4K restoration on Star Wars — Page 50

adywan said:

his now defunked 4:3 portable TV

 I enjoy this typo quite a bit.

CatBus said:

TV's Frink said:

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

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

 Only if you're caught.

*dramatic chipmunk*

timdiggerm said:

Accusing newcomers of being past banned members is a favorite around here.

 First off, VINH isn't banned, he just disappeared.  And second...

Username: MaximRecoil
Join Date: June 2, 2005

A vibe can just mean someone has the same...let's just say "habits."

TV's Frink said:

This Thread Is The Best - Official

 I apologize to everyone for my earlier mistake.

This Thread Is The Best - Official

Sorry for exposing the facts.  It's unfortunate, but no one gets to redefine the facts. ;-)

http://youtu.be/ZWhQQ4jZXJg

the humanity

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.

 So I'd much rather talk about this than whatever the hell Maxim Recoil is on about, even if it has been done to death. So in the OUT (at least in the GOUT and 95 tapes), Ben's lightsaber's rotoscoping seems to "fizzle out". This was fixed in the 2004 SE (as in this picture: https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/--PxX2nzQ2rM/TIkhT1Yj8XI/AAAAAAAAcjM/GInu6VOLyNE/w1045-h899-no/Comp-096.jpg). Was this a part of the original element and/or in the IB print you saw?Or was it recreated digitally?

adywan said:

4:3 TV's stopped being sold here in the UK much earlier than 2006, in fact CRT TV's weren't on sale AT ALL in 2006, only LCD and Plasma 16:9 TV's. You could find them online, just about, but in the main stores, no CRT's to be found. How do i know this, In 2005 my Dad wanted to replace his now defunked 4:3 portable TV, which had a built in VHS player. We went all around the shops and nothing. So he got a 16:9 20" LCD TV with built in DVD player instead. But even then, most people i knew who HADN'T upgraded to a LCD/ Plasma still had 16:9 CRT TV's, not 4:3

I bought a new 32" CRT TV in 2006 at Wal-Mart.

the GOUT was horrendous quality coming from a studio that had access to prints/ negatives. How difficult would it have been to make a scan off one of the prints for these bonus discs? Even without a clean up they would have looked miles better than crappy laserdisc transfers.

I would much rather have a good DVD sourced from a scan of a 35mm film print than the GOUT, especially if it wasn't cleaned up. I love film grain and dust and scratches (as long as they aren't excessive). But what's available vs. what I'd rather have is irrelevant to the argument. Also, the GOUT isn't a LaserDisc transfer.

These were actually LESS quality than the preservations fans were doing at the time. Forget the slight improvement in sharpness of the picture, the digital smearing and the terrible aliasing problems made that release an joke.

I guess you don't know that nearly all of the most popular and well-regarded fan preservations were transfers from the 1993 and/or 1995 LaserDiscs, which were made from the same masters that the GOUT was made from. This means they had the same "digital smearing and terrible aliasing problems" that the GOUT has, because those were present in the 1993 D1 masters. The claim that the GOUT was of less quality is false by any objective/technical standard, given that they are from the same source and the fan preservations have a lot more loss relative to the source:

GOUT = 1993 D1 master --> DVD-9

Most fan preservations = 1993 D1 master --> LaserDisc --> DVD-5

CatBus said:

Well, Frink kinda sucked the magic out of the thread.  Now we know that the dude just likes CRTs.  Not the way I like CRTs (yeah, I'm one of those), but in an obsessive religious zealot sort of way.  All the mystery is gone.  The motivation behind bizarre statements about "there is only one true display on which you can watch the GOUT and all others are false displays", it's all sorted out.

Thanks Frink. Jerk.

 Yes, "TV's Frink" made great use of his Junior Detective Kit™ (and his non sequiturs and laughably wild insinuations are fantastic, by the way), but anyone who has read at least the last several pages of this thread already knew what "TV's Frink" "discovered". For example, from post 1081:

MaximRecoil said:

They'll get my CRT when they pry it from my cold, dead hands. I'll take the visual qualities of a CRT over any digital display currently on the market, any day, even if the CRT is lower resolution and a smaller screen.

There are only two display technologies that look right to me: CRT (direct-view, and especially rear projection; Barco 909 and Sony G90 being the ultimate examples) and projected film. It sucks that SED displays (the same visual qualities as a direct-view CRT)  never happened.

And post 1087:

MaximRecoil said:

The best CRT displays ever made still set the standard for overall picture quality. But regardless of that, I simply hate the look of digital displays; I feel like I'm looking at a glorified calculator or digital watch.

Please stop. I came here to talk about a possible 4K transfer and you have successfully perverted the thread into an entirely new tangent. Is it too hard to agree to disagree? What's with all this lawyer talk, anyway?

I don't get why anyone cares! I mean, ok we get it, if you have an outdated tv the GOUT will look fine, we get it!

