Did you actually watch the 2004SE so far (on proper equipment)? In all scenes, you can see natural film grain. They did NOT remove it. Many faults in the film material, like flickering and colour shifting during the end of a scene have remained uncorrected. Maybe so, but they did their best to as much of the film grain as possible. Compare it to the grain from their 1993 master... the difference is glaring.
Originally posted by: VigoAs I said earlier, transfers taken directly from the negative have a lot less film grain that taken from 35mm n-generation copies. But again, you wouldn´t answer to this, right, because it would actually show your lack of knowledge. That supports my point, if there was
more film grain in movie theatres in 1977 then on the master reel, then that's all the more reason not to remove all the grain.
*slaps his head* Man, your whole argumentation is ridiculous.
1. They did not remove all the grain. Repeat: they did NOT remove all the grain! Grain is still present everywhere on the 2004 SE! Even in the SE shots!
2. What people saw in movie theatres in 1977 easily surpasses even the 2004 SE on DVD, because a 35mm print has much more resolution, not to speak of people who saw the 70mm presentation.Neither the 2004SE and especially not the shitty looking OOT DVD´s will bring back the theater experience in terms of picture quality. Your whole whining about film grain removal is ridiculous from the beginning.
3. Careful removal of film grain, when done properly, is not even close to the damage done by shoddy non-anamorphic video transfers made with old equipment. If you complain on the one hand, about careful film grain removal but on the other hand have no problem about an awful non-anamorphic transfer, you have serious problems with your eyes.
Originally posted by: VigoYou have already been corrected many times in the 35mm thread,
by people who actually work in the industry Believe it or not, not everyone in the film industry agrees on it. What I said (which is the resolution of 35MM is roughly equal to HD, and 16MM to SD) is generally accepted mainstream in the film industry.
Aha , "not everyone in the film industry agrees with it" = "is generally accepted mainstream in the film industry" .
Originally posted by: VigoThis may be, but it is still the same blurry transfer, which is the main cause of the shitty picture quality. And besides being blurry, it is still non-anamorphic. My non-anamorphic spaceballs "laserdisc rip" dvd looks just fine.
Another disqualification. There are worlds between the first non-anamorphic Spaceballs release and the new release with a new anamorphic transfer available.
Originally posted by: VigoWhat you said was this:
It's still considered industry standard to release non-anamorphic sourced material as non-anamorphic (many DVD's with extras feature a mix of anamorphic and non-anamorphic features). It's annoying, but it's standard.
And the source material of the OOT is NOT non-anamorphic. I was shot on 35mm. According to 2006 standards, THIS source has to be used. It is standard procedure. Few A-movies have been released on DVD using an old non-anamorphic video master. The last DVD´s from major studios which came out this way date back more than 5 years ago. The point I was making is that the digital master is non-anamorphic, and it's standard to keep in non-anamorphic rather then to resize it to anamorphic.
Yes, the non-anamorphic mastertape should be kept non-anamorphic. But you made a point about industry standards, and I was under the impression you think that using an old non-anamorphic video transfer is industry standard, instead of using the 35mm print.
Originally posted by: VigoAgain, you are mixing.
The LASERDISCS have apparently been mastered from PAL mastertapes. But since the OOT is supposed to be Bonus material on this DVD release, they are going to treat it as Bonus material on PAL discs, which is: up-scaling the NTSC material.
Nice speculation there.
Yeah, and it will most probably hold. OOT = Bonus Material = upconverting the NTSC source on a PAL disc. On the German release, they did not even restore the original 1978 "KRIEG DER STERNE" Textcrawl (something the 1993 Laserdiscs have), which already implies absolutely no effort. It would also further explain the bad rating from the French DVD site.
Originally posted by: VigoAgain, an amusing proof on how you percieve picture information:
Originally posted by: borisOriginally posted by: bactaOTHere is a comparison against a screen cap from the 2004 dvd release:
Can you guess which is which? Hmmmmm? Tough call I know.
Here's some more... All are
identical film frames:
Yes, claerly all IDENTICAL film frames. *LOL* And it is of course, apart from the obvious, sooo hard to spot the superior image....
That one was a ploy, I deliberately chose a special edition shot. I was trying to set up expectations to be that the OOT frame would be on top. It is the same movie frame, though... and if you doubt this then I suggest you try to find the one that is.
*MEGALOL* The OOT shot ->IS<- on top. You just made my day!
Or shall we believe you, again, that this was also a ploy.
A little trivia: the speeder sequence on the OOT Laserdiscs has already been tampered with....
Originally posted by: VigoBut you imply clearly, that scaling and making a new anamorphic transfer is roughly the same:
You are taking what I said way out of context. I'm talking in the context of the digital master source being non-anamorphic.
The only parts replaced were the ones which used new CGI footage. The original negatives, while faded and dirty, still retained all of their picture information. Again, you are spreading bullshit here. Even if they had to replace parts of the negative with other film stock, it would still be superior to HD and of course vastly superior to 720x480.....
