logo Sign In

Do you think Disney will release the unaltered versions for DVD and blue ray? — Page 2

Author
Time

I think this is a tough call.  I can see it both ways but I have a tendency to think they will not.   We don't know any of the details of the Disney deal, but I have a feeling there was a part of the deal where George Lucas explicitly stated that the only versions that could ever be released would be the Blu-ray versions.  He probably kept the original negatives as well, if they even exist.

 

The SE's are his vision and version of Star Wars and I don't think he would want anyone undermining him.  He spent a lot of time on the SE's and he has gone on record that that is the way he always wanted them.  Given how stubborn he is with his property, I tend to think this was included in the Disney deal.  I may be wrong, I hope I am, but I'd bet we won't ever see them.

 

Mind you, I absolutely would LOVE a Theatrical Blu-ray and I'd be the first to buy them, but my gut tells me it won't happen.  We can only hope...

Author
Time
 (Edited)

AntcuFaalb said:

Also, what constitutes "original"?

The "tantive orange items" were part of every release print of Star Wars, including the IB Technicolor prints and the prints with the spliced-in '81 crawl.

http://fd.noneinc.com/Glitch/starwars-tantiveorangeerrors/starwars-tantiveorangeerrors.html

I'd consider any release that's missing 'em to be non-original, but I'm a pain in the ass. ^_^

And I thought I was one of a kind when it came to being a "purist"- I actually hate that epithet, it sounds like we are some kind of disorder when it is the other way around IMO. Anyway, if you consider those "tantive orange errors" as something sacred you're in a lot of trouble, these films are littered with various forms of anomalies like those, where do you draw the line?

Don't misunderstand me AntcuFaalb, I see where you come from but what about the other thousand/million dirt marks and scratches? For example, in 1980 when ESB was shown across the globe there was a quite big hair in one of the opticals when one snowspeeder fly between the legs of an AT-AT, remove that and it's not considered the original film by you? That is something that I can assure you would be removed if these films would ever be restored.

I'm not saying that it's not something I care about (these FX's are every bit as important as those of King Kong or Metropolis IMO) but we must be a little bit realistic, most people will not study them, they will just enjoy them. I fully agree that an theatrical IP would be the most ideal source for a new videorelease if something like that is possible.

The problem is that many fans just like Lucas fail to understand the great value of this film being done in the 70's, they like to pretend "it's always looked this way", they don't see it as the classic special effects film it is.

A great example of this is the reaction that thread of yours got where you suggested to make a sort of "de-specialized version" of Star Wars but only using the best possible original sources no matter how jarring the end result. The way a real restoration a la Criterion or Masters of Cinema would do it if no other element was available. But when it comes to Star Wars the view of it is I'm afraid entirely different.

We want you to be aware that we have no plans—now or in the future—to restore the earlier versions. 

Sincerely, Lynne Hale publicity@lucasfilm.com

Author
Time

msycamore: Good point(s). I will reconsider my position.

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
 (Edited)

AntcuFaalb said:

msycamore: Good point(s). I will reconsider my position.

I'm not saying you should, I understand your view on it. It's just that we are for some reason seen by some as crazy already for asking about a simple restoration of a cultural milestone.

But, I guess we are pretty crazy around here, why would a company like to sell a product everyone wants to buy? That doesn't make any sense...

We want you to be aware that we have no plans—now or in the future—to restore the earlier versions. 

Sincerely, Lynne Hale publicity@lucasfilm.com

Author
Time

Elements that are a consequence of the technique used at the time, such as matte lines, should stay.  Elements that were simply something they missed, such as a hair or a smudge, has no historical relevance and I am fine with it being fixed.  I just don't see things like that as part of the movie, whereas something like a visible string holding up a spaceship, is.

"Close the blast doors!"
Puggo’s website | Rescuing Star Wars

Author
Time

From another perspective, it was much easier to make irreversible mistakes when working optically instead of digitally, so hairs and smudges could be considered a "consequence of the technique used at the time", despite being mistakes. I don't think that they have historical relevance, but it goes to show that there's always a gray area in this discussion. 

You probably don’t recognize me because of the red arm.
Episode 9 Rewrite, The Starlight Project (Released!) and ANH Technicolor Project (Released!)

Author
Time

And I thought I was all set having the collectors edition letterbox '92 release scanned to dvd.  What a rabbit hole defining what the OOT is!

Author
Time
 (Edited)

I think a new release of the OOT will see the light of day simply because new Ultra HDTVs with a resolution close to 4K are starting be sold (heavy prices for now, of course) and my guess is that Disney will want to release the OT in Ultra HD at some point and since (from what I know) the special editions effects were only made in HD, then the only way to release the original trilogy in Ultra HD, without some scenes to look softer than others, is to make a (at least) 4K scan of the untouched original movies and release it  without the "new" effects...

That said, Disney could first release the new sequel trilogy in Ultra HD then, later the original trilogy, so it's not for tomorrow morning, if it happens.

