Info: Finding Original Trilogy DVDs - for any of the original theatrical versions — Page 2

Author: BobaJett
Time: 31-Jan-2016 1:05 AM
Post link

Im a week new in this forum and have just finished burning, yes I know a lot of you dont burn anymore, TN1’s restore to a BD. It looks great! Anyways, after reading through this site and all the talk of the different cuts, I broke out my GOUT copy (which I didnt realize I even owned) and compared it to the TN1 version in a side by side viewing. Of course the first thing I noticed, like the BD release, the colors were over staurated, especially the blue in R2. Ive always noticed that, but had nothing to referance it to, ubtil now. I knew my memory wasnt failing me. I also noticed what I guess you would call aliasing around objects. Also noticed what looks like over sharpening to make the image look “sharper.” But one thing I didnt expect, and maybe its because I just watched TN1’s restore at 24fps, the GOUT version at, Im assuming, 30fps had that soap opera affect going on. I dont know if its because I was watching it on my PC or what. Are my eyes and brain playing a trick on me, or is that what Im genuinely seeing?
OP, defintely get these fan restored versions, far superior to anything youll find elsewhere!

Author: Haarspalter
Time: 16-Feb-2016 10:34 AM
Post link

Over-saturated colors in the GOUT? Are you confusing the GOUT with the 2004 DVDs? Because the colors of the GOUT are rather badly faded than over-saturated.

Rogue One is redundant. Just play the first mission of DARK FORCES.
The hallmark of a corrupt leader: Being surrounded by yes men.
‘The best visual effects in the world will not compensate for a story told badly.’ - V.E.S.
‘Star Wars is a buffet, enjoy the stuff you want, and leave the rest.’ - SilverWook

Author: BobaJett
Time: 16-Feb-2016 1:17 PM
Post link

Haarspalter said:

Over-saturated colors in the GOUT? Are you confusing the GOUT with the 2004 DVDs? Because the colors of the GOUT are rather badly faded than over-saturated.

I’m color blind, so maybe I need a second opinion. I’ll post a screen grab or two for comparison after work tonight. Let me know what I might be confusing with over saturation.

Author: BobaJett
Time: 17-Feb-2016 10:09 PM
Post link

Haarspalter said:

Over-saturated colors in the GOUT? Are you confusing the GOUT with the 2004 DVDs? Because the colors of the GOUT are rather badly faded than over-saturated.

Ok, after looking at it, Ill have to agree with you, to a point. Its similar to the BD in that it is slightly oversaturated, but a washed out saturation. The blue in R2 is still that bright, metallic overly blue in the GOUT. Its not as bad as the 2011 BD, but still there. Wheras the TN1 version is the more true to the original darker navy blue. (remember, Im color blind, so Im doing my best to convey what I see.) Also, the GOUT has bad “aliasing.” I guess thats what you call that. Another thing is the AR. When I did a screen grab of the GOUT and then tried to crop the image, it was less than 2.35/2.39:1 AR. R2’s head is not quite round like the correct AR in the BD. Why is that?

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/162334

Author: CatBus
Time: 27-Feb-2016 1:23 AM
Post link

You’ve mentioned you’re colorblind, and that’s probably why you’re using color-descriptive words a little atypically. The GOUT is too bright, desaturated, and pink-shifted (among other issues). The blues you’re seeing are IMO mostly just the brightness talking.

Be prepared to get into the tall weeds on aspect ratio, because the DVD format is weird. An NTSC DVD has eight pixels on each side of the image which are essentially throwaway–it’s called nominal analogue blanking. These are pixels that never make it to the display over an analogue connection. So you actually trim those 16 pixels off the sides, and THEN stretch it, and then it’s probably closer to the correct AR than you think. The problem is that digital connections don’t lose any pixels, the entire image makes it too the display, and an old-style DVD will appear slightly too tall and skinny for a modern set. Conversely, many DVD authors nowadays don’t bother taking blanking into account, use all the pixels, and so those images will appear slightly to short and fat to anyone using an analogue connection. And there’s no way to tell in advance which way the disc was authored, you just have to look at it and figure it out.

Not to mention they weren’t that strict about maintaining aspect ratio in 93 anyway, all technical issues aside.

Author: BobaJett
Time: 27-Feb-2016 5:14 PM
Post link

“Pink Shifted”, unless you actually showed me an example, I would never see it, being color blind. Thanks for the intuitive explanation. Thats why Im here. So, what I saw wasnt my imagination? There is an AR anomaly between the two?

Author: CatBus
Time: 27-Feb-2016 6:11 PM
Post link

Yes, the AR in those screencaps doesn’t match, but what I’m saying is, if you shaved eight pixels off the left and right of the GOUT, then stretched it back out to fill the same rectangle, it would be a much closer match – and that’s how it would have actually looked if you watched it on a TV circa 1993 when the master was made.

Most DVDs get too tall and skinny when you watch them on a computer, or over HDMI. It’s not specific to the GOUT.

Author: psychic squidward
Time: 8-Jun-2016 9:00 PM
Post link

i don’t waste my time. i have seen the comparisons, and the color and motion smearing from the digital audio removal from the 1993 laserdisc is pretty bad. so for now, i just stick with good ol’ v.2.5 of the harmy mad despecialized edition.