Sign In

Star Wars Limited Edition Screen Captures.

Author
Time
The movie has never looked this good! Sure it's not quite as sharp as the SE... but it's damn good, the colours are wonderful. I'd say image quality gets about an 8/10 (I've only watched Star Wars, I'm not talking about the other 2 at this point)... I was overjoyed as the original crawl came on screen!

Here are some RAW, un-resized PNG screenshots... hopefully someone else can post NTSC counter-parts for them (I'll be posting more for ESB and ROTJ later)

SW: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

ESB: 1 2

ROTJ: 2 3 4 5

Total size of all above PNG images is 3.23MB.
Some were not blessed with brains.
<blockquote>Originally posted by: BadAssKeith

You are passing up on a great opportunity to makes lots of money,
make Lucas lose a lot of his money
and make him look bad to the entire world
and you could be well known and liked

None of us here like Lucas or Lucasfilm.
I have death wishes on Lucas and Macullum.
we could all probably get 10s of thousands of dollars!
Author
Time
8/10? Really..?
"Whatever! I digitally put Jabba the Hutt back into the original Star Wars movie! I'll do what I want!"
Author
Time
I just compared the screen cap of the medal ceremony with the NTSC version, and it appears that the PAL version has been brightened. The stone steps, uniforms, everything...
"Whatever! I digitally put Jabba the Hutt back into the original Star Wars movie! I'll do what I want!"
Author
Time
8 is being pretty generous. I'd say 5 or 6.

The problem with screencaps is it doesn't show the constant minor left and right horizontal movement of the picture either. I'm guessing that would be on ESB and ROTJ too, because it sure is on Star Wars. It's visible on both LCD comp screen and my widescreen telly. It's not there during the updated logo at start, or the menu's, but once the actual film starts, the weave starts.

It doesn't look like any other DVD I own. If I hadn't known what I was getting, I probably would have taken it back to the store claiming it was faulty. It looks kinda like a pre cable/ digital broadcast ..without the adverts. I'll still buy the other two movies I didn't buy today, just so I can watch them without the SE stuff added. Sitting there with my 3 year old today, watching the Cantina scene, she clicked straight away that this was a different movie.

" Han shoots! High five ! " she screamed, and held her hand up for a high-five. Then she said " He shot Greedo, cause he is bad".

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is what having these grainy versions is about for me.
Author
Time
Originally posted by: THX
Thanks for posting those, boris. If you have time, could you get together with Moth3r and make caps that match ***The NEW "official" Screenshots thread ***? Sure thing, give me a couple of days.Originally posted by: Ozkeeper
8 is being pretty generous. I'd say 5 or 6.
The colour is just about perfect, the contrast is consistent... the image does drop in quality... especially the out-door shots, but I have a strong feeling this is due to the negatives... it drops to around a 7/10 quality... but it rises to an 8.5 and 9/10 quality in other scenes. There's very little digital scratches/glitches... there are some (hallelujah!) and it's certainly not an amount to worry about. You've certainly seen more scratches on a james bond movie.

The un-steady "movement" is, I believe, due to the way a film camera works. It can't guarantee every frame gets a perfect field of view, and at the same time all the moving parts cause the camera to physically "shake" a little. The camera-shake is something that exists on the negatives, and is a by-product of shooting on film. Removing that is like removing the film grain, which is like colourizing a black and white movie. It's not distracting, and it is normal. Godfather has worse camera-shaking going on.

There's some aliasing here and there (there isn't much though) - but on the whole it's a very nice transfer. It's a nice and sharp picture, with good colour... the screenshots don't do it justice, you have to actually watch the movie to fully appreciate it. I popped the '04 disc in and watched a couple of scenes… it does have more detail in the image, so it's a bit better… but on the whole it's not that much better. The soundtrack is very good.
Some were not blessed with brains.
<blockquote>Originally posted by: BadAssKeith

You are passing up on a great opportunity to makes lots of money,
make Lucas lose a lot of his money
and make him look bad to the entire world
and you could be well known and liked

None of us here like Lucas or Lucasfilm.
I have death wishes on Lucas and Macullum.
we could all probably get 10s of thousands of dollars!
Author
Time
What method did you use to obtain the sceen shots?

And if it's not too much trouble, I would like to get shots of the frames used on my comparison page. (I've ordered the PAL DVDs, but haven't received them yet.)