The funny thing is that since the prequels were shot in HD, they could not pretend to have a Ultra HD release (not even one of those "mastered in 4K" blurays...), unlike the OOT!

EDIT: so... if my thinking make sens, I think originaltrilogy.com should start a petition for the original trilogy to be released in Ultra HD 4K (when the support will be defined. I guess it'll be some kind of "Ultra Blurays"), because there's only one way to release this, and it's the OOT.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

 

If we ever get a 4K format (and that's a big "if"), it truly will be the laserdisc of the 21st century some people were saying blu-ray was gonna be. There will never be a format more widely adopted than dvd, and that's because virtually everything benefited from it. Before dvd, you had to use bulky, expensive laserdisc just to enjoy a recording of something at full standard-def resolution (vhs and betamax were only 200 lines or so).

Dvd not only brought people full standard def at an affordable price, but did so on a cd-sized, completely digital disc. It was even slightly superior to what the analog standard was capable of, what with anamorphic video and progressive scan and all. In any event, pretty much everything benefitted from dvd. Even material shot on video looked much better than on vhs thanks to the full resolution.

Then blu-ray came along.

For starters, it really only benefits stuff shot on film. Only stuff that was shot on video in higher-than-sd resolution benefits from this new format, which limits it to video from the last ten years or so. TV shows that were shot on film can now be seen at a higher resolution than anyone's ever viewed them before, but shows that were shot on sd video don't benefit at all from blu-ray.

With 4K, we're talking about an even smaller amount of material. Yes, more and more old movies are getting brand new 4K masters, which almost always results in a better looking picture than their existing HD masters. The new 4K master of Ghostbusters, for example, looks markedly better on blu-ray than the previous one. Pretty much every movie ever made benefits from blu-ray, assuming it was shot on film. With 4K, only stuff shot on 35mm film can see any kind of improvement whatsoever, and even then, you'd better be watching it on a really big screen at a close enough distance to really see any kind of difference over 1080p.

I'm pretty sure blu-ray is already seen as somewhat of a luxury in this economy. I even have a well-to-do, tech-savvy friend who hadn't upgraded as of the end of last year. I think it either had to do with him not seeing the difference (I can't lie, dvd's look pretty good on his hdtv), or not wanting the hassle of switching to a new format and then suddenly finding his existing dvd's inferior in quality, or something. Another person I know insisted he couldn't see the difference either. So, I guess that's why the studios feel the need to throw in a standard dvd copy when their new releases hit blu-ray.

A handful of the movies made over the last ten years were mastered in 4K, but most of them were finished in 2K or photochemically on actual film (the old-fashioned way). I've noticed the studios are now finishing more and more of their movies at 4K, even if they were only shot at 2.8K on the Alexa (with 2K effects shots), the untouched 2.8K stuff benefits from a 4K finish. It's getting upscaled rather than downscaled. So, going forward, I'm sure the studios will make 4K the standard.

Indeed, we could very well be seeing a 4K Episode VII in a couple years.

Catalog is a different story, though. Some titles have 4K masters all ready to go (Taxi Driver, Lawrence of Arabia, etc.), but the vast majority do not. A new 4K home video format can't take off unless the studios think people will be willing to sell off their blu-rays so that they can buy the same movie for the third or fourth time.

In his review of the Complete Saga blu-ray set, Bill Hunt theorized that technology may eventually allow the prequels to be magically re-rendered. The software would basically do a deep analysis of the 2K files and then estimate/guess what they would look like in 4K. This tech is several years away at the earliest, but it's an intriguing possibility. Then it could sit alongside a rescanned OT and a 4K Episode VII.

Whether or not there's a 4K home video format on the way, I think a new petition (if one were to be written) should emphasize getting the highest quality possible out of the materials. As has been stated in this thread, an IP might make more sense as a starting point for an OOT restoration.

Also, here's something to consider in regards to the whole "hair in the gate" argument:

When Apocalypse Now was restored several years ago for the blu-ray release, the restorationists noticed a hair in the gate in one of the shots. They asked Coppola what he wished to do about it, and his opinion was that it should be kept in the movie as a reminder that this is a flawed work made by fallible human beings. Similarly, Spielberg has said there will be no wire-removal when 1941 is eventually prepared for blu-ray.

Anyway, here's something I typed up last night but posted in the wrong sub-forum:

I'm convinced George was planning on eventually releasing the OOT on blu-ray. It was only ever a question of money, and milking every release for what it's worth. I wish I could find the quote, but I remember people noting something he said at a convention (celebration Europe, maybe?) a couple years ago to the effect of "we haven't put the original versions out on blu-ray because they're still too expensive to restore." I remember people making a big deal about it online because it was the first time GL had publicly and blatantly said "it's about money" and not about his "original vision" or any of that.

If you look at how the releases have gone:

-2004 dvd: "restored"/remastered OT-SE, commentary, a new documentary, some featurettes and some trailers from the archives. No deleted scenes.

-2006 dvd: individual releases on dvd for the first time. 1993 laserdisc transfer ported to dvd as a "bonus disc."

