logo Sign In

Editdroid's SW 1977 DVD (Mysterious 720p Anamorphic LD Preservation?) (Released)

Author
Time
 (Edited)

A note about images: These are not 100% faithful to the clarity and sharpness of the actual product, however they represent a decent point of illustration.

So, a well connected friend of mine passed along something to me a few days ago. It was an unlabeled dual-layered DVD. He said it was the best home video release of Star Wars ever done. He said it was done by a professional editor, who restored the film himself from the LD using professional-grade tools. He said only five or six people have a copy of this right now, but that the editor said it is good to disseminate and that it would be appearing on the web sometime soon.

I wasn’t sure what to expect, but when I watched the thing—he was damn right. I’ll admit it: the GOUT was better than any Laserdisc preservation, even Moth3r and the Editdroid/Mysterious Mysteries editions. Maybe the X/0 project could surpass it, but mainly because it is using some Black Magic effects so it’s not a strict LD preservation (and that project’s dead anyway), and G-Force’s scripting obviously is cleaner, but it isn’t without it’s own problems. This thing blows away the GOUT, and it blows away every previous pure capture. I wasn’t sure who did this or where it came from, (the title on the menu simply says 1977 Theatrical Version) but a note at the end of the technical description had aurebesh writing. I looked up the aurebesh dictionary and translated it as:

“—Editdroid”

Editdroid has taken a completely new pass at the film.

The menu is stunning, first off, opening with a full-motion montage of posters with music and sound effects, celebrating the original release. Professional grade, a very spiffy intro. So how does the film look and sound? Well, this is a dual-layered DVD, first off, which should tell you the high quality to expect. All the layers are used for the film, except for a technical explanation in onscreen text detailing the process Editdroid used this time around.  I’ll let him speak for himself:

"Picture

The DVD video was created using the 1993 non-anamorphic LaserDisc version upscaled to 720p to extract a 16:9 standard definition element. Great pains were taken to retain the look of the 1993 telecine, rather than trying to match the 2004 version. Outside of transferring an original 35mm print, this is the best available source of the 1977 version of Star Wars.
To achieve this, the 4:3 master was rendered out frame by frame and into Photoshop where it was cropped to 16:9 and blown up to 720p. From there, the contrast of the low spatial frequencies (i.e., fine detail) was increased by 75% to pull out existing detail and amplify the apparent sharpness of the image. To match the look of the 1993 master, shadows and highlights were lightly compressed, and mid-range contrast expanded. The white and black points were retained, to avoid cutting off any detail. The saturation was slightly decreased, and the resulting 120,000+ images were rendered out to create a Quicktime file, then the 7.2mbps DVD master.

Sound (5.1)

A new Dolby Digital 5.1 mix was created using Ben Burtt and Gary Summers’ 1993 remaster/mix as the inspiration. A six track capture of the 2004 Special Edition 5.1 and the two track decoded into four (LCRS) of the 1993 LaserDisc Dolby Stereo mix were done in Pro Tools at 16 bit 48kHz. The 2004 DVD mix was conformed to the 1977 length, and when there were picture/audio changes, the 1993 mix was used.
No pans or fades were changed from the original mixes, and EQ was used sparingly, only when absolutely necessary to smooth a transition from the 1993 to the 2004 mix. A new Dolby Digital AC3 file was created using the maximum 448kbps settings.

Sound (Mono)

The mono mix has many differences to the stereo and the 70mm mix, including alternate takes on some lines, and Shelagh Fraser’s readings for Aunt Beru, which were replaced by a different actress in subsequent mixes. The 1977 mono mix has never been released.
The main source for the 1977 mono theatrical mix came from “The Mono Mix Restoration Project” and would not have been possible here without their hard work. The track, while mostly complete, contained audio drop outs and some gaps, which were filled from a second mono source. All audio was cleaned up to minimize the optical track crackle and rumble. The original transfer was not speed locked, so varispeed and numerous edits were required to patch and slide audio back into sync."

Sound good? It also has the original crawl, taken from the GOUT.

Here is my review of what I like to call EditDroid2 (ED2–what else should we call it?). The main question is: is the picture better than the GOUT? The answer is yes, but no in some ways. In most shots, sharpness is equal, in some shots sharpness is even better, and in some shots I would say the GOUT is a smidge sharper. The difference is splitting hairs, really. I’ll post some comparisons.

