Sign In

4K restoration on Star Wars — Page 55

Author
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

Perhaps, because at that point they had made the jump to digital.

The D-1 tapes are digital. :o)

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:

moviefreakedmind said:

Perhaps, because at that point they had made the jump to digital.

The D-1 tapes are digital. :o)

 I know. I meant that it may have been their only digital copy, and they refused to "revert" back to film

The Person in Question

Author
Time

Windexed said:

This is the biggest conundrum for me when it comes to the idea of releasing an OUT on blu-ray. Everyone has a different opinion of what it should be ... Basically what I'm saying is there is no consensus, which is a potential problem.

Harmy said:

And to comment on topic - and I said this countless times before - in a case of a semi-special edition, who will decide what's still ok and what isn't - for someone the line could be drawn at matte-lines, to someone else it may be the windows in Cloud City and to yet another person a digital Dewback may be preferable to a stiff rubber figurine.

If a semi-specialized OOT were released, obviously the execs at Disney and LFL would make the calls on any changes, and they would only be interested in providing an optimal viewing experience for the original trilogy, as opposed to all of the ulterior motives Lucas had in the 1990s.

The mere undertaking of such a product, I would argue, would imply the desire to get it right.

Not everyone may get exactly what they want, but if Disney and LFL did it right -- and they would have every reason to do so -- most fans would be pleased with the final product.

 

AntcuFaalb said:

There's no consensus, but there's a very simple solution: scan an IP, grade to a good release print, fix annoying temporal anomalies (e.g., flicker), dirt/scratch clean, encode, and release.

I don't see how anyone can argue against a "this is the original, as it was" release.

I think everyone here wants the 1977, 1980, and 1983 original theatrical releases restored. It makes sense for Disney to do so both for historical purposes, and also from a business point of view. There's a market for it.

But releasing only the (unaltered) OOT probably doesn't maximize the value of the Original Trilogy.

Nor do the current SE's and their backlash, I'm sure we can all agree.

 

AntcuFaalb said:

If some fans want improved SPFX, then they can do it on their own with this kind of release

Most fans, I would argue, don't have the ability nor the time to make their own fan edits.

They just want to buy a packaged BluRay or DVD, pop it in, and watch on TV.

 

yoda-sama said:

The whole problem with this opinion Alderaan is arguing for is that there's no way, if his desired version existed, we'd get a proper untouched OOT.

So certain are you? Always with you what cannot be done.

If you could provide an explanation why a semi-specialized OOT and an unaltered OOT are mutually exclusive, maybe I would better understand your perspective. I see no reason why both can't be done at the same time.

 

yoda-sama said:

If support is being vocally thrown behind one or the other, it should be for the untouched OOT

I suspect this is the reason you are against the idea -- a fear that anything other than the (unaltered) OOT would diminish your chances of getting just that -- but I could be wrong? If that's the case, I'm taking the opposite side of that argument. Yes, it's historically important to restore the original theatrical releases, and there are those of us who would like to see them too, me included. But the largest segment of fandom and the population at large would probably be more interested in watching what camron and Harmy deemed a "Showcase semi-specialized edition".

Which, by the way, brings me to this whole post:

 

camroncamera said:

newly composited original elements (but no CGI embelishments), put together as a "Showcase" version for a modern DCP/Blu-Ray/4K, would be ideal for a wide release of the Classic cuts. Though CatBus makes a perfect point about preserving the film(s) as a product of their time (and where would Disney hypothetically draw the line should they decide to play in the Lucas sandbox?), I believe tidying up the original compositing would eliminate the biggest remaining distraction for modern audiences. Everything about set design, hairstyles, costumes, etc., should remain as it is, because, those are aspects that contemporary audiences *expect* to see, and will not find jarring, in the way that a blurry landspeeder (1970's VFX) or ronto creature (1990's VFX) would on a modern screen. In other words, cheap sets and costumes, by themselves, don't degrade the image quality in the way that photochemically-composited VFX may have (in some cases).

