4K restoration on Star Wars — Page 54

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.

An as-unfucked-with-as-possible OOT release benefits everyone.

 This is absolutely the most reasonable thing to hope for and expect. Because its a thing that actually happens when they release old movies.

Baronlando said:

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.

An as-unfucked-with-as-possible OOT release benefits everyone.

 This is absolutely the most reasonable thing to hope for and expect. Because its a thing that actually happens when they release old movies.

(bows)

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.  Not only would Disney not go through the restoration effort/cost twice and include two almost identical versions, that they'd have a hard time getting the point across for in just a menu selection screen or a booklet, when we can't even pin them down on promising to do it once.  Whether there's an audience demanding cleaned up, non original, non award winning SFX or not, the actual concern that's already worrying purists is what method Disney would choose to restore the original, if they have plans to do so or are already working on it; if they feel the "best" method to make a good restoration for Blu-ray would be to scan all the elements individually and digitally recomposite them, we'd get something that arguably plays out like the original cut, but we wouldn't have the authentic preservation the films deserve.

In short, while cleaned up and digitally recomposited SFX certainly wouldn't "look bad", having that version officially made would entirely preclude a proper theatrical restoration for the foreseeable future.  It wouldn't be as bad as the SE abominations we are stuck with now, but it would further push the idea behind the SE's that it is okay to change these films with the times, to alter our perception of history, if you will.  There will be no official untouched OOT and a non-Lucas lead clean up version at the same time, right out of the gate, it can really only be one or the other.  If support is being vocally thrown behind one or the other, it should be for the untouched OOT, since as long as we have at least that common baseline to start with, there's nothing to keep us from also being able to move forward and make whatever sort of special Star Wars version we want from there, but if the true original is lost, there's just no going back to it.  I don't see how there could be any question what is the right next step forward; do what you want with the steps after that.

Looks pretty promising.

Also, in the back left of the image there, it's Lando!  Hi Lando! *waves*

I wonder if that change was only made for the EE of AUJ and not the theatrical bd/dvd. I honestly don't care what changes they make for the extended cuts, they did that with the LotR movies where you see Minas Tirith in the background of The Two Towers. But the theatrical release should be an exact preservation of the theatrical version.

I wonder if anyone's compared an in-theater cam rip of AUJ to the theatrical blu-ray to see if Smaug looks different.

With the EE Blu-ray set of LotR they, quite famously, messed with the color palette, stating they felt they could modify the EE since they already offered the theatrical on Blu-ray unmodified.  So yes, I think they, in particular, are approaching it as they can modify stuff as long as it isn't done to the theatrical version.

Ryan McAvoy said:

AntcuFaalb said:

Harmy said:

Revisionism is becoming a complete norm - I've just been watching the Hobbit TDoS EE BD extras and they said that in the DVD and BD release of the first Hobbit, they re-did some shots of Smaug in the prologue to match the TDoS version of him.

I agree that revisionism is unfortunately becoming commonplace, but FWIW I usually don't mind when the creator(s) of a work revise it in some minor way only a short time post-release. (Yes, this means I don't mind the '81 crawl.)

I also don't mind such changes/fixes when it's to correct unintended errors a year after release (And when we'd barely notice the change).

They tried to show as little of Smaug as possible in the prologue but they hadn't finished designing him by that point. They eventually went for no front legs in DOS but the AUJ Smaug has front legs. So why not remove them in the EE. Better than keeping the error, or going with a consistent design for Smaug that they didn't like.

Now going back 10, 20, 30 years later and changing things that didn't need changing is another kettle of fish (However, I actually would welcome FOTR Gollum being redone by Andy Serkis, so call me a massive hypocrite if you like LOL).

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.

I wouldn't be surprised if Disney did that considering they have tweaked and altered some of their own films (particularly the animated films), though usually minor and unnoticeable.

yoda-sama said:

With the EE Blu-ray set of LotR they, quite famously, messed with the color palette, stating they felt they could modify the EE since they already offered the theatrical on Blu-ray unmodified.  So yes, I think they, in particular, are approaching it as they can modify stuff as long as it isn't done to the theatrical version.

 Well, they actually didn't claim to have messed with the color at all, nor did they bother making that defense. FotR wasn't finished as a complete DI in 2001, so both the theatrical and extended dvd's were telecines of the filmed-out negative (or IP or however they did it). Towers and Return, however, were complete DI's from the get-go. They did eventually finish FotR's DI, but this wasn't until 2003 when RotK was about to come out.

For the theatrical blu-Rays, they still used the telecine of FotR. The extended blu-Ray was the first time they went back to the finished DI files and made an hd transfer directly from that. This was always going to yield a different looking image than the telecines, sure, but what people noticed was that the contrast levels, the "peak white," was lower than in towers and return (and, later, The Hobbit). The brighter parts of the image weren't bright like they were in the other transfers of FotR. The big "smoking gun" people pointed to is the "dissolve to white" when Arwyn saves Frodo that, in the extended bd, is more of a "dissolve to bright gray." Everything looked like it had this blanket tint applied to it, and people started wondering if this was really PJ and Lesnie's intention. Maybe a mistake had been made in the mastering chain and no one noticed?