-2011: The movies are released on blu-ray, with the OT-SE sourced from the existing 2004 HD masters, with a few minor fixes and additional alterations. The deleted scenes are finally trotted out, along with a bunch more random stuff from the archives (all of which is only included in the "complete saga" six-film set, of course). Still no Holiday Special, heh.

I'm convinced George would've eventually commissioned some kind of restoration/remastering of the OOT, but only after sales of the existing blu-rays had slowed to a trickle and he'd figured out how to maximize profitability of the next release. I imagine they were planning on eventually releasing the movies individually, just as they had on dvd.

In any event, it's now out of George's hands.

Disney is surely considering all the unreleased product they have to work with, everything they can package and sell for the first time ever: a blu-ray of the OOT, a blu-ray of the '97 SE, a blu-ray of TPM that includes the '99 cut, etc.

Heck, once they work out the nitty gritty of distribution with Fox, they've still got the 3D versions to consider (we still haven't seen a blu-ray 3D of TPM). If Disney were smart, they would put together individual blu-ray releases of the six movies that would force fans to buy the 3D versions in order to get the OOT and the '97 SE (just like you had to buy the SE in order to get the GOUT, or the prequels in order to get deleted scenes from the OT). Seriously, it could go like this:

Individual releases for each movie, for each release:

Disc 1: 3D version

Disc 2: If they wanted to jack up the price even more, they could throw in a 2D disc of the 3D version

Disc 3: '97 version

Disc 4: original version

Seriously, they could sell each individual release for like 50-60 bucks and slap a sticker on the shrink wrapping that says INCLUDES RESTORED ORIGINAL VERSION in big letters.

They don't have nearly as much to work with for the prequels. There's basically only one version of RotS (anything aside from that wipe?), and AotC and TPM could probably use seamless branching to include both versions. Still, I say they should do this for the prequels as well.

All of this is to say, I see an OOT restoration as an inevitability. I would argue that it requires tender love and care to get it looking and sounding the way it should. Luckily, there's at least one technicolor print out there (and another in George's possession), so we basically know how it's supposed to look. There was controversy over the color-timing of the Raiders of the Lost Ark blu-ray, but I'm pretty sure it stemmed from an uncertainty of how the original release prints looked back '81. Since we don't have IB prints of Empire and Jedi, this might present a problem. But who knows?

 

Author
Time
 (Edited)

 

I actually have the Sony vw1000es 4K home cinema projector.

The Star War's blu's(both prequel and original) look absolutely phenomenal on it.

But.....

Due to the increased resolution offered by the projector....(all be it upscaled) the limitations of the analogue techniques used in making the OUT are far more pronounced.

In particular , scenes and shots which where optically composited exhibit noticibly softer looking images than 1st generation material.

4K(and to a lesser extent 2K) is ruthless in exposing these discrepencies.

By  their nature large portions of the original films featured such material.

A 4K master and a  4K Digital Cinema Package(DCP) may be too "harsh" on the OUT .

One of the reasons why Lucas opted for a 2K master.

And Lucas is not the only one.

Bob Gale said that Back To The Future(another film featuring optical compositing) was mastered from a 1st generation Interpositive for the Blu Ray release in 2010.

The original Superman films have also been scanned at 2K resolution from 1st generation interpositives.

Not because studios are trying to save a few bucks....but because 2k is good enough and scientific studies have confirmed this.

Blade Runner gets  alot of hype for having been restored in 4K  and is wrongly compared(by Zombie) to Star Wars.

But  Blade Runner's release package was downrezzed to 2K for distribution for the 25th anniversary in 2007.

It was never projected in native 4K

(i.e it was a 4K master downrezzed to a 2K DCP and then upscaled on a 1st Generation Sony 4K projector----which few cinemas had back in 2007)

It is also worth noting that the distinction between 2K digital cinema projection and Blu ray is not that great.

2K projection is 1080 vertical X 2048 horizontal

Blu ray is 1080 vertical X 1920 horizontal

A miniscule 6 % difference.

Th only real differences are not in resolution......but in compression.

The average DCP is estimated to be 250gb....blu ray maxes out at a compressed 50gb

2K projection also has slightly higher colour bit depths.

Just to make things more convoluted....an uncompressed 2K file maybe better looking than a compressed 4k file.

So resolution is not the only factor in delivering a good all round product.

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 have the Sony vw1000es 4K home cinema projector.

The Star War's blu's(both prequel and original) look absolutely phenomenal on it.

But.....

Due to the increased resolution offered by the projector....(all be it upscaled) the limitations of the analogue techniques used in making the OUT are far more pronounced.

In particular , scenes and shots which where optically composited exhibit noticibly softer looking images than 1st generation material.

4K(and to a lesser extent 2K) is ruthless in exposing these discrepencies.

By  their nature large portions of the original films featured such material.

A 4K master and a  4K Digital Cinema Package(DCP) may be too "harsh" on the OUT .

One of the reasons why Lucas opted for a 2K master.

