logo Sign In

HOLD ON a second...

Author
Date
Author
Time
Post link
My line of thought may be completely off, but...

1. This release is going to be in widescreen and fullscreen
2. The original Star Wars trilogy in fullscreen was never released on LD with THX mastering, right?
3. Wouldn't they have to do a new transfer of the OUT to get a decent looking fullscreen DVD? If they just cropped and blew up from the already sup-par laserdisc masters, then the final result would be beyond bad, it wouldn't be sellable.


???
Author
Time
Post link
That's a very good point. I hadn't thought of that. You're absolutely right - to get a decent looking fullscreen pan & scan version, you would have to take it from a better source than the letterbox 2.35:1 transfer, that's for sure. I refuse to believe LFL would just blow up the letterbox image for the fullscreen, it puzzles the mind how they would do that and get away with it. But the thing is, that there were ofcourse fullscreen VHS releases of the THX remastered trilogy and now the question is did they preserve that transfer meant for the fullscreen, or did they just throw it away after they transferred it to fullscreen. Many unanswered questions here.

But then again I think it's just not down to whether LFL has the film elements necessary for a anamorphic DVD, it's down to the fact that Lucas most probably is using this to bate us fans by releasing a crap version of the OUT and a remastered and shiny version of his "definitive vision" to make the difference really noticeable. Then he goes on and says: "Nobody wanted to buy the originals, so people prefer my "definitive vision" of it". What a load of crap that is. And he might just get away with it. The man has to be stopped.

peace,

Rebelscum
Author
Time
Post link
Also think of this:

The main feature is the 2004 version and the bonus is the original version. I can't think of a single instance where the widescreen/fullframe nature of a DVD has applied to bonus features like deleted scenes and whatnot. So, while you make a very good point, Davis, this might be their way of thinking. But really, in this instance, I'm playing devil's advocate and hoping you're right.

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
Post link

The main feature is the 2004 version and the bonus is the original version. I can't think of a single instance where the widescreen/fullframe nature of a DVD has applied to bonus features like deleted scenes and whatnot. So, while you make a very good point, Davis, this might be their way of thinking. But really, in this instance, I'm playing devil's advocate and hoping you're right.


Gee, I hope that isn't the case. But now I want to finish my line of thought....

You bring up the fullscreen THX VHS tapes; we're talking about the 1995 VHS edition. We know that this fullscreen edition was of the highest quality and richest colors yet. We also know that they didn't just clean up one of the old VHS fullscreen transfers, because they made DIFFERENT pan-scan decisions. We also know that the fullscreen VHS tapes were not made by blowing up the LD masters- the image is too detailed for that (I own the VHS).

Isn't this hard proof that Lucasfilm actually restored a FILM PRINT of the OOT in the nineties, and used this for both the widescreen and fullscreen releases? What happened to this print? And if they scrapped this but somehow still have the LD/VHS widescreen master tapes, wouldn't it make sense that they have the fullscreen master tapes as well? Were these scrapped? I've now thoroughly confused myself.
Author
Time
Post link
Any halfwit would save the original source for both the fullscreen and letterbox transfers. So there should be a pretty high resolution source to work with here (don't really know if it was digital or not). If it was high enough resolution to make a fullscreen transfer, then the original widescreen information should be in there also and voila, they could make an anamorphic transfer for us. But, and this is the big BUT, that's if they actually are halfwits and didn't save the original source for those transfers.
peace,

Rebelscum
Author
Time
Post link
Wasn't the Faces set THX-ed from the print struck for the 1993 DE masters? Someone who knows the video history of Star Wars better than me should really pipe up here.

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
Post link
Wasn't the Faces set THX-ed from the print struck for the 1993 DE masters?

Well I was under the impression that the '93 LD's got THX remastering, but somehow, the '95 set turned out to be better (with no split lightsabers and so on), even though it was supposedly the same transfer. I don't know. The thing is, the fact that they put out high quality copies of the OOT in both widescreen and fullscreen in the nineties (remastered in EXACTLY the same way between the editions) seems to prove that they restored prints BEFORE they made lower quality widescreen and fullscreen masters.