I think even if it was a mastering error they would never admit to it. The money lost in a replacement program of not one but two whole discs would be pretty huge. Most people probably never noticed it anyway.

To sum up my point, that particular change made to FotR may very well have simply been a mistake. I'm just glad it's isolated to the extended version and we still have a relatively good-looking transfer of the version that got nominated for 13 oscars.

unamochilla2 said:

Ryan McAvoy said:

AntcuFaalb said:

Harmy said:

Revisionism is becoming a complete norm - I've just been watching the Hobbit TDoS EE BD extras and they said that in the DVD and BD release of the first Hobbit, they re-did some shots of Smaug in the prologue to match the TDoS version of him.

I agree that revisionism is unfortunately becoming commonplace, but FWIW I usually don't mind when the creator(s) of a work revise it in some minor way only a short time post-release. (Yes, this means I don't mind the '81 crawl.)

I also don't mind such changes/fixes when it's to correct unintended errors a year after release (And when we'd barely notice the change).

They tried to show as little of Smaug as possible in the prologue but they hadn't finished designing him by that point. They eventually went for no front legs in DOS but the AUJ Smaug has front legs. So why not remove them in the EE. Better than keeping the error, or going with a consistent design for Smaug that they didn't like.

Now going back 10, 20, 30 years later and changing things that didn't need changing is another kettle of fish (However, I actually would welcome FOTR Gollum being redone by Andy Serkis, so call me a massive hypocrite if you like LOL).

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.

I wouldn't be surprised if Disney did that considering they have tweaked and altered some of their own films (particularly the animated films), though usually minor and unnoticeable.

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.

AntcuFaalb said:

darklordoftech said:

unamochilla2 said:

Ryan McAvoy said:

AntcuFaalb said:

Harmy said:

Revisionism is becoming a complete norm - I've just been watching the Hobbit TDoS EE BD extras and they said that in the DVD and BD release of the first Hobbit, they re-did some shots of Smaug in the prologue to match the TDoS version of him.

I agree that revisionism is unfortunately becoming commonplace, but FWIW I usually don't mind when the creator(s) of a work revise it in some minor way only a short time post-release. (Yes, this means I don't mind the '81 crawl.)

I also don't mind such changes/fixes when it's to correct unintended errors a year after release (And when we'd barely notice the change).

They tried to show as little of Smaug as possible in the prologue but they hadn't finished designing him by that point. They eventually went for no front legs in DOS but the AUJ Smaug has front legs. So why not remove them in the EE. Better than keeping the error, or going with a consistent design for Smaug that they didn't like.

Now going back 10, 20, 30 years later and changing things that didn't need changing is another kettle of fish (However, I actually would welcome FOTR Gollum being redone by Andy Serkis, so call me a massive hypocrite if you like LOL).

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.

I wouldn't be surprised if Disney did that considering they have tweaked and altered some of their own films (particularly the animated films), though usually minor and unnoticeable.

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.

I'm not sure what you mean by branching, but many of Disney's classics (e.g., Sleeping Beauty) were digitally reanimated in preparation for a BD release.

http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Recommended-Editions-of-Disney-Animated-and-Partially-Animated-Features/topic/15617/

by branching I mean seamless branching.

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.

The Lion King Blu-ray still has the IMAX release reanimated bits at the beginning (new crocodiles, etc).  That had nothing to do with politically correct stuff like editing out the dust that said either "SEX" or "SFX" (depending on who you believe), it was change just for the sake of change... and it wouldn't even be THAT bad if either it looked better than the original animation or if they didn't claim it was how it was originally shown theatrically.

Supposedly, the color timing was changed completely for "Alice in Wonderland" (someone posted comparison screenshots from another thread) and the coloring seems to have been changed for the "Beauty and the Beast" DVD and Blu-ray.  Most recently, "The Little Mermaid" had a few changes, including moving "Walt Disney Presents" to different shot, removing a cross fade, transposing two shots (which Disney corrected and offered a replacement disc) and "cleaned up" some rough animation.  Arguably minor changes, but many of them didn't go unnoticed to die hard fans.  I'm sure there more examples of Disney altering films from how they were released theatrically.  However, their restorations are mostly faithful. I can't comment on any of their live action films.

yoda-sama said:

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.

The Lion King Blu-ray still has the IMAX release reanimated bits at the beginning (new crocodiles, etc).  That had nothing to do with politically correct stuff like editing out the dust that said either "SEX" or "SFX" (depending on who you believe), it was change just for the sake of change.

the original crocodiles looked like someone's painting, leading to an accusation of copyright infringement

Yeah, Disney's never tried to alter their movies SE style. The Tron blu-Ray has one curious change where they added a tron-like border at the top and bottom of the frame in this one stationary shot of the actors. In a screenshot comparison with an older hd broadcast, the framing of all the shots in the movie lines up perfectly with the blu-Ray, but in that one shot the broadcast looks slightly zoomed-in. A couple years ago I saw a 70mm print of Tron that would've been made in the late 90's / early 00's and I actually noticed a splicing jump at the beginning of that shot.

My guess is there was something visible at the edges of the frame and they optically zoomed in just for that one shot. For the blu-Ray, they must've decided for whatever reason to just hide it with these polygon shapes.

the solution is to scan or telecine an IP and don't change anything