only now in HD. Some 70’s sitcoms shot on tape look really bad now for some reason, especially Norman Lear productions. Maybe the video masters on those need restoration?

On the flip side the first two seasons of Saturday Night Live look great for their age. I’ve only seen one video glitch so far, and I’m not sure it would even have been visible on a CRT. You can tell NBC didn’t allocate their best cameras to the show early on though. It’s a shame they didn’t remaster the film inserts because the telecine they had at the time was pretty awful. (I could get better results shooting a projector aimed at a blank wall.) Whether that footage still exists is anyone’s guess.

It’s a shame a lot of Universal’s 60’s/70’s tv output shot on 35mm hasn’t been remastered. Some of what I see airing on Cozi TV are from really old broadcast video masters.

SilverWook said:

Tv shows are still being shot on tape, only now in HD.

The medium may still be tape, but I’m pretty sure that tape is digital. I was talking about analog video tape, with all its artifacts.

SilverWook said:

NeverarGreat said:

Possessed said:

I don’t quite get how high definition is an alteration but okay. What, do they think the original films were shot on vhs or something? That’s a common misconception that bugs the crap out of me with ignorant people, that hi def is a new thing. Sure it’s new for HOME MEDIA but films have always been made at a high resolution, or whatever the analog term for that would be.

I have never seen this misconception except in the case of Star Wars. It’s baffling that it keeps being repeated.

Not sure where it comes from.

I know where it comes from: stupidity.

Slavicuss said:

SilverWook said:

Tv shows are still being shot on tape, only now in HD. Some 70’s sitcoms shot on tape look really bad now for some reason, especially Norman Lear productions. Maybe the video masters on those need restoration?

On the flip side the first two seasons of Saturday Night Live look great for their age. I’ve only seen one video glitch so far, and I’m not sure it would even have been visible on a CRT. You can tell NBC didn’t allocate their best cameras to the show early on though. It’s a shame they didn’t remaster the film inserts because the telecine they had at the time was pretty awful. (I could get better results shooting a projector aimed at a blank wall.) Whether that footage still exists is anyone’s guess.

It’s a shame a lot of Universal’s 60’s/70’s tv output shot on 35mm hasn’t been remastered. Some of what I see airing on Cozi TV are from really old broadcast video masters.

I’d like to see KOLCHAK: THE NIGHT STALKER remastered for a Blu-ray release.

Oh yes! And the tv movies.

The general public also doesn’t realize that grain is part of film, so none of this is surprising.

Fang Zei said:

The next time you hear someone say film isn’t hd, remind them that The Shield - a show shot in 16mm - is being remastered in 4k.

That’s interesting, as the guy who did the Manos The Hands of Fate restoration made his case for 2K being more than enough to capture the information held in the original 16mm elements. The Shield was probably shot under better conditions though. 😉

JawsTDS said:

The general public also doesn’t realize that grain is part of film, so none of this is surprising.

Shows how much digital has taken over in the past 17 years. Did people ever complain their 35mm family photos were too grainy?

Well, the general public isn’t likely to possess specialist knowledge.

I agree most people don’t realize that film can look “hd”, though it’s not really their fault, they’re just not aware of it (I wasn’t too until some years ago! 😄 ).
About grain, though, I don’t know anyone who actually dislike it. Maybe they use DNR on movies just because it eases digital compressions and makes special effects blend better with the live-action footage.

yhwx said:

Well, the general public isn’t likely to possess specialist knowledge.

They aren’t likely to possess any knowledge.

Realistically, what’s keeping Disney from releasing the OOT? Costs? Low interest? But I’d argue that, since we know they’re already scanning every negative, even deleted scenes (see Rogue One), they may as well have scanned all of the original trilogy at this point, anyway. And even if they don’t find printing new discs worth the costs, they could release it as a digital download: granted, it’s not the same, but it’s a viable solution that would cost them virtually nothing.
So, I don’t think these are the problems. I think they just don’t want to release it at this point, probably because they want to focus on marketing the new movies.

Mocata said:

Digital = new = better. DNR and motion smoothing cater to that mindset. While on the other side of the coin you have those who don’t even understand what Blu-ray means. So if anyone’s expecting the people that made the last few Star Wars home releases top sellers to care about the theatrical cuts being released, they’re probably kidding themselves.

DNR and motion smoothing was mostly a problem with older blu-rays, and not quite so much anymore.

EDIT: Looks like Fang beat me to it.