Guidelines for post content and general behaviour: read announcement here

Max. allowable image sizes in signatures: reminder here

Author
Time
Originally posted by: Mentasm
I just compared the screen cap of the medal ceremony with the NTSC version, and it appears that the PAL version has been brightened. The stone steps, uniforms, everything...
In light of this, and the speculation about different sources vs. resizing, I'd like to see PAL & NTSC versions side-by-side, if we can co-ordinate that.

Author
Time
Originally posted by: Moth3r
What method did you use to obtain the sceen shots?

And if it's not too much trouble, I would like to get shots of the frames used on my comparison page. (I've ordered the PAL DVDs, but haven't received them yet.)
PowerDVD, Capture to File, Original video source size. I don't think the video settings affect the capture, but anyway "Use Profile" is set to "Original". They're just raw caps, I've converted them to PNG... but I've not resized them or edited them in any way. I know saving as JPEG's not going to do much damage... but hey they're raw caps... what you see is exactly what you get (though, you really have to see the movie to appreciate the quality). Ozkeeper seems to rate the image quality at "5 or 6", so it's only an opinion anyway, but I'm very happy with the overall quality on the first movie... I'll watch empire and jedi later (from the looks of empire it's going to have more grain).
Some were not blessed with brains.
<blockquote>Originally posted by: BadAssKeith

You are passing up on a great opportunity to makes lots of money,
make Lucas lose a lot of his money
and make him look bad to the entire world
and you could be well known and liked

None of us here like Lucas or Lucasfilm.
I have death wishes on Lucas and Macullum.
we could all probably get 10s of thousands of dollars!
Author
Time
I wouldn't trust the output from PowerDVD to be accurate - I seem to recall in the past that it brightened the image. I'd prefer to get grabs from either DGIndex or VirtualDubMod.

Guidelines for post content and general behaviour: read announcement here

Max. allowable image sizes in signatures: reminder here

Author
Time
I have my copies of this now, and with all the issues this release may have, I would still prefer to sit through this than the dreadful SE’s any day of the week!

Heck, I would pick any OUT ld transfer over the SE, even If it meant that I could only barely make out a Wampa in a snowstorm!

I must say I was particularly nervous before playing Star Wars, but it is better than I had hoped, even though perhaps not as good as it should or could be!

For now though, this release will be quite adequate for me to enjoy the original versions of my favourite movies. Until something better comes along in the future at least.
Author
Time
Originally posted by: bactaOT
I have my copies of this now, and with all the issues this release may have, I would still prefer to sit through this than the dreadful SE’s any day of the week!

Heck, I would pick any OUT ld transfer over the SE, even If it meant that I could only barely make out a Wampa in a snowstorm!

I must say I was particularly nervous before playing Star Wars, but it is better than I had hoped, even though perhaps not as good as it should or could be!

For now though, this release will be quite adequate for me to enjoy the original versions of my favourite movies. Until something better comes along in the future at least.

Yeah, I can handle a lot in regards to poor quality if it is the OUT version and I would take that over a "pristine" SE ANY DAY! I've watched the [quickly wearing out] VHS versions for how many years now for God's sake...
Author
Time
PowerDVD can brighten the image if the colour profile isn't set to 'original', but generally it's ok. I use it for all of my caps on DVDActive. Have done for years.
"Whatever! I digitally put Jabba the Hutt back into the original Star Wars movie! I'll do what I want!"
Author
Time
I'm actually quite surprised at how "laserdiskey" the image looks. There really doesn't seem to have been any advantage in using the D1 master tape--it just looks like a really good LD rip (i.e. Moth3r). And the quality of an LD-transfer to DVD is as such--roughly 5/10 or so. You can see all sorts of weird stuff going on in the edges, aliasing everywhere, and that compressed quality in really detailed images and shots where there is lots of tonality (ie carbon freezing). Colour seemed to be okay in terms of vibrancy and accuracy but reds bleed like crazy (ie R2's eye), and the general fidelity and detail shows the limitations of 1993 technology. The general softness of the LD is carried over of course, especially in effects shots, although closeups in ESB and ROTJ naturally fare slightly better. The image is generally fairly grainey, though thats due to the print used in 1993.
Even in the screenshots you can see the generally messy and poor video--blow that up to a screen-filling res and it gets fairly unenjoyable to watch, especially if you are paying $20 a pop.