Can't disagree with you more on this. They look terrible projected at 4k. TPM is actually worse than any of the OT, but AOTC & ROTS do look good. The problem you are seeing has nothing to do with the techniques used at the time of filming, but the way the transfer was mastered. The worse shots are the ones that weren't recomposited. Instead they just DVNR'd these shots to death. You can even see that they did this to some elements that they did recomposite. Plus, the scanning done in the 90's for these elements produced a lot softer results than a scan done today and, with the special edition, we're pretty much stuck with that. That's you problem right there as to why they look so soft. Add Lowry's so called clean up into the process and this is what you get.

Now, the person who invited me to the 4k viewing , also had something that came as a little surprise. He had a 4k scan of a 70mm reel from ESB (which is why he invited me really it turns out). It was unfaded, which came as a bit of a surprise. Now we compared this to the blu-ray and the 4k scan looked so much better, even if it was dirtier. Now this shouldn't have been the case, right? we did some side by side comparisons with some screenshots and there are effects shots that are smeared to hell on the blu-rays and have some very bad artefacts caused by this. I just wish that he had more than one reel so i could have done some more comparisons (and that he would have given me a copy of the scan). He also had a full scan of a tecnicolor ANH, which we only had time to watch bits. That looked amazing but it was noticeable which shots George deliberately downgraded.

So, redo all the compositing using todays tech and don't scrub the hell out of the elements and you will see a hell of a lot of difference.

Why did George only scan the OT in 2k? Because of the 2 PT films being shot in 1080p? Does he really want his older films looking better than he new ones with the tech that he was pushing so hard for? Probably not

But the blu-rays of the OT were such a piss poor job i can't see how anyone can say they look amazing, because they don't, especially when projected @4k.

Those films could look hell of a lot better than they do now if only someone who gives more of a crap about the quality than just getting the job done and maximize the profits.

ANH:REVISITED
ESB:REVISITED

DONATIONS TOWARDS MATERIALS FOR THE REVISITED SAGA

Author
Time
 (Edited)

adywan said:

danny_boy said:

 

I actually have the Sony vw1000es 4K home cinema projector.

The Star War's blu's(both prequel and original) look absolutely phenomenal on it.

But.....

Due to the increased resolution offered by the projector....(all be it upscaled) the limitations of the analogue techniques used in making the OUT are far more pronounced.

In particular , scenes and shots which where optically composited exhibit noticibly softer looking images than 1st generation material.

4K(and to a lesser extent 2K) is ruthless in exposing these discrepencies.

By  their nature large portions of the original films featured such material.

A 4K master and a  4K Digital Cinema Package(DCP) may be too "harsh" on the OUT .

One of the reasons why Lucas opted for a 2K master.

Can't disagree with you more on this. They look terrible projected at 4k. TPM is actually worse than any of the OT, but AOTC & ROTS do look good. The problem you are seeing has nothing to do with the techniques used at the time of filming, but the way the transfer was mastered. The worse shots are the ones that weren't recomposited. Instead they just DVNR'd these shots to death. You can even see that they did this to some elements that they did recomposite. Plus, the scanning done in the 90's for these elements produced a lot softer results than a scan done today and, with the special edition, we're pretty much stuck with that. That's you problem right there as to why they look so soft. Add Lowry's so called clean up into the process and this is what you get.

Now, the person who invited me to the 4k viewing , also had something that came as a little surprise. He had a 4k scan of a 70mm reel from ESB (which is why he invited me really it turns out). It was unfaded, which came as a bit of a surprise. Now we compared this to the blu-ray and the 4k scan looked so much better, even if it was dirtier. Now this shouldn't have been the case, right? we did some side by side comparisons with some screenshots and there are effects shots that are smeared to hell on the blu-rays and have some very bad artefacts caused by this. I just wish that he had more than one reel so i could have done some more comparisons (and that he would have given me a copy of the scan). He also had a full scan of a tecnicolor ANH, which we only had time to watch bits. That looked amazing but it was noticeable which shots George deliberately downgraded.

So, redo all the compositing using todays tech and don't scrub the hell out of the elements and you will see a hell of a lot of difference.

Why did George only scan the OT in 2k? Because of the 2 PT films being shot in 1080p? Does he really want his older films looking better than he new ones with the tech that he was pushing so hard for? Probably not

But the job i can't see how anyone can say they look amazing, because they don't, especially when projected @4k.

Those films could look hell of a lot better than they do now if only someone who gives more of a crap about the quality than just getting the job done and maximize the profit

 

What was the projection method of this 4K scan of a 70mm reel?

Was it from a hard drive plugged into a commercial 4K cinema projector?

Or a High def disc which featured the 4K master of a 70mm reel down rezzed to 1080p?.....and then projected(and upscaled again  through the Sony 4K 1000es?)

ON Edit:

The reason I ask is because playback at native 4K is not possible at the moment in the comfort of one's own home(Only upscaled 1080p through a 4K projector or TV is possible)

Both RED and Sony are working on releasing 1st generation 4K playback devices this fall.