Either way, they've GOT to have a very high quality master from which they made the '95 fullscreen VHS release, whether it was digital, an actual restored film print, or what. To say that the "exhaustive search" has only turned up low quality widescreen master tapes from '93, and not the MUCH HIGHER QUALITY source that HAS to have been used for the fullscreen release is just stupid.

I don't know the whole history, so I'd love if someone more knowledgeable clarified.

Author
Time
Post link
This may be a stupid question, but are we sure that there is a "full screen" option as far as each unaltered disc goes? Perhaps the "full screen" refers specifically to the 2004 version disc, and each unaltered disc is a letterboxed version by default since it is only considered a "bonus" feature and/or Lucasfilm is cheaping out, ect.
40,000 million notches away
Author
Time
Post link
Has a full screen edition been announced?

Also, there was a pan and scan transfer done. It was released to VHS in 1995 when the "Faces" Laser Discs came out. The "Faces" LDs were just CLV re-issues of the 1993 transfer. Presumably (though I've never seen them) the pan and scan video tapes used the same event decisions as the widescreen transfers.

Neil

Well at least the reversed surround channels have been addressed.

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Windexed
Perhaps the "full screen" refers specifically to the 2004 version disc, and each unaltered disc is a letterboxed version by default since it is only considered a "bonus" feature and/or Lucasfilm is cheaping out, ect.


Actually, looks like they are cheaping out. I just did a disheartening search on Amazon...


Amazon: Full-screen

Turns out that since these are "bonus features", the fullscreen marking on the packaging doesn't apply to them. Shoot- I thought I had something there. I like their word choice there- the "enhanced" versions. Idiots.

And instead of using the extra disc space for PCM, deleted scenes, or *gasp* an anamorphic transfer, they're taking up disc space with a lego trailer and an x-box game demo. Did they put it on the SE discs? No, this junk is going on the OOT discs. I can't stand it; you guys'll have to continue this discussion without me.
Author
Time
Post link
How do we even know we are getting a Laserdisc transfer?
I thought I heard someone say that Lucasfilm found/cleaned up a reel or something and were going to use that to make these OOT DVDs?
Also, couldn't they just go back and use the cleaned up reel from 1993 instead of the Laserdisk Master Tape?

From what I recall, the "Faces" box set was farely good. Color was clean, the blacks were blacks, and all that sort. We are bitching pretty hard about it not be anamorphic [optimism] but I don't think it is going to be that bad. [/optimism]

Also, since these are as original as original can be, does that mean that we are getting the original credit scrolls as well? I don't know what it is, but I can just tell that the SE and the 2004 DVDs have this weird aura about them that makes the credit scrolls look...well, not original. I've never been able to put my finger on it, but you can tell that they now look "updated." That they were actually generated by a computer and not...hand made, or whatever they did back then.
I'm hoping for original scrolls here. Complete with reel wobble, grain and everything.
"I am altering the movies. Pray I don't alter them any further." -Darth Lucas
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Invader Jenny
How do we even know we are getting a Laserdisc transfer?
It's not a Laser Disc transfer that we're getting. What's being released is a DVD using the same 13 year old transfer created for the Laser Disc.

Originally posted by: Invader Jenny
I thought I heard someone say that Lucasfilm found/cleaned up a reel or something and were going to use that to make these OOT DVDs?

It's not happening for this release. That's been confirmed.

Originally posted by: Invader Jenny
Also, since these are as original as original can be, does that mean that we are getting the original credit scrolls as well?

The original press release indicates we'll be getting the original crawl for Star Wars.

Neil

Well at least the reversed surround channels have been addressed.

Author
Time
Post link
I take it back; I have more questions.


there was a pan and scan transfer done. It was released to VHS in 1995 when the "Faces" Laser Discs came out.

This 1995 fullscreen VHS transfer is very interesting to me. Was it done in 1993 along with the widescreen one (and just not released for a couple years?) Or was it a new transfer from the same print?

Either way, there's no excuse for them not having it if they have the LD widescreen tapes.
Author
Time
Post link
There is a misconception a few people have fallen for ...

When they telecined (scanned) the film for the masters, they did it separately for widescreen and pan and scan.
For P&S they therefore use the full vertical resolution.
For widescreen, it is scanned only to fit the width, the unused area is just stored as black.