The image jumping around, as someone described, is not due to poor registration on the camera gate from production (Panavision camera's are rock-solid) but due to the registration on the poor 1993 telecine, which did not hold the images 100% proper every time.

Add to this the anamorphic issue as well as the interlacing problems and the DVNR problems, both of which are not evident from the screenshots, and you have a video quality that is--at best--a 5/10, and from someone with a discriminating eye towards video i would give it a 4/10, maybe even a 3. Its just not anywhere near an acceptable modern level, but that is to be expected when the source is a 1993 laserdisk telecine. If you don't care about the video and really just want a version on dvd to replace your VHS then this should be fine for you--but if thats the case, then you should be equally excited for any of the fan-captures, like Editdroid or Moth3r, and exstatic for the X0 version, which has everything the official disk has (minus the crawl) plus frame-by-frame cleanup.

The Secret History of Star Wars -- now available on Amazon.com!

"When George went back and put new creatures into the original Star Wars, I find that disturbing. It’s a revision of history. That bothers me."

--James Cameron, Entertainment Weekly, April 2010

Author
Time
Either your settings are incorrect, or it is indeed true that the PAL DVD´s are upscaled NTSC. On some shots, it is clearly evident.

At least, those DVD´s can be a nice colour reference for further preservation efforts, since the colours are exactly as I remember Star Wars.
Author
Time
Originally posted by: boristhe image does drop in quality... especially the out-door shots, but I have a strong feeling this is due to the negatives...


Meet boris, the most stubborn, learning resistent guy in the world...


it drops to around a 7/10 quality... but it rises to an 8.5 and 9/10 quality in other scenes. There's very little digital scratches/glitches...


LOL, explain me the concept of "digital scratches".

If you give this a 8-9/10, what grade would you give true high quality transfers like "Gladiator"? 18/10?


there are some (hallelujah!) and it's certainly not an amount to worry about. You've certainly seen more scratches on a james bond movie.


The lack of scratches doesn´t make up for the terrible softness of the picture.


The un-steady "movement" is, I believe, due to the way a film camera works. It can't guarantee every frame gets a perfect field of view, and at the same time all the moving parts cause the camera to physically "shake" a little. The camera-shake is something that exists on the negatives, and is a by-product of shooting on film. Removing that is like removing the film grain, which is like colourizing a black and white movie.


Ah, and a soft and unsharp letterbox transfer made with old equipment truly represents the original movies, as they were seen in cinemas? Here goes boris again.

And again, the 04 transfer has lots of film grain. My theory is, you don´t even know what film grain is, its nature, and thus can only "spot" it when it is so much evident that the picture becomes really noisy.


It's not distracting, and it is normal. Godfather has worse camera-shaking going on.


Again, you understand nothing. A shaking picture can of course be camera shaking (in action scenes, when the camera does constatnt movement), but most of the time, it is an effect caused by shrinking of the old film material and defects of the film perforation. It can also be introduced in the lab, which made the 35mm copy. It was never supposed to be there.


There's some aliasing here and there (there isn't much though)


Yeah, so less aliasing that you can clearly spot the NTSC upconversion....


- but on the whole it's a very nice transfer. It's a nice and sharp picture, with good colour... the screenshots don't do it justice, you have to actually watch the movie to fully appreciate it.


I don´t see anything which can be appreciated about this mess. In 1997, when the DVD format was introduced, it would have been a good disc. But nowadays, it is clearly substandard. There are lots of films out there which are not anything as important as Star Wars, and have FAR better transfers than this. For example Flash Gordon (1980), Spaceballs, They Live...


I popped the '04 disc in and watched a couple of scenes… it does have more detail in the image, so it's a bit better… but on the whole it's not that much better. The soundtrack is very good.


There are WORLDS between the level of detail of the 04 transfer and this old mess. You have either very bad eyes, or total inoperable equipment to watch these movies. Or just plain denial...
Author
Time
In different threads I heard people say the PAL version is an upscaled version of the D1 or D2 NTSC master tape. What are the specifications of a D1 or D2 master tape. What resolution can the video on such a tape have?

