Star Wars coming to Blu Ray (UPDATE: August 30 2011, No! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!) — Page 12

It would be the 1997 SE though, what is the point of that? Unless you want the 1997 SE, I guess.

Here are the real options:

1) Negative re-construction. Most expensive, but highest quality. Would require some clean up, and a lot of digital stitching unless you did it physically (which is more work and more risk).

2) Seperation masters. Almost as high quality, but requires 3 seperate scans and a digital composite of the 3 layers. But wouldn't require any clean up.

3) Interpositive (probably the 1985 home video version is the best available). Quality is good, but would require clean up.

4) Fine grain masters or Technicolor prints. Quality is presentable, would likely require little if any clean up.

Option 1 would probably cost a few million dollars for the whole trilogy. Option 2, probably 1/4 of that. Option 3 would cost up to a million for the trilogy if you start doing heavier restoration/clean up, option 4 a couple hundred grand. Take your pick. All of these options are relatively easy, the material is all there and its all in decent shape.

The 1997 IP probably looks great too, it's a shame to just chuck it, I would assume it's just as good to go as any other 1997 theatrical release?. Could they use it as a base for a reconstructed original-ish version? (fit it to the 1977 soundtrack and then drop in the obvious old shots from the best available source).  I know that Superman and some other older movies have digitally recomposited bluescreen shots, I'm not even sure what's considered acceptable restoration and what's revisionism these days. What with Clint Eastwood and Eli Wallach voicing scenes 40 years later, a whole new score for Major Dundee, etc.

I think that was a screwup at the home video level, it looked great in theaters.

Yeah, the video telecine is really pink shifted, it looks awful sometimes.

I guess the 1997 IP would offer better results than the 1985 IP. But then to scan two different IPs, digitally edit them together, and also try to get the footage to match--its a lot of work. You might as well just scan the separation masters, which will look better. It's basically the same amount of work.

My feeling is that Lucasfilm will do the least amount of work possible (i.e. just scan one source and say here it is, i.e. the IP or a print), or they will go all out and go back to the negs. If they are going to start scanning multiple 35mm sources and editing them together it would probably be the same as if they had gone to the negs or the separations.

zombie84 said:

My feeling is that Lucasfilm will do the least amount of work possible (i.e. just scan one source and say here it is, i.e. the IP or a print)...

Actually, I would prefer they do exactly that (scan an IP). It really doesn't make any sense at this point to try and reconstruct the original conformation of the o-neg, it really just seems counter-intuitive. It doesn't even seem like Lucas himself wants to hold onto the o-neg for purposes of his preferred version. He's got the Lowry master now and 1080p is good enough for him.

That's what makes it all the more frustrating - he doesn't even feel like preserving the version he does like at an optimal resolution. Even the prequels had their final effects done at 2K (unless imdb is lying).

Has it been 100% confirmed that even the new effects for the '04 version were only done at 1080? Were the changes done first and then the Lowry restoration, or was it the other way around and the changes were only done at 1080 (TPM Jabba, etc)?

I dunno, it really wouldn't surprise me if the '04 restoration is eventually redone at 2K. I would hope they're gonna do that if Lucas really does plan for the movies to be shown on the big screen again at any point in the future. I mean, how expensive could the '04 restoration have been? Surely it wasn't more than a drop in the bucket against the record breaking first day sales of the dvd set (128 million bucks or so).

Jeez, it seems like I'm always nothing but questions on these boards.

Yes, the 2004 release was done in 1080. It was scanned in 1080, new footage was integrated and it was color corrected in-house at Lucasfilm, then