logo Sign In

I want my kids to see the unaltered Original Trilogy in a real theater — Page 3

Author
Time
Post link

danny_boy said:

Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:

danny_boy said:

When people went to watch SW in 70mm back in 77'----all they had in their homes were crude mono sounding TV's(and stereo gramaphones for their vinyl's)   So they were always going to be blown away by a 6 track magnetic audio presentation in a cinema!!

Nonsense.  I wouldn't be surprised if the stereos in people's homes sounded better in 1977 - on average - than they do today.  Back then people typically listened to music in high fidelity, whereas today people are accustomed to listening to music that has suffered from the "loudness wars", and/or been squashed into mp3 and listened through earbuds.  So one could argue that on average a person visiting a theater in the late 70s is more likely to be able to discern a lack of dynamic range than today's average listener.

"Gramaphones"?  The Gramophone company went out of business in the 1930s.  My memory of the late 1970s was Macintosh, Thorens, Pioneer, M&K, Klipsch, etc.  Quadraphonic surround had been around for nearly 10 years.

 

 

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=XuxVAAAAIBAJ&sjid=zEANAAAAIBAJ&pg=6767,2774626&dq=70mm+6+track+star+wars&hl=en

 

Great article!  I love reading old newspaper articles like this!  What I wish would catch on is 60 FPS film like Showscan.  I remember watching the Revenge of the Sith and in some of the panning battlescenes the 24 frames per second really showed and looked very jerky, and I thought with all this technology Lucas is doing 24 frames per second.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Showscan

I was surprised that when I put the DVD for Surf's Up in my computer I found that is was 60 frames per second!  It really shows.   The Blue Ray is even more impressive!  

Author
Time
Post link

Tighe said:

What I wish would catch on is 60 FPS film like Showscan.  I remember watching the Revenge of the Sith and in some of the panning battlescenes the 24 frames per second really showed and looked very jerky... 

Not that 60fps isn't nice--it is--but I've noticed recent movies are having 24fps come-aparts a lot more frequently than I remember they used to (it did happen before, but not all the friggen time like now).  Is the typical speed of pans some sort of filmmaking trend, and we're on the bad end of a fashion swing?  Is there something about digital filmmaking that means you can't change shutter speeds during pans like you should?  Just curious.

Project Threepio (Star Wars OOT subtitles)

Author
Time
Post link

CatBus said:

Tighe said:

What I wish would catch on is 60 FPS film like Showscan.  I remember watching the Revenge of the Sith and in some of the panning battlescenes the 24 frames per second really showed and looked very jerky... 

Not that 60fps isn't nice--it is--but I've noticed recent movies are having 24fps come-aparts a lot more frequently than I remember they used to (it did happen before, but not all the friggen time like now).  Is the typical speed of pans some sort of filmmaking trend, and we're on the bad end of a fashion swing?  Is there something about digital filmmaking that means you can't change shutter speeds during pans like you should?  Just curious.

 

It was really apparent in ROTS!

 

Speaking of transfers, Dragon Ball Z is getting a proper 1080P transfer from the original film!  And Lucas can't do it???

Author
Time
Post link

Tighe said:


Speaking of transfers, Dragon Ball Z is getting a proper 1080P transfer from the original film!  And Lucas can't do it???
Pretty sure this is at least the second time in the last 7 or 8 years.

Star Wars Revisited Wordpress

Star Wars Visual Comparisons WordPress

Author
Time
Post link

doubleofive said:

 

Tighe said:


Speaking of transfers, Dragon Ball Z is getting a proper 1080P transfer from the original film!  And Lucas can't do it???
Pretty sure this is at least the second time in the last 7 or 8 years.

 

 

The last transfer was to DVD and they included the whole film frame to give it a 16:9 aspect ratio if I recall correctly.  This version is blue-ray, and will have the original broadcast 4:3 aspect ratio.  I think a bunch of fans were upset about the changes. LOL go figure.

Author
Time
Post link

Tighe said:


The last transfer was to DVD and they included the whole film frame to give it a 16:9 aspect ratio if I recall correctly.  This version is blue-ray, and will have the original broadcast 4:3 aspect ratio.  I think a bunch of fans were upset about the changes. LOL go figure.
What kind of company listens to fans? What do they know?