 ^^^This sums up my thoughts better than I could ever say them, thanks camron!

 

darklordoftech said:

All of Disney's alterations are either results of branching or in response to a claim that something is offensive/sexual/copyright-infringing, etc. Never has a non-branching "original version" had updated special effects.

 

Yeah but Star Wars ain't exactly Disney, if you know what I mean.

 

Ryan McAvoy said:

In a similar way, I wouldn't mind a stunning new transfer of the OT that corrected a few flaws Adywan style but stayed true to the original print in spirit. Having the original untouched version as well would of course be preferrable.

 

And finally, this post of yours Ryan brings me to a point I wanted to make last night but never got around to. Part of Star Wars's history was that for a generation, the effects were mind-blowing. Visual deficiencies were barely noticed or overlooked because 99% of what you saw on the screen was incredible. Those deficiencies should all be preserved in an (unaltered) OOT for historical purposes, of course. After all, that technology was a moment in time, and forever changed film-making.

But today and going forward, audiences don't share the same perspective. Most of the original trilogy looks timeless -- the effects and visuals have aged very well. But there are some things that stick out like a sore thumb, and the modern viewer will be distracted by these things more than those who were in awe at theatrical releases. For some, that causes them to lose their suspension of disbelief, which diminishes the story and entertainment value for new viewers. And for others, it's simply nice to have our favorite films look and feel like they are young again.

Author
Time

Alderaan said:

But the largest segment of fandom and the population at large would probably be more interested in watching what camron and Harmy deemed a "Showcase semi-specialized edition".

 You keep saying this but I have yet to see any proof of that. In fact, my personal experience when discussing it with others is the exact opposite.

Help finish ROTJ: Revisited!

Author
Time

Alderaan said:

Most fans, I would argue, don't have the ability nor the time to make their own fan edits.

They just want to buy a packaged BluRay or DVD, pop it in, and watch on TV.

True, but all these fans need is one adywan-esque figure to do their dirty work.

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

Harmy said:

That's some clear, detailed picture you got there, pardner. ;-) 

“Happy Halloween, ladies!”

Author
Time

Harmy said:


And that's only from a print, I imagine an IP or the composite used in the original negative (if still usable) could yield far better results!

That's how the shot is meant to look, it was optically composited multiple times so by the time it reached a 35mm print it was something like a 6th generation copy. They could easily scan the camera negative for that shot (if it exists) and create an artificially grain-free version with all the original detail intact (including the wheels on the speeder!)

__Valeyard.net

Author
Time
 (Edited)

RU.08 said:

Harmy said:


And that's only from a print, I imagine an IP or the composite used in the original negative (if still usable) could yield far better results!

That's how the shot is meant to look, it was optically composited multiple times so by the time it reached a 35mm print it was something like a 6th generation copy. They could easily scan the camera negative for that shot (if it exists) and create an artificially grain-free version with all the original detail intact (including the wheels on the speeder!)

 Has that shot ever been seen or released with the wheels visible before?

Author
Time

unamochilla2 said:

RU.08 said:

Harmy said:


And that's only from a print, I imagine an IP or the composite used in the original negative (if still usable) could yield far better results!

That's how the shot is meant to look, it was optically composited multiple times so by the time it reached a 35mm print it was something like a 6th generation copy. They could easily scan the camera negative for that shot (if it exists) and create an artificially grain-free version with all the original detail intact (including the wheels on the speeder!)

 Has that shot ever been seen or released with the wheels visible before?

No

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

Movie studios are always finding excuses to rescan and remaster. We won't be dealing with those 04 scans for much longer.

If Plagueis shows up in the ST, not only will I refuse to watch the movies, but I won't so much as watch the trailers, either. - DuracellEnergizer

Author
Time

darklordoftech said:

Movie studios are always finding excuses to rescan and remaster. We won't be dealing with those 04 scans for much longer.