Edit: I doubt it's 720 x 480...
Fez: I am so excited about Star Whores.
Hyde: Fezzy, man, it's Star Wars.
Author
Time
Well, they look better than the bootlegs I've seen. They look worse than EVERY OTHER movie I've bought over the last 6 years.
Author
Time
As has already been posted here & elsewhere, the shakiness is due to TK transfer (telecine - film to digital tape).

It happened to a short film of mine that i shot in 1998 - 35mm Anamorphic (using Panavision cameras & lenses) - no shake at all during shooting, but that awful "up and down wobble" during the opening titles. Unavoidable for me, cos i was getting a free telecine session!

But it's a shame it happened to Star Wars... I'm sure Lucasfilm's TK wasn't done for free! Actually... now i think about it...

Still, i'm pretty impressed by the first disc - have yet to see the others. I've only seen one laserdisc rip (sourced via a popular auction site) and that was very jerky and definitely a NTSC - PAL conversion. This "official" disc is definitely better than that bootleg. But i haven't seen any other fan transfers, so of course i'd love to hear which specific fan transfers are better, from those in the know.

PS - Vigo, BTW you could've made your points calmly and clearly without being so personal (re: Boris) you know - he was just stating his honest opinion That's exactly how these threads turn from "interesting"... into "FLAME WARS! Argue! Argue! Fight! Fight! I'm right, you're wrong! etc etc etc"
Author
Time
Originally posted by: Darth Cracker
PS - Vigo, BTW you could've made your points calmly and clearly without being so personal (re: Boris) you know - he was just stating his honest opinion That's exactly how these threads turn from "interesting"... into "FLAME WARS! Argue! Argue! Fight! Fight! I'm right, you're wrong! etc etc etc"


Normally, I wouldn´t do this. But I hate ignorant people, and boris has been corrected MANY MANY times by people on this board here, yet he still is spreading false information here. There is absolutely nothing wrong with not knowing everything. We all make mistakes, I do a lot of mistakes. But I hate it when someone is constantly pushing his claims, despite being corrected so many times here on this board. I don´t care if he likes this DVD release and is totally happy with the transfer. That is his right. But babbling about film/home cinema technology, despite having very little to no knowledge about it, with the only purpose to praise this release, this drives me mad. If this would be an ordinary DVD release, it would quickly be dismissed as absolutely not standard and being given very low rates. But only in the Star Wars realm, you have a lot of braindead fans around, trying to defend this low quality release.

Yes, you are right, I shouldn´t get so personal. But I hate it when people are trying to manipulate.
Author
Time
Originally posted by: Vigo
Either your settings are incorrect, or it is indeed true that the PAL DVD´s are upscaled NTSC. On some shots, it is clearly evident.


This is the most important issue with these discs, IMHO. If the PAL discs are upscaled from the NTSC master, all hope is lost.

Vigo, can you (or anyone else) give us a little visual demonstration of what you mean?

You know of the rebellion against the Empire?

Author
Time
I think the OUT 'PAL' DVD really is a resized NTSC, it does not have the vertical resolution of real PAL like the 1995 French THX laserdiscs (bottom pic.)

Take a look at R2D2.

http://img247.imageshack.us/img247/4669/outldpalsw7vu9.jpg


Author
Time
Ouch. Is that Moth3r's on the bottom?

You know of the rebellion against the Empire?

Author
Time
Wow. Thats actually quite the difference. Like i said, good LD-transfers trump the official OOT disks.

The Secret History of Star Wars -- now available on Amazon.com!

"When George went back and put new creatures into the original Star Wars, I find that disturbing. It’s a revision of history. That bothers me."

--James Cameron, Entertainment Weekly, April 2010

Author
Time
Originally posted by: Moth3r
I wouldn't trust the output from PowerDVD to be accurate - I seem to recall in the past that it brightened the image. I'd prefer to get grabs from either DGIndex or VirtualDubMod.

Very true. I compared caps I made with PowerDVD to caps I made from VirtualDubMod and there is a clear difference. PowerDVD seems to want to rescale and recolor the image before it spits it out. What I always do when making caps is load the VOB file from the DVD into VirtualDubMod, select "copy source frame to clipboard", and then paste into Photoshop and save to the desired format - either 100% quality JPEG or PNG.

My Projects:
[Holiday Special Hybrid DVD v2]
[X0 Project]
[Backstroke of the West DVD]
[ROTS Theatrical DVD]