Star Wars Revisited Wordpress

Star Wars Visual Comparisons WordPress

Author
Time
Post link

Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:

danny_boy said:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=XuxVAAAAIBAJ&sjid=zEANAAAAIBAJ&pg=6767,2774626&dq=70mm+6+track+star+wars&hl=en

Nice article.  Although I'm not sure how it bolsters your point.

"better sound in the movies is a must now that the public is hifi conscious and yes indeed---we'd like to here it on TV aswell"

The Robesonian 11/24/1977

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
Post link

danny_boy said:

Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:

danny_boy said:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=XuxVAAAAIBAJ&sjid=zEANAAAAIBAJ&pg=6767,2774626&dq=70mm+6+track+star+wars&hl=en

Nice article.  Although I'm not sure how it bolsters your point.

"better sound in the movies is a must now that the public is hifi conscious and yes indeed---we'd like to here it on TV aswell"

The Robesonian 11/24/1977

I wonder if they were just thinking more movies needed to sound as good as Star Wars, given the date.

Project Threepio (Star Wars OOT subtitles)

Author
Time
Post link

danny_boy said:

"better sound in the movies is a must now that the public is hifi conscious and yes indeed---we'd like to here it on TV aswell"

The Robesonian 11/24/1977

Ok, I still don't get the point.  In fact, the above quote supports MY point... that the public in the late-70s was very hifi conscious (as opposed to your original claim).

p.s. - "we'd like to here it..."?

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

Author
Time
Post link

Star Wars used to sell high end audio gear.

Forum Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time
Post link

SilverWook said:

Star Wars used to sell high end audio gear.

Man I love those old ads!  Takes me back!

Author
Time
Post link

Tighe said:

Man I love those old ads!  Takes me back!

Yeah, takes me back too...and reminds me how annoyed I used to be that they didn't get the colour of the TIE's lasers correct in that iconic 'production shot', that used to be everywhere, lol...

Author
Time
Post link

Tighe said:

doubleofive said:

 

Tighe said:


Speaking of transfers, Dragon Ball Z is getting a proper 1080P transfer from the original film!  And Lucas can't do it???
Pretty sure this is at least the second time in the last 7 or 8 years.

 

 

The last transfer was to DVD and they included the whole film frame to give it a 16:9 aspect ratio if I recall correctly.  This version is blue-ray, and will have the original broadcast 4:3 aspect ratio.  I think a bunch of fans were upset about the changes. LOL go figure.

It's pretty funny. The DVD release was cropped to 16:9 and DNR'd to hell. This blu ray release is pretty much FUNimation's apology to the fans, and looks like a pretty damn good release.

Oh George.

Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link

Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:

danny_boy said:

"better sound in the movies is a must now that the public is hifi conscious and yes indeed---we'd like to here it on TV aswell"

The Robesonian 11/24/1977

Ok, I still don't get the point.  In fact, the above quote supports MY point... that the public in the late-70s was very hifi conscious (as opposed to your original claim).

p.s. - "we'd like to here it..."?

p.s.s. "aswell" as well.

Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link

Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:

danny_boy said:

"better sound in the movies is a must now that the public is hifi conscious and yes indeed---we'd like to here it on TV aswell"

The Robesonian 11/24/1977

Ok, I still don't get the point.  In fact, the above quote supports MY point... that the public in the late-70s was very hifi conscious (as opposed to your original claim).

p.s. - "we'd like to here it..."?

@puggo

I respect your opinion and I understand where you are coming from.

But that quote accentuates my point too-----that the audience pined for improved sound quality on their TV's----which obviously did not hold a candle to listening to a 6 track magnetic presentation in a 70mm auditorium(so it was always easier to be impressed when watching such a presentation).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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
Post link

danny_boy said:

But that quote accentuates my point too-----that the audience pined for improved sound quality on their TV's----which obviously did not hold a candle to listening to a 6 track magnetic presentation in a 70mm auditorium(so it was always easier to be impressed when watching such a presentation).