Like I said earlier, there are now much newer transfers of Willow and the Indy films than there are of Star Wars. Lowry's 2004 clean-up of the OT and 2003 clean-up of the Indy trilogy were impressive at the time, at least in terms of the clarity it brought out in those films, but LFL/Paramount/Spielberg still realized it wasn't good enough for Indy and I bet Disney realizes it's not good enough for Star Wars.

The Spike tv broadcasts have run their course, and maybe Disney is deciding whether they should start showing the movies on one of their tv channels or put them up on itunes or netflix.

As of now, there will be a 4k blu-ray format available by this time next year.

Author
Time

Harmy said:

And that's only from a print, I imagine an IP or the composite used in the original negative (if still usable) could yield far better results!

 I wouldn't mind the composites being redone... Then I see shots like that and I remember I only need to support one thing. Looks good. Hope Disney confirms something.

By the by, the composite above look loads better than some of the composites from 80s and early 90s Super Sentai (Japanese show Power Rangers gets their footage from). I have the film Blu-Ray set and it's looks wonderful except for the handful of shots that used 80s/early 90s video compositing. Let's just say George Lucas was right to not use non film compositing until the prequels.

Author
Time

Harmy said:

And that's only from a print, I imagine an IP or the composite used in the original negative (if still usable) could yield far better results!

 for all the crap that the 'vaseline blob' gets, that shot actually doesnt look that bad at all and is not nearly as embarrassing as the other junk that was grafted on - like robot at the entrance of mos eisley that smacks down the little floating droid.

click here if lack of OOT got you down

Author
Time

walking_carpet said:

for all the crap that the 'vaseline blob' gets, that shot actually doesnt look that bad at all and is not nearly as embarrassing as the other junk that was grafted on - like robot at the entrance of mos eisley that smacks down the little floating droid.

 And CG Jabba was NOT state of the art for '97

The Person in Question

Author
Time

The funny thing is that I still prefer cartoony-looking '97 Jabba to the '04/'11 version.

Author
Time

So I take it Harmy's large image in the posts above is only refusing to show up for me? That's incredibly odd ...

“Happy Halloween, ladies!”

Author
Time

I can't see it either.

“After a time, you may find that having, is not so pleasing a thing after all, as wanting. It is not logical, but it is often true.” - Spock

Author
Time

DuracellEnergizer said:

So I take it Harmy's large image in the posts above is only refusing to show up for me? That's incredibly odd ...

 Nope.  They aren't showing up for me either, just so you know.

 

Author
Time

DuracellEnergizer said:

So I take it Harmy's large image in the posts above is only refusing to show up for me? That's incredibly odd ...

I right-clicked it and opened it in a new page.

If Plagueis shows up in the ST, not only will I refuse to watch the movies, but I won't so much as watch the trailers, either. - DuracellEnergizer

Author
Time

I prefer it if only for the reason that -- size aside -- it looks like it could be the same Hutt from ROTJ. The new CG Jabba -- with his yellow eyes, different head/face shape, etc. -- doesn't look like ROTJ Jabba at all.

“Happy Halloween, ladies!”

Author
Time

I hate both and never watch the SEs.

You may have to update your flash player to see Harmy's pic. It was blank for me earlier in the week too, but I can see it now.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Alderaan said:

You may have to update your flash player to see Harmy's pic. It was blank for me earlier in the week too, but I can see it now.

Unfortunately for me, there's something up with this computer that's been preventing me from installing flash updates for the past several months now.

Ah, well, I guess I'll just have to cope.

“Happy Halloween, ladies!”

Author
Time

CG Jabba in the movies from '99 onward is like a bad game of telephone.

TPM Jabba looks kind of like ROTJ Jabba and '04 Jabba kind of looks like TPM Jabba.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

What's odd is that 2004 Jabba is the exact same model they used in TPM. The lighting just makes it look like crap:

Comparing the two, it looks like they might have shifted the hue of the textures toward green in an attempt to make him look more like ROTJ Jabba. As the TPM Jabba was more of a greyish blue. The eyes somehow becoming a casualty during the process.

Help finish ROTJ: Revisited!