Wazzles said:

Please stop. I came here to talk about a possible 4K transfer and you have successfully perverted the thread into an entirely new tangent. Is it too hard to agree to disagree? What's with all this lawyer talk, anyway?

You're confused. Every one of my posts on this thread has been in direct reply to someone else's post, and has been relevant to said post. So, to clear up your confusion: everyone who has been arguing about the GOUT (including the people who can only manage to comment on the argument from the peanut gallery) has "successfully perverted the thread into an entirely new tangent" (I haven't been arguing with myself, obviously). Do you want a list of usernames, or do you think you can just scroll up and find them yourself?

MaximRecoil said:

Wazzles said:

Please stop. I came here to talk about a possible 4K transfer and you have successfully perverted the thread into an entirely new tangent. Is it too hard to agree to disagree? What's with all this lawyer talk, anyway?

You're confused. Every one of my posts on this thread has been in direct reply to someone else's post, and has been relevant to said post. So, to clear up your confusion: everyone who has been arguing about the GOUT (including the people who can only manage to comment on the argument from the peanut gallery) has "successfully perverted the thread into an entirely new tangent" (I haven't been arguing with myself, obviously). Do you want a list of usernames, or do you think you can just scroll up and find them yourself?

 Why do you do this?  What do you get out of trying to one up people on the internet? And because you like to analyze every single goddamn word anyone posts, by "trying" I do not necessarily mean "unsuccessfully". Besides, when someone says that the GOUT is completely "unwatchable" or "horrendous", they are simply stating their opinion, or their own point of view. To them, they may find them as just those things. There is really no point in changing their opinion. And no, I'm not confused, because you are the one who is arguing against absolutely anything anyone says that is in no way related to the topic at hand. You are also the one who sent the thread into this tangent, as your very first post on the subject is the one that derailed the thread.

The quality wasn't horrendous, it just wasn't nearly as good as it could have been. The old homespun LaserDisc transfers ("TR47", etc.) used to get nearly universal praise on this forum, even into 2006 just before the GOUT was released. In fact, people here were still gushing about the recently-released (at the time) Cowclops/TR47 v.2, right as the GOUT was being announced. The GOUT blows all of those LaserDisc transfers out of the water, at least in terms of video quality (its 192 kbps AC-3 audio is nothing to write home about though).

The GOUT was the ultimate "LaserDisc transfer" (so to speak), given that it skipped the LaserDisc and went straight to the masters that were the source of the most commonly transferred LaserDiscs ('93 Definitive and '95 Faces).

I loved the original "TR47" when I first discovered it in '05. However, I played it side by side with the GOUT the other day on my PC and it was horrible in comparison. Not only is the TR47 less detailed/clear, but the brightness and borders of the letterboxing constantly and rapidly flicker in it as well.

If the GOUT had been released by an OT.com forum member in 2006 instead of by Lucasfilm, it would have set this place on fire, and said forum member would have been an instant OT.com "celebrity".

 This was in response to MFM saying:

Regardless of how horrendous the quality was, he still gave people an opportunity to see the unaltered versions; as long as they don't replace the Special Editions then he won't care.

I honestly just want this thread to get back on topic. Is this a problem with you?

PS Sorry for the weird quoting and highlighting, I can't seem to make it go away properly.

moviefreakedmind said:

Wazzles said:

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.

 So I'd much rather talk about this than whatever the hell Maxim Recoil is on about, even if it has been done to death. So in the OUT (at least in the GOUT and 95 tapes), Ben's lightsaber's rotoscoping seems to "fizzle out". This was fixed in the 2004 SE (as in this picture: https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/--PxX2nzQ2rM/TIkhT1Yj8XI/AAAAAAAAcjM/GInu6VOLyNE/w1045-h899-no/Comp-096.jpg). Was this a part of the original element and/or in the IB print you saw?Or was it recreated digitally?

What I'm expecting is the OUT but with original effects re-composited identical to the originals (or at maybe only in some cases), like the original SE plan. I know that this wouldn't be the true original versions and am not trying to argue otherwise, but this is just what I think we can expect, and if the lightsabers are recompositions of the original elements then that would make sense. This would be a 4K remaster of the O"U"T, but without any of the changes/additions in the SE's. I could picture that being what this 4K release is

 Could the look just be a result of their cleanup techniques? If that were the case, then it would still be possible that this is an OUT work.

Wazzles said:

 This was in response to MFM saying:

Regardless of how horrendous the quality was, he still gave people an opportunity to see the unaltered versions; as long as they don't replace the Special Editions then he won't care.

I honestly just want this thread to get back on topic. Is this a problem with you?

 

PS Sorry for the weird quoting and highlighting, I can't seem to make it go away properly.

Paste it into notepad first - it'll remove any formatting - and then paste that into your post. Simple, but it works.