So, there IS NOT a full-resolution widescreen transfer which is then selectively cropped to P&S, or scaled down for letterbox. (Indeed scaling was something avoided in those days I think). The master resolution is exactly the same as the output, i.e. the same as laserdisc for letterbox widescreen. The ONLY benefit we get is that we don't suffer the loss of signal in storing and reading to/from the laserdisc format.

Actually that could be a significant benefit in some cases, because laserdisc players CAN be quite poor at getting the original signal back. However with state of the art player like an X0, I think it is pretty close. It's possible there is less noise (especially in colour signal) but the main limitation of the X0 output is the resolution of the format, rather than the signal-to-noise ratio.

At least that's how I see it.
Darth Lucas: I am altering the trilogy. Pray I don't alter it further.
Author
Time
Post link
Found this info at HTF and wanted to post it here:


In the September 1993 issue of Widescreen Review, THX Technical Supervisor Dave Schnuelle describes the process of making the Definitive Collection Laserdiscs. Here are some comments from the interview:

"In this case, for all three films, we used interpositive elements that had been made directly from the camera negative. Other film transfers might be done from internegatives made from the interpositive, or from low-contrast prints, but we preferred the IP's for these transfers, because that's the earliest generation usable"

"One small difference from the original films is that in letterbox transfers we prefer to put any subtitles in the black border beneath the actual picture area. Thus we didn't use the same interpositive as the theatrical one, because that one contains subtitling already. In tracking down the elements, we found that the only ones in the vault were ones with subtitles- these clearly weren't the first generation off the camera neg because they had to have the subtitles burned in. So a massive search was undertaken and the first generation IP's were found in a special vault having only opticals in Los Angeles."

"A Mark IIIC with a 4:2:2 digital output [telecine] was used."

"[We used] a noise reduction and dirt concealment device made by Digital Vision, a company in Sweden. Their DVNR-1000 is a very powerful noise reducer for reducing film grain. Especially on the two earlier movies the film grain was very high."


I think that may shed a little more light on this...
Author
Time
Post link
Great find, Davis. Unfortunately, this sounds like the DVNR was done at the telecine stage, which would mean it's on the DVDs too. This would be worse than any anamorphic vs. letterbox issue, IMHO.
Author
Time
Post link
You know, it's always annoyed me greatly in my DVDs how the subtitles are in mattes rather than in the picture. So that was a deliberate creative decision too? Damn!

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
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Gaffer Tape
You know, it's always annoyed me greatly in my DVDs how the subtitles are in mattes rather than in the picture. So that was a deliberate creative decision too? Damn!


Actually that never bothered me when I had a 4:3 TV I preferred it that way to see more of the pic. But it is now annoying on my 56" Widescreen when I use the zoom to fill the screen on letterboxed movies and now have the subs cut off.
There's good in the Original Trilogy, and it's worth fighting for.
"People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people."
http://www.myspace.com/harlock415
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Gaffer Tape
You know, it's always annoyed me greatly in my DVDs how the subtitles are in mattes rather than in the picture. So that was a deliberate creative decision too? Damn!

It makes them easier to read.

Neil

Well at least the reversed surround channels have been addressed.

Author
Time
Post link
I prefer subs in the matte when watching on 4:3. Or when watching 2.35:1 on 16:9.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Harlock415
Originally posted by: Gaffer Tape
You know, it's always annoyed me greatly in my DVDs how the subtitles are in mattes rather than in the picture. So that was a deliberate creative decision too? Damn!


Actually that never bothered me when I had a 4:3 TV I preferred it that way to see more of the pic. But it is now annoying on my 56" Widescreen when I use the zoom to fill the screen on letterboxed movies and now have the subs cut off.


I know! God, I hate that! Do we know where the Jabba lines are going to be? Obviously in the theater they had to be on the screen.

"I am altering the movies. Pray I don't alter them any further." -Darth Lucas
Author
Time
Post link
Well, as it seems these are indeed from the '93 masters, the subs will likely be in the matte. Although it would be easy to redo them so as to be seen on 16:9 sets or as DVD subs.
Author
Time
Post link
Being a fan of widescreen movies, it would seem only natural that I would prefer ALL the elements of the movie to actually be in the frame! Heaven forbid!

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.