Also you said your friend had a 4K scan of a 70mm print.

This makes no sense.

Conventional 4K scanners can only handle 35mm film.....that is what they are designed for.

The larger size(film gauge) of 70mm would neccesitate having to use a different type of scanner.

But scanners used for 70mm apart form being very expensive............ scan to 8K and that is really only for 70mm negative.......not a 3rd/4th generation cinema release  print which would be well below 8K in terms of resolution and not even 4K......especially as the ESB 70mm reel you are refering to was only a blow up from a 35mm negative in the 1st place(and hence would suffer from optical degradation )

Here is one of the few scanners that can scan both 35mm and 70mm film stock.

The Millennium ‘data-cine’ is the only film scanner capable of real time SD and HD film transfers as well as 2K at 15fps and 4K at 5fps from all the major film gauges including 8mm/S8mm/MAX8mm, 16mm/S16mm, 35mm/S35mm and 65/70mm.

http://www.cintel.co.uk/home.php?action=news_display&id=124

Even if that 4k scan was possible......you would still have the issue of playback which would only be possible at 1080p( all be it upscaled at best).

So i doubt the validity of you or your friend's claims.

And the Star wars blu rays ...when upscaled from 1080p to 4K do look amazing.

Some screen shots from a professional review web site of the Sony 4K:

 

 

http://www.projectorreviews.com/outstanding-product/outstanding-projector-2012.php

 

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
 (Edited)

danny_boy said:

 

I actually have the Sony vw1000es 4K home cinema projector.

The Star War's blu's(both prequel and original) look absolutely phenomenal on it.

But.....

Due to the increased resolution offered by the projector....(all be it upscaled) the limitations of the analogue techniques used in making the OUT are far more pronounced.

In particular , scenes and shots which where optically composited exhibit noticibly softer looking images than 1st generation material.

4K(and to a lesser extent 2K) is ruthless in exposing these discrepencies.

By  their nature large portions of the original films featured such material.

A 4K master and a  4K Digital Cinema Package(DCP) may be too "harsh" on the OUT .

One of the reasons why Lucas opted for a 2K master.

And Lucas is not the only one.

Bob Gale said that Back To The Future(another film featuring optical compositing) was mastered from a 1st generation Interpositive for the Blu Ray release in 2010.

The original Superman films have also been scanned at 2K resolution from 1st generation interpositives.

Not because studios are trying to save a few bucks....but because 2k is good enough and scientific studies have confirmed this.

Blade Runner gets  alot of hype for having been restored in 4K  and is wrongly compared(by Zombie) to Star Wars.

But  Blade Runner's release package was downrezzed to 2K for distribution for the 25th anniversary in 2007.

It was never projected in native 4K

(i.e it was a 4K master downrezzed to a 2K DCP and then upscaled on a 1st Generation Sony 4K projector----which few cinemas had back in 2007)

It is also worth noting that the distinction between 2K digital cinema projection and Blu ray is not that great.

2K projection is 1080 vertical X 2048 horizontal

Blu ray is 1080 vertical X 1920 horizontal

A miniscule 6 % difference.

Th only real differences are not in resolution......but in compression.

The average DCP is estimated to be 250gb....blu ray maxes out at a compressed 50gb

2K projection also has slightly higher colour bit depths.

Just to make things more convoluted....an uncompressed 2K file maybe better looking than a compressed 4k file.

So resolution is not the only factor in delivering a good all round product.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I remember you bringing up the Blade Runner thing before. Are you sure there was no true 4K projection of The Final Cut? I saw it opening night at the Ziegfeld and it looked pretty impressive up on that bigass screen. I just assumed it was true 4K. Are you sure you're not jumping to conclusions based on that recent article at AVS Forum about how After Earth was mastered at 4K but only shown at 2K due to the lack of "true" 4K capabilities in many theaters???

ETA:

That's a good point about 2K versus 1080p. Actual 2K cinema projection can look phenomenal when projected on to a 30-40' screen. The independent movie theater only three blocks from where I live just upgraded to a Christie 2K projector. Star Trek Into Darkness was the first movie they showed on it and it looked way better than a blu-ray could ever hope to look. Yes, the pixel count isn't that different, but you're talking about the DCI color space vs rec. 709, 4:4:4 color sampling instead of 4:2:0, and intraframe compression instead of interframe compression. You're essentially seeing 24 high-quality jpegs per second.

Author
Time

adywan said:

danny_boy said:

 

I actually have the Sony vw1000es 4K home cinema projector.

The Star War's blu's(both prequel and original) look absolutely phenomenal on it.

But.....

Due to the increased resolution offered by the projector....(all be it upscaled) the limitations of the analogue techniques used in making the OUT are far more pronounced.

In particular , scenes and shots which where optically composited exhibit noticibly softer looking images than 1st generation material.

4K(and to a lesser extent 2K) is ruthless in exposing these discrepencies.

By  their nature large portions of the original films featured such material.