One thing to look for is that this transfer is so detailed that you can see the grain—much like on the GOUT. This shows how sharp both of these transfers were—previous versions, while good, did not get detail so fine that the grain became apparent. Maybe this is due to the sharpening processing done in Photoshop. This transfer is slightly less grainy than the GOUT. While this may indicate that it would be slightly less sharp, such is not the case overall—it seems there is a bit of a threshold where actual picture detail does not increase, but spots and grain in the transfer become more noticeable, which this release avoids for the most part. But believe me, this is grainy, and that’s a good thing because that’s how the print is, and somehow it looks more suitable here than the GOUT, perhaps because it’s not quite so heavy and coarse, it seems more like an organic part of the emulsion rather than a mask of dirt overtop of it, and I like being able to have enough detail to see the faults of the emulsion like the density changing. So, in terms of pure detail, I would say GOUT and ED2 are on about equal ground, but ED2 has better grain issues. Some people may say GOUT is a hair sharper, some people may say ED2 is about a hair sharper. It changes from scene to scene in my opinion. But overall, this transfer just looks better than the GOUT and I’m not even sure what to attribute this to since the detail level is about equal—but it’s an improvement nonetheless if you ask me. Maybe it’s simply because it has been upscaled to 720p.

Other picture issues, however: the GOUT has better detail in the highlights. It is a small issue, but one I noticed. You can see this in the example of the escape pod, where the white lighting on the pod is burning out just a bit, but there are other examples (reflections, usually) where the hot spots that have a bit of detail in the 2004 and 2006 official transfers are more burned out. However, if you look at the caps, ED2 has much better shadow and mid-range detail than the GOUT (see the pic of Vader; the caps unfortunately lost a lot of the mid range info). On the other hand, because this is sourced from the LD while the GOUT came from the D1/2 master tape, there are some mild aliasing in a few shots. It’s too bad there wasn’t anti-aliasing filters applied to the shots in which this occurs, although they are only occassional. Below is an example:

As I suspected, the GOUT seems to have had its contrast upped and its saturation nudged by just a bit. ED2 seems a bit more pink shifted in skin tones as well (similar to the 2004 master, but not nearly as bad–see the pic of the rebel trooper). None of these are necessarily “correct”, it simply depends on your preference; I prefer the GOUT skin tonality, but I also prefer the lower contrast/extra mid-range detail that ED2 gives. But, because of some occasional aliasing and highlight blows, I would say the GOUT has a mild advantage here. ED2 has some very minor edge enhancement in a couple scenes, such as the Falcon’s entry into the Death Star, whereas the GOUT does not as far as I remember. It’s extremely mild, of course, and only in a few shots, but I have to mention it.

One of the great things about this is that the subtitles have been recreated to a T and are burned in. I appreciated this touch. Sorry, GOUT, you lose here.

Also, it appears that the frame shaking that the GOUT was plagued with is gone (“gate weave” in technical terms). Select shots have a bit of weave, but in general the entire transfer seems to have been stabilized. A subtle but important improvement over the GOUT.

But of course, the big one: ED2 is anamorphic! And in 720p no less. And it looks stunning. Even on my 4x3 computer screen I noticed a great boost in picture quality. Trust me, when you pop this into your set top player and watch it on you 40” 16x9 television—you will be impressed. None of this stretching or zooming nonsense. This will be the only version of Star Wars you will ever watch until Lucasfilm restores it from a 35mm source. I’ve seen the GOUT re-transferred to anamorphic and it doesn’t look this good. The only outstanding issue is the aliasing–maybe someone here can fix that.

On to audio. The 5.1 mix is really, really good. It sounds better than the 2004 mix–it seems more lively and immersive, but maybe that’s because I haven’t listened to the 2004 mix in a few years. Ben’s original Kryatt dragon call is in there, and I believe the audio swapping and dropping from 2004 has been fixed. One thing I did notice that kind of bugged me is that in the scene where the stormtroopers are knocking on the doors in Mos Eisely the sound of the floating patrol droid is still heard in the background. Meh. Since there was no 1977 5.1 mix this is a modern bonus in some ways anyway. I really enjoyed seeing the 1977 cut in a state of the art 5.1 mix.