Ok, I understand your point there.  Although it doesn't provide any insight into how good (or not) it sounded.  For that, I trust hairy-hen's independent assessment over LFL's sales pitches for the various SEs.

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

Author
Time
Post link

[quote=Tighe]



Great article!  I love reading old newspaper articles like this!  What I wish would catch on is 60 FPS film like Showscan.  I remember watching the Revenge of the Sith and in some of the panning battlescenes the 24 frames per second really showed and looked very jerky, and I thought with all this technology Lucas is doing 24 frames per second.

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Showscan</a>" title="en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Showscan">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Showscan</a>" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Showscan">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Showscan</a>

I was surprised that when I put the DVD for Surf's Up in my computer I found that is was 60 frames per second!  It really shows.   The Blue Ray is even more impressive!  


You don't want 60 fps. The reason is that your image will start looking like a soap opera instead of a movie.

What’s the internal temperature of a TaunTaun? Luke warm.

Author
Time
Post link

danny_boy said:

(so it was always easier to be impressed when watching such a presentation).

That's the jump I don't make.  Yes, theatre sound (even normal stereo theatre sound) sounded better than mono television.  But that was EXPECTED, and it wasn't new.  Back in '77, when people wanted to watch a movie, they saw it in the theatre, there wasn't even a thought that it would sound like a television unless you went to a drive-in.  Now, things are different and people watch movies primarily on their TVs.  It's only recently that there's been any expectation of parity between TV and movies, visually or sonically or anything.

But the 70mm Star Wars mix stood out because it was clearly better than even the normal stereo theatre sound.  It sounded like people's hi-fi systems.  Sure that was impressive, but here's the thing--people's hi-fi systems back in '77 sounded just as good if not better than people's hi-fi systems today.  So we're essentially measuring against the same yardstick as they did back then, and people today (like me) are still impressed by it, when comparing it to current sound standards.  Maybe we should frame it a different way--what is it about the 1977 70mm track that doesn't impress YOU?  What are you comparing it against?

Because really if we're all measuring it against different standards, that can easily explain why one person finds it to be impressive and another doesn't.  Let's compare it against the Blu Ray mix for example.  Can we all agree it's impressive compared to that?

Project Threepio (Star Wars OOT subtitles)

Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link

Mavimao said:


You don't want 60 fps. The reason is that your image will start looking like a soap opera instead of a movie.

 

I'd actually love to see someone provide a detailed explanation with examples of the "soap opera effect" when discussing higher frame rates instead of just throwing out the phrase "soap opera" and thinking that settles it. It's the kind of FUD that makes people think the new Hobbit film is going to look bad because it's being shot at 48fps.

A higher frame rate does not automatically mean a "video-y" soap opera look. NFL games are shot at 60fps, and do not look like a soap opera on my TV. Same with the evening news.

Author
Time
Post link

Older movies shot at a lower frame rate do look like they were shot on video when those sports/game modes are engaged though. Some people may think it's cool, but it's not what most movies are supposed to look like.

Many HD sets have the thing on by default out of the box, and the off switch is usually buried deep in a sub menu. Check out most home theater setups at stores like Best Buy and the "soap opera" effect will be noticeable.

Forum Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link

I hate that mode that generates extra frames to make something look like 60fps. That literally gives me motion sickness and migraines.

I have nothing against The Hobbit being in 48fps. It's like Doug Trumbull's Showscan format. And I believe that the original Star Tours ride film was shot at 30fps instead of 24, and it doesn't look like a soap opera.

It's not the same as this awful 120Hz/fake 60fps thing that makes 24fps film move like a student film shot on a camcorder.

Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link

SilverWook said:

Older movies shot at a lower frame rate do look like they were shot on video when those sports/game modes are engaged though. Some people may think it's cool, but it's not what most movies are supposed to look like.

Many HD sets have the thing on by default out of the box, and the off switch is usually buried deep in a sub menu. Check out most home theater setups at stores like Best Buy and the "soap opera" effect will be noticeable.

That's not at all what I'm talking about. That's interpolation, which generates new frames and I agree looks awful. It's exactly this kind of confusion that makes people say "you don't want 60fps because it will look like a soap opera."