A 4K master and a  4K Digital Cinema Package(DCP) may be too "harsh" on the OUT .

One of the reasons why Lucas opted for a 2K master.

Can't disagree with you more on this. They look terrible projected at 4k. TPM is actually worse than any of the OT, but AOTC & ROTS do look good. The problem you are seeing has nothing to do with the techniques used at the time of filming, but the way the transfer was mastered. The worse shots are the ones that weren't recomposited. Instead they just DVNR'd these shots to death. You can even see that they did this to some elements that they did recomposite. Plus, the scanning done in the 90's for these elements produced a lot softer results than a scan done today and, with the special edition, we're pretty much stuck with that. That's you problem right there as to why they look so soft. Add Lowry's so called clean up into the process and this is what you get.

Now, the person who invited me to the 4k viewing , also had something that came as a little surprise. He had a 4k scan of a 70mm reel from ESB (which is why he invited me really it turns out). It was unfaded, which came as a bit of a surprise. Now we compared this to the blu-ray and the 4k scan looked so much better, even if it was dirtier. Now this shouldn't have been the case, right? we did some side by side comparisons with some screenshots and there are effects shots that are smeared to hell on the blu-rays and have some very bad artefacts caused by this. I just wish that he had more than one reel so i could have done some more comparisons (and that he would have given me a copy of the scan). He also had a full scan of a tecnicolor ANH, which we only had time to watch bits. That looked amazing but it was noticeable which shots George deliberately downgraded.

So, redo all the compositing using todays tech and don't scrub the hell out of the elements and you will see a hell of a lot of difference.

Why did George only scan the OT in 2k? Because of the 2 PT films being shot in 1080p? Does he really want his older films looking better than he new ones with the tech that he was pushing so hard for? Probably not

But the blu-rays of the OT were such a piss poor job i can't see how anyone can say they look amazing, because they don't, especially when projected @4k.

Those films could look hell of a lot better than they do now if only someone who gives more of a crap about the quality than just getting the job done and maximize the profits.

That's why I can't help but wonder if the Lowry master will still be used for the inevitable 3D theatrical re-release. When Lucas randomly changed some shots for the blu-ray (the rock in front of artoo, the door to jabba's palace, etc), a lot of people assumed he was doing it for the eventual 3D version. Seemed a little weird (to me, anyways) for those changes to have made their way into the movies so early when the release dates for the 3D versions were still years away.

I can't really fathom a 1920x1080 master of the OT, a master which was only really ever meant to hold up to scrutiny on HD video, being used for a 3D conversion. Jim Ward called it a "digital negative," but this was back in 2004, an eternity ago in terms of tech. Wizard of Oz, Titanic and Jurassic Park all got new 4K masters before they were dimensionalized. Maybe it's a different situation with the OT-SE, since there are now many cgi shots and those may or may not still be sitting on the servers at ILM somewhere (I kinda doubt it). So, the filmed-out negative would be the only source for those shots, or they could redo them from scratch with modern cgi.

The irony is that the opticals could still look better thanks to better scanning technology, the benefit of being completely photochemical in nature. It occurred to me just now, as I was writing this, that fresh new scans of the vistavision negatives would benefit a 3D conversion immensely since you already have the individual components of those shots separated out.  

You could have a point, though. Maybe Lucas honestly doesn't want the old movies looking better than the new ones. It's a little crazy, though, that we've gotten not one, but two new scans of Raiders since 2003* and Star Wars is yet to be revisited. The SE itself still has a bunch of problems that weren't fixed in '04, like transparencies and movement errors (I say that having never watched the blu-rays, but from what adywan is saying they weren't fixed).

A truly updated version of the SE coupled with a 3D conversion could be mind-blowing for today's audiences, not that I'd ever pay money to go see it. The question, ultimately, is whether GL would be interested, since he'd surely have a say in such things.

*I wonder if this was more at the behest of Paramount and Spielberg than Lucasfilm, though. All three Indy movies got new 4K scans / 2K finishes circa 2008, and I even heard there were new 35mm prints made from these masters. Raiders got scanned yet again last year (6K scan, 4K finish, or something crazy like that) and got a short run in liemax. It's this newest 4K master that was used for the blu-ray of Raiders, while the 2008 2K masters of Temple and Crusade were used for their blu-ray transfers.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

 

Fang Zei said:

danny_boy said:

 

I actually have the Sony vw1000es 4K home cinema projector.

The Star War's blu's(both prequel and original) look absolutely phenomenal on it.

But.....

Due to the increased resolution offered by the projector....(all be it upscaled) the limitations of the analogue techniques used in making the OUT are far more pronounced.

In particular , scenes and shots which where optically composited exhibit noticibly softer looking images than 1st generation material.

4K(and to a lesser extent 2K) is ruthless in exposing these discrepencies.

By  their nature large portions of the original films featured such material.

A 4K master and a  4K Digital Cinema Package(DCP) may be too "harsh" on the OUT .

One of the reasons why Lucas opted for a 2K master.