The mono mix is most likely the previous version on the older ED disk. It sounds amazing, and I actually prefer this to the 5.1 mix. It’s more authentic anyway. I am disappointed the stereo DE mix was not included as this would have been my preferred way to view the film. I realize Editdroid wanted to save as much room for picture as possible, but it’s too bad this couldn’t be included.

So, overall: GOUT or ED2? If you have a small 4x3 television and you already paid money for the GOUT, you aren’t going to gain a whole lot, unless you want to enjoy the mono mix. For those with larger sets and especially anyone who has a 16x9 set, no question: ED2. Until X/0 releases their project, if they ever do, this is easily the best LD transfer of Star Wars possible without going to a 35mm print or the 2004 master. Scripts like g-Force’s are impressive in their own right, but IMO they still haven’t figured out how to preserve all the detail without scrubbing out every bit of grain.

While a color corrected 2004 master would yield much better detail, the crushed blacks mean that ED2 has better detail in some ways (better even than the GOUT for shadows and mid-range). However, there is a more important reason: it will never be possible to replicate the “look” of the 1977 release via the 2004 master. This is because Star Wars was deliberately shot soft—almost every scene was soft-filtered. There is a gauzy look to the film that the 2004 master eliminated by artificial sharpening, and also by grain reduction. While Star Wars’ raw negative probably isn’t as grainy as this is, it is much closer to the original look, and because it is less grainy than the GOUT, probably is what audiences would have actually seen in a 35mm or 70mm release print. Also, editing the 2004 master to include 1977 footage usually doesn’t work out because of this difference in grain and sharpness, although Adywan was pretty successful in his (limited) attempts (which often required treating the shots as visual effect composites). For these reasons, as nice as edited and color-corrected 2004 masters are, they still aren’t as good as this. THIS is what the original 1977 release would have looked like. Okay, so the coloring on the R2 canyon scene is debatable, the binary sunset shot might be oversaturated, and the cantina might be a bit darker. To me, these things matter less, and there is still ongoing debate about most of these “changes” anyway. For me, I’d rather see the shots a bit softer, see Luke ignite his lightsaber, have a noticeable jumpcut and see the grain level double, because that’s what the film would have looked like.

In short, this is currently the best release of the original Star Wars on home video so far. It is as sharp as the GOUT, has less grain, has image stabilization, has the original crawl, has a 5.1 mix and the original mono, and is anamorphically enhanced in 720p. I suspect that it will not be surpassed until either X/0 is resurrected, the GOUT scripts get improved, or we have new material to work with—which would mean newly transferred material from a print. Until that happens, I just thought everyone should know that after Lucasfilm outdid the LD preservations with the GOUT, Lucasfilm’s GOUT has now been outdone by a LD preservation. Fuck you, Lucasfilm!

EDIT

See post #67 for a breakdown of what this transfer actually is derived from…

(hint: it’s not a Laserdisc proper)

Author
Time

Wow this looks cool.  Thanks for sharing zombie!  I have to assume that Empire and Jedi are in the works...

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Cool, can't wait to check it out...

 

Now please tell me the other two movies aren't being neglected?

(Edit: TV's Frink beat me to it) ;)

So what's the name for this one?

Author
Time
 (Edited)

I guess the question is now does it match g-force/other's efforts to "fix" the GOUT? I'm pretty satisfied with those, and wonder what those scripts might do for this.

My skepticism and possibly offensive comments aside, this looks great! Thanks for sharin' Zombie.

A Goon in a Gaggle of 'em

Author
Time

Those screenshots do look pretty good.  I'd imagine that it's probably on par with the results of G-Force's AviSynth script applied to the GOUT. The script probably wins overall because of the anti-aliasing, but it may have a bit too much grain reduction for some.  All a matter of taste, I guess.  The shots affected by DVNR smearing are probably beyond salvage by any restoration short of replacing them from a different source entirely.

