SFX details you never knew were in the OT until you saw them on DVD?

Author: BigMackDaddy
Date: 14-Dec-2005, 7:24 PM

Author: BigMackDaddy
Time: 14-Dec-2005 7:24 PM
Post link

Anyone find any small detail they never knew was in the OT until the DVDs were released?

Author: Adamwankenobi
Time: 14-Dec-2005 7:25 PM
Post link

The overall clarity. I had never reallized they could look so good. I mean, I had hoped, but...

Author: Darth Richard
Time: 14-Dec-2005 7:51 PM
Post link

ya probably clarity and detail on the death star's and ships

Author: 20th Century Mark
Time: 14-Dec-2005 8:03 PM
Post link

The detail is great. Too bad the colour, contrast and everything else is messed up.

Author: battlewars
Time: 14-Dec-2005 8:51 PM
Post link

Originally posted by: 20th Century Mark
The detail is great. Too bad the colour, contrast and everything else is messed up.

me too

Author: Kaal-Jhyy
Time: 14-Dec-2005 9:57 PM
Post link

The trouble with hi-res and detailed image (compared to VHS), is that we see more clearly the visual effects, especially compositing and CGI, and they look less convincing...
Anyway, watch the OT on DVD is a real pleasure!

Author: BigMackDaddy
Time: 14-Dec-2005 10:46 PM
Post link

Originally posted by: 20th Century Mark
The detail is great. Too bad the colour, contrast and everything else is messed up.

Is it better on the laserdiscs?

Author: 20th Century Mark
Time: 14-Dec-2005 11:53 PM
Post link

Personally, I can't watch the official DVD's. Here are some comparisons of LaserDisc to DVD. Notice how low the black level is on the DVD. The detail is there, but it gets lost.

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c373/MBuerschaper/Star%20Wars/3PO.jpg

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c373/MBuerschaper/Star%20Wars/R22.jpg

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c373/MBuerschaper/Star%20Wars/R21.jpg

The colour is also too saturated and the hue/tint is wrong. I prefer the Laserdiscs for these reasons.

Author: Yoda Is Your Father
Time: 15-Dec-2005 11:29 AM
Post link

I never noticed the CGI jabba the hutt scene.

War does not make one great.

Author: DarthBoMan
Time: 15-Dec-2005 12:05 PM
Post link

Well... I did'nt know that Hayden Christensen was in the OT

-x- I aim to misbehave -x- www.gamerworld.se -x-

Author: Adamwankenobi
Time: 15-Dec-2005 12:41 PM
Post link

It's shots like those that make you really appreciate the work of John Lowry and co.

Author: battlewars
Time: 15-Dec-2005 1:03 PM
Post link

john lowry sucks

Author: Adamwankenobi
Time: 15-Dec-2005 1:14 PM
Post link

Originally posted by: battlewars
john lowry sucks

Why do you say this?

Author: battlewars
Time: 15-Dec-2005 2:18 PM
Post link

because i dont think he did a very good job. i like how star wars looked before. whats strange is lowry did indy jones and those films look pretty much how theyve always looked

Author: Gaffer Tape
Time: 15-Dec-2005 6:31 PM
Post link

From what I've heard, and from what nearly everyone else on this board says, the fault is not due to Lowry, but to Lucasfilm rushing them through the job. To be honest, I don't really see anything wrong with the DVD picture, but maybe that's just me. But don't start namecalling on Lowry when it's really LFL's fault for pushing forward a slipshod product. And I do call it slipshod because while I may not notice anything wrong with the picture, I sure as hell noticed the audio problems that were supposed to be a creative decision.

There is no lingerie in space…

C3PX said: Gaffer is like that hot girl in high school that you think you have a chance with even though she is way out of your league because she is sweet and not a stuck up bitch who pretends you don’t exist… then one day you spot her making out with some skinny twerp, only on second glance you realize it is the goth girl who always sits in the back of class; at that moment it dawns on you why she is never seen hanging off the arm of any of the jocks… and you realize, damn, she really is unobtainable after all. Not that that is going to stop you from dreaming… Only in this case, Gaffer is actually a guy.

Author: 20th Century Mark
Time: 15-Dec-2005 7:43 PM
Post link

You don't find the picture too dark? oversaturated? and off-coloured? It just doesn't look like Star Wars. Especially IV. Ever since I can remember, Star Wars had a certain "look" to it. I can't really explain it. It was always there until the '04 DVD's.

Author: Adamwankenobi
Time: 15-Dec-2005 8:21 PM
Post link

I just can't understand (besides the obvious wish for money) why on earth Lucasfilm would RUSH the greatest films of all time through restoration! Why not wait until everyone had plenty of time after ROTS was finished. If I were them, I would allowed as much time as it takes, and If I were Lucas, I would have painstakingly ensured that every little detail was exactly how I wanted before the final DVDs were printed. I mean, the job the did on the audio to ANH was horrible. It would constantly change focus, and most of the time sounded very echoed.

Author: Kaal-Jhyy
Time: 15-Dec-2005 9:24 PM
Post link

Originally posted by: 20th Century Mark
You don't find the picture too dark? oversaturated? and off-coloured? It just doesn't look like Star Wars. Especially IV. Ever since I can remember, Star Wars had a certain "look" to it. I can't really explain it. It was always there until the '04 DVD's.

That is the whole point of restoration in cinema.
You know, I've recently seen some Charlie Chaplin movies and shorts which have been restored, and on a way, I find that beautiful, the image is really good, and it's maybe nearest from the original version wanted by the director (I'm not talking of Chaplin on that point).
But, in another way, when you have seen the first version, you don't want to see changins in the image you loved.

Really appreciate or hate a restoration is pretty much hard to know...

Author: 20th Century Mark
Time: 15-Dec-2005 9:46 PM
Post link

What I don't understand is why do the movies look so different this time. I mean, how many times have they been released? I know only on VHS & Laserdisc. But they claimed to be restored, remastered with a new digital transfer etc. etc. Why was the look of the films not altered with any of those releases? Why just the DVD's? It makes no sense.

Author: Kaal-Jhyy
Time: 15-Dec-2005 11:15 PM
Post link

Originally posted by: 20th Century Mark
What I don't understand is why do the movies look so different this time. I mean, how many times have they been released? I know only on VHS & Laserdisc. But they claimed to be restored, remastered with a new digital transfer etc. etc. Why was the look of the films not altered with any of those releases? Why just the DVD's? It makes no sense.

The movies look has changed many times. See the SE, and I'm not talking about the new effects and CGI elements. The colors have changed during the restoration process, and the best exemple is Tatooine. Have you noticed that "pink" color in the image? It was not there in the original version, and it's not there now in the DVD version.

There's a good article on the changes between original version, SE and DVD just right there.

Author: battlewars
Time: 16-Dec-2005 4:07 AM
Post link

i noticed the change with 97 editions. because i had seen the originals about 3 years before on the same screen, they looked like totally different films! they were so dark, and the colors kept pulsing on leias face, really wierd. i think the '95 versions were really the closest to me how they originally looked