And Lucas is not the only one.

Bob Gale said that Back To The Future(another film featuring optical compositing) was mastered from a 1st generation Interpositive for the Blu Ray release in 2010.

The original Superman films have also been scanned at 2K resolution from 1st generation interpositives.

Not because studios are trying to save a few bucks....but because 2k is good enough and scientific studies have confirmed this.

Blade Runner gets  alot of hype for having been restored in 4K  and is wrongly compared(by Zombie) to Star Wars.

But  Blade Runner's release package was downrezzed to 2K for distribution for the 25th anniversary in 2007.

It was never projected in native 4K

(i.e it was a 4K master downrezzed to a 2K DCP and then upscaled on a 1st Generation Sony 4K projector----which few cinemas had back in 2007)

It is also worth noting that the distinction between 2K digital cinema projection and Blu ray is not that great.

2K projection is 1080 vertical X 2048 horizontal

Blu ray is 1080 vertical X 1920 horizontal

A miniscule 6 % difference.

Th only real differences are not in resolution......but in compression.

The average DCP is estimated to be 250gb....blu ray maxes out at a compressed 50gb

2K projection also has slightly higher colour bit depths.

Just to make things more convoluted....an uncompressed 2K file maybe better looking than a compressed 4k file.

So resolution is not the only factor in delivering a good all round product.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I remember you bringing up the Blade Runner thing before. Are you sure there was no true 4K projection of The Final Cut? I saw it opening night at the Ziegfeld and it looked pretty impressive up on that bigass screen. I just assumed it was true 4K. Are you sure you're not jumping to conclusions based on that recent article at AVS Forum about how After Earth was mastered at 4K but only shown at 2K due to the lack of "true" 4K capabilities in many theaters???

ETA:

That's a good point about 2K versus 1080p. Actual 2K cinema projection can look phenomenal when projected on to a 30-40' screen. The independent movie theater only three blocks from where I live just upgraded to a Christie 2K projector. Star Trek Into Darkness was the first movie they showed on it and it looked way better than a blu-ray could ever hope to look. Yes, the pixel count isn't that different, but you're talking about the DCI color space vs rec. 709, 4:4:4 color sampling instead of 4:2:0, and intraframe compression instead of interframe compression. You're essentially seeing 24 high-quality jpegs per second.

Hi Fang fZei

BladeRunner was never projected at native 4K in 2007.

It was just projected through a 4K projector from a 2K hard drive(in some theaters).

And it was projected at 2K in all the other cinemas that were equiped with digital 2k projectors at the time.

 

Dave Mullen(Cinematographer ASE):

Posted 12 November 2007 - 08:36 AM

The DCI cinema master is 2K(of Blade Runner) even though the restoration is 4K, that's the reason.

 There really aren't many DCI servers in digital theaters that can handle 4K anyway -- most 4K demos bring in their own computers and whatnot to show the material.

http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=26843

 

 

  

We are very excited to present the final cut of "Blade Runner" in a 2k Digital presentation.


Widescreen Weekend 2008


Thomas Hauerslev
Film Programmer
NMM
Bradford
England


 

 

 

 

 

Saturday, June 14th(2008) was a day to remember here in Los Angeles – it was the day of the perfect Blade Runner experience. The one-time-only charity screening took place on the Warner Brothers backlot (where the film was made) and director Ridley Scott, co-screenwriter Hampton Fancher and a host of others were on hand afterwards to take questions from the audience.

2K DLP image was nothing less than perfect; it was as if someone had plugged the film directly into our brains and I think all in attendance would agree that we shared the rare pleasure of experiencing – for the first time – every last drop of Blade Runner.

http://darthmojo.wordpress.com/2008/06/18/scott-on-blade-runner/

 

 

page updated: 11/13/07

 

The studio has just informed us that the limited theatrical release of Blade Runner: The Final Cut is expanding to select markets around the country, and some of the screenings are expected to be in 2K resolution digital projection where available. Here's a list of dates and locations (look for more updates on the film's official website):

http://www.thedigitalbits.com/site_archive/mytwocentsa145.html

 

You said you saw Blade Runner at the Ziegfeld:

In 2007 it was equiped with this:

NEC's STARUS NC2500S Projectors Installed in Historic and Nationally Renowned Fox Theatre in Atlanta and Ziegfeld Theatre in Manhattan

 

NEC's STARUS NC2500S is the world's brightest DLP Cinema projector for large-sized screens 49 feet wide or larger. Delivering 2K resolution and high contrast ratios (2000:1), the STARUS NC2500S digital cinema projector is easy to operate and requires minimal maintenance. It can easily achieve the industry required standard of 14 foot lamberts on the largest cinema screens casting a remarkable digital image and delivering amplified brightness, sharper graphics and eye-catching color.

http://finance.paidcontent.org/paidcontent/news/read?GUID=162781

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

Regarding the release of the unaltered versions, I think an upscaled fan preservation is going to be the best thing we're ever going to get unfortunately. Didn't Lowry say that the original prints were in bad shape numerous times? I'd doubt Disney would go out of their way to obtain better prints to work from and scan, especially if they feel the cost of doing this outweighs the benefit of $$$ return. Also, I doubt Kathleen Kennedy would authorise such a move, as it would undermine George's vision of Star Wars which we all know is now the "Special Edition" versions.