What really disturbs me, though, is the idea of using of the ghastly 2004 audio with the original version of the film.  That mix is, to put it lightly, an enormous pile of crappe that has absolutely nothing in common with any of the original mixes.  At all.  Beyond its obvious problems that have been well documented, the FX portion of the mix has been horrifically EQ'd towards the low end, giving the entire film a distorted, nasty sound that is about as far removed from what it should be as it can get.  Add to that missing and out of synch sound effects, as well as other issues I won't get into, and the result is a sonic catastrophe.  If an SE version absolutely had to be used it should have been the 1997 mix, because while its dynamic range tends to fall short of the 1993 version, and C-3PO's dialogue is very noisy, it still has that recognisably Star Wars sound . . .

This would still irritate me even I hadn't just spent the past month restoring the original 1977 70mm mix, which is the best the film has ever sounded by far.  Granted, I haven't actually made it available yet (although it will be soon, and in 5.1 no less), but seriously, the audio problems with the dvd remix are so vast that I can't understand why anyone would ever want to listen to it!

Sorry for ranting there.  lol  I don't mean to detract from the effort made to this project, because it does look rather good image-wise.

Author
Time

Tremendously exciting! Can't wait to get a copy! Thanks, zombie and ED team!

I used to be very active on this forum. I’m not really anymore. Sometimes, people still want to get in touch with me about something, and that is great! If that describes you, please email me at [my username]ATgmailDOTcom.

Hi everybody. You’re all awesome. Keep up the good work.

Author
Time

Exciting. Like stated before, we do need some ESB and ROTJ too.

"The other versions will disappear. Even the 35 million tapes of Star Wars out there won’t last more than 30 or 40 years. A hundred years from now, the only version of the movie that anyone will remember will be the DVD version [of the Special Edition], and you’ll be able to project it on a 20’ by 40’ screen with perfect quality. I think it’s the director’s prerogative, not the studio’s to go back and reinvent a movie." - George Lucas

<span> </span>

Author
Time
 (Edited)

G-Force's script obviously is cleaner looking, but IMO it's too clean. It looks like video from some of the shots I've seen, I don't feel like I am watching a film from the 1970s. I guess it depends on your taste. I like that I can see the shimmer of the film density and grain from the emulsion, personally, the cleanliness is nice but you can only take it so far. The other issue is that g-force's stuff it's so impossibly technical for many people, I have absolutely no clue when it comes to scripting stuff. Not to take away from his work, it is extraordinary. But then the source video has it's own set of problems; this one has more clipping in the hot spots, but it has more detail in the darks and the mid ranges. The only real strike against it IMO is the occassionaly laserdisc jaggies--maybe someone could do a script to solve that. I've also been noticing that a lot of the g-force scripting experiments result in scrubbing out some detail, which is almost inevitable when you start trying to erase grain through automated processes. You can see this with the R2 shot with 3P0's arm, DarkJedi's encode scrubs off that great detail just to get rid of the grain that shouldn't be a huge problem in the first place (again, not to take away from the great work they are doing). The script needs further work, but I'm not sure if it will ever get to the point where it could preserve sharpness, preserve some grain, while also not introducing contrast and artifact issues. I suppose it comes down to preference here. The Lucasfilm pwnage version looks very promising, it preserves detail and seems to have left some grain, but I have yet to see it. I think it's good to have the new ED version as an alternative.

hairy_hen, I am guessing the 2004 mix was used because it is the only way to watch the film in 5.1 without making your own mix from scratch, which would be either impossible or too much work. I look forward to your 70mm mix though, maybe one day someone will re-author this with that mix replacing the current 5.1, I would certainly love that.

Author
Time

There's the 5.1 mix from '97 which is supposed to be better; I know Ady based his audio fixes on that. But it is of no importance to me, as I'd listen to the mono anyway.

A Goon in a Gaggle of 'em

Author
Time

On the plus side, this sounds like a great project - I love to hear about new advances in getting the best out of LD captures.

Unfortunately the technical details are... well, confusing. 720p is not anamorphic, a DVD cannot be 720p, etc.

I look forward to checking it out.

Guidelines for post content and general behaviour: read announcement here

Max. allowable image sizes in signatures: reminder here

Author
Time

Interesting...the image on it seems to look very good. Thanks for the in-depth review, zombie. I think if you would somehow combine the best from g-force's script with Moth3r's pwnage script you would also have some good results, g-force's image stabilisation meets pwnage approach to grain structure.

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

The LFN Pwnage edition is great. It has anamorphic picture, balance/smoothing applied to the GOUT image, burned in subtitles for Greedo, and the three sound mixes (theatrical stereo, mono, and the THX stereo like we had on the LDs I guess).


The one thing I don't like about that custom DVD (apart from the lack of the 70mm mix, which isn't the author(s) fault since it wasn't available yet) is the "shaking" back and forth which sometimes occurs with the image horizontally. I didn't really get what people were talking about until I saw this, and it's very evident in a few scenes (especially the lightsaber duel).

So I'm really looking forward to seeing this...

 

If I had three versions that all had such features (stabilized image, anamorphic, theatrical sound, subtitles), I could put my GOUT back into storage... ;)

Don't get me wrong I see why people are giving the original Star Wars primary attention in these projects, but the last two movies need some love too!

Author
Time

Awesome find man, awesome find. Can't wait for the DL.

Author
Time

Zombie,

Thanks for sharing the news on this. I can't wait to see it!

I think Moth3r's point about the DVD format not allowing 720p is valid. Is this really a DVD, or maybe an AVCHD?

zombie84 said:

I just thought everyone should know that after Lucasfilm outdid the LD preservations with the GOUT, Lucasfilm’s GOUT has now been outdone by a LD preservation. Fuck you, Lucasfilm!

Love the last sentence! And this may be the most important part of this project. It raises the bar for Lucasfilm. In order to be commercially attractive, their next offering of the OT will have to improve over this project. But knowing Lucasfilm, it will only be a slight improvement.

 

You know of the rebellion against the Empire?

Author
Time

Moth3r said:

Unfortunately the technical details are... well, confusing. 720p is not anamorphic, a DVD cannot be 720p, etc.

I agree.  While I appreciate Zombie84's efforts, I am a little dubious about this. 

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Erikstormtrooper said:

It raises the bar for Lucasfilm. In order to be commercially attractive, their next offering of the OT will have to improve over this project.

I disagree.  What percentage of people who would buy a Star Wars DVD (outside of this forum) will ever see this or even hear about it?  Lucas will sell a ton of OT Blu-rays when they come out, no matter the source or quality.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

TV's Frink said:

Erikstormtrooper said:

It raises the bar for Lucasfilm. In order to be commercially attractive, their next offering of the OT will have to improve over this project.

I disagree.  What percentage of people who would buy a Star Wars DVD (outside of this forum) will ever see this or even hear about it?  Lucas will sell a ton of OT Blu-rays when they come out, no matter the source or quality.

 

Agreed. The 2006 "bonus discs" were released with minimal quality to compete with similar quality laserdisc rips (of the non-special editions) that were being bootlegged on online like hotcakes.

 

The average movie consumer (non-tech head, non-SW fan) apparently can't tell the difference between the versions (except in very minor ways like "hey, was Jabba always in that scene?" "Who is that young kid next to Ben?"), least of all before purchasing. You actually have to explain to people that yes, the picture is clearer, but the colors are all wrong (and then give them pictorial examples) before they understand.


As far as Star Wars fan edits go, about the only one that made a big splash was the first "Phantom Edit." Probably fewer people have heard of Adywan's edit. Though I suppose Deleted Magic is making it up there (then again it was sold).

But that was before the DVD came out. All people had back then was the VHS (few bought the LD of course). How many who disliked the movie enough to track down TPE back then would have then bought the DVD?

And a bootleg market doesn't guarentee a superior official release. I mean, we still don't have the Holiday Special on any official home release, do we? Never mind a quality one...

 

Sadly I predict you'll be right. The BD will be a disappointing release, but it'll set sales records, simply because of the name and because it's the first official release on HD (not counting the broadcasts, which few people were able to see, much less record). They'll probably make it an "event" and time it to coincide with the release of some mediocre console game, and maybe another TV show premier and/or toy set. They'll add the figures together to make them all seem more successful than they were (and show how Lucas marketing still gots it).

Author
Time

True, 720p is not permitted by dvd format, and all HD resolutions are inherently non-anamorphic, being natively 16:9.  The term anamorphic refers only to Panavision-type film lenses and widescreen dvd's since they horizontally squeeze the image and then stretch it back out during playback.  I guess this is probably an H.264 encode on a dvd disc, so a Bluray player would be required.