As much as I would love this to happen, I just don't see it ever happening. It would be some miracle if it ever did though. Sigh.

 

Author
Time

No restoration project is that expensive. In the case of Star Wars, they certainly wouldn't need to worry about making their money back. Paramount spent more than a million dollars restoring the Godfather movies back in 2007.

I doubt George even cares about them being out there anymore. He even said at a convention a couple years ago that the original versions weren't being included in the blu-ray set because they were too expensive to restore .... or something.

Author
Time

rockin said:

especially if they feel the cost of doing this outweighs the benefit of $$$ return. 

This is impossible no matter what LFL might say. 

Author
Time

Baronlando said:

rockin said:

especially if they feel the cost of doing this outweighs the benefit of $$$ return. 

This is impossible no matter what LFL might say. 

I agree, but there's always an excuse...

Author
Time

The excuses were when Lucas was still in charge, and even back then I was convinced he'd get around to it eventually. Now that there's a larger corporate entity calling the shots, you can bet they'll get around to it sooner rather than later.

Author
Time

As of 9/18/2013, there is no release scheduled in this calendar year.

If you call Disney Studios contact line 800 723 4763 (hit 1 for english and  0 for operator), they will record your request. I asked for  "unaltered original star wars trilogy". They asked if I meant 1-6, and I said "just 4, 5, and 6".  

There is also the contact us form, but it was broken at the time I tried.  http://www.disneystudioshelp.com/ContactUs

Time to rally the troops! "All wings report in"

Author
Time

I'm quite convinced that there will be a BD release (or perhaps even 4K) of the OOT somewhere down the line, but I'm really afraid that they're gonna seriously fuck it up and then it will be the GOUT situation all over again.

Author
Time

I think they will at some point, but like others, I fear we'll get another GOUT. Disney's BD remasters of their animated canon are absolutely gorgeous, but they have the original masters to work with. If they treat Star Wars with the same care as their Diamond Editions (with the exception of changes ie. The Lion King) I will be more than happy.

Author
Time

Well, I wouldn't. For example Snow White on BD looks like it was animated digitally - it's been completely scrubbed of grain and even the colors seem wrong to my eyes, though I'll readily admit that I have no relevant point of reference for that, since it could well be closer to the original colors than the VHS and DVD versions I grew up with. And I hear they make minor cosmetic changes to pretty much all their catalog movies.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

I honestly can't answer yes or no to the question of whether Disney will release the OUT. I do think it's more likely now then it was when George Lucas was in charge, but that doesn't mean it will happen. I can say that I really want Disney to release them and hope that they will, but that doesn't mean much either. And even if they do, their release might not necessarily be better than a fan created version (only because of how surprisingly good fan created versions have been getting these days).

The pre-1997 versions of the Star Wars Trilogy have become exactly like marijuana. And I'm not just talking about the euphoria they both cause.

Like marijuana, everybody loves the Original Trilogy and wants it, but the official powers-that-be say nobody is allowed to have it and will offer no official assistance in acquiring it. Yet those official authorities know that an underground community will do the necessary work to make it available to the select market that refuses to take no for an answer.

Secretly, George Lucas and Disney and the drug enforcement agency know that it is impossible to prevent something from being made, distributed, and enjoyed as long as there is demand for it; so if you read between the lines, what they are actually saying is: "we don't want what you people are doing to be promoted or advertised on billboards or in the faces of those who aren't already into it as much as you, so keep it to yourselves and we will only mess with you once in a while to keep up the appearance that our attempt at control isn't silly and futile."

Also, when discussing marijuana policy, many of us who think it's ridiculous that it's not sold in the store like alcohol often say that eventually those conservative older people who oppose us will die of old age and so their viewpoint will fade away. Well, what do you think George Lucas is saying when he says that the copies of the Original Trilogy won't last more than another 30 or 40 years and that in 100 years his Special Edition will be the version people remember? He's saying those of us who insist that the Special Edition (and the prequels for that matter) isn't truly Star Wars will die off, so he can dismiss our demand as something that will just eventually go away. I don't think I'm reading too much into his comment; while he's too civil and good natured to explicitly say it, I think it's clearly implied in his "100 years" comment that original trilogy love will go to the grave and that's where he wants it.

Well, while I do believe it's necessary to respect and love George Lucas, not only as a fellow human being but for the inexpressible debt he is owed for getting this Star Wars thing started (we wouldn't have it without him), I still must say I DO NOT appreciate being talked about that way or treated with that attitude, especially after the money I've given him for Star Wars related items during my life. When it comes to this, I say f*** him since that is essentially what he's saying to me.

Thank God we have people like Harmy and dark_jedi! I seriously love those guys with a fiery passion!