I would certainly be interested in seeing this if I had the right equipment, though I haven't been able to get in the HD game yet.  From the looks of things the jaggies are the only real problem with the image (and unavoidable DVNR artefacts, obviously).

The thing about the 2004 mix is that using it negates the claim to being the "theatrical version" of the film, because no theatrical release has ever sounded remotely like it (and hopefully never will).  I'm rather attuned to the aural side of things more than the visual, and that mix was the thing that really soured me on the SE's and put me on the path of going back to the unaltered films.

To give an idea of just how wrong it sounds: a few weeks after I got it I did a direct comparison of the dvd with the '85 stereo on vhs, to prove to myself I wasn't imagining the crappiness of the remix, and found that by altering the EQ when playing the tape, I could make it sound almost exactly like the dvd.  The receiver I had access to at the time had a five band EQ on the front, and if I increased the 100 and 300 hz bands to maximum (+10 db I think), left 1 khz alone, and reduced 3 and 10 khz to minimum, the result was extremely similar to the 2004 mix, at least as far as the sound effects were concerned.  This alone proved to me that whoever was responsible for it was a tone-deaf buffoon, and had absolutely no idea what the film is supposed to sound like.  Say what you will about Ben Burtt's need to elevate his sound effects over music, but I have a hard time believing that even he could have had anything to do with that mess.

I'm not sure if my soundtrack would synch to this, since it is derived from the GOUT-synched tracks created by Belbecus, and the frame count is most likely not identical . . .

Author
Time
 (Edited)

A question for you, hairy_hen... aren't BD movies still "anamorphic"? I mean, what if you own a 4:3 HD screen? Or does it actually shrink the image in that case, the opposite of an anamorphic DVD?

 

Back to the edit, since this isn't a custom DVD like LFN Pwnage, it should be a lot easier for people to get it here (obeying the usual rules of course). That's good news!

Author
Time
 (Edited)

TV's Frink said:

Erikstormtrooper said:

It raises the bar for Lucasfilm. In order to be commercially attractive, their next offering of the OT will have to improve over this project.

I disagree.  What percentage of people who would buy a Star Wars DVD (outside of this forum) will ever see this or even hear about it?  Lucas will sell a ton of OT Blu-rays when they come out, no matter the source or quality.

I should clarify: I meant the next offering of the original versions of the OT. The GOUT will no longer cut it the next time around. We will get something like GOUT 2.0, with minor improvements and probably anamorphic.

You know of the rebellion against the Empire?

Author
Time
 (Edited)

I guess we're getting off topic now, but...

I wonder if the next Star Wars DVD release will be as a "combo" with the Blu-Ray?


I guess whichever he thinks can make the most money...

 

Author
Time

So, any word on when this might be available?

Author
Time
 (Edited)

If you had a 4:3 HD display, the image would be scaled to the appropriate height relative to the width of the screen to keep the correct aspect ratio, similarly to how it is done in 4:3 standard definition.  Unlike dvd, which actually encodes in a 3:2 ratio and is then flagged for decoding as 16:9 or 4:3, Bluray is already natively 16:9, so there is no need to squash the image and then re-stretch upon playback: it is already in the correct ratio, therefore, non-anamorphic.  Films with an aspect ratio wider than 16:9 have black bars encoded into the top and bottom, the same way non-anamorphic dvd's do; the difference is that the vastly greater resolution of HD allows this to be done while still maintaining a high quality image.  An anamorphic system could have been implemented into the HD specs, rather than decreasing the vertical resolution of wider films, but overall it's really a non-issue.  Some people with projector setups like to use "constant image height", widening their screens for wide films the way it is done in movie theatres.  I think a combination of additional video scaling and special projector lenses has to be used to achieve this effect.  It's probably pretty cool if you can get such a thing working, though most people aren't inclined to bother with something like that.

Wow, this thread has really taken off.  We neglected OT fans sure do jump at the prospect of any improvements to the image quality we can get!  lol

Author
Time

hairy_hen said:

 I guess this is probably an H.264 encode on a dvd disc, so a Bluray player would be required.

No, I think (from the screenshots) it's an anamorphic DVD. Maybe it was downscaled from a 720p source that was a laserdisc capture upscaled for processing.

Guidelines for post content and general behaviour: read announcement here

Max. allowable image sizes in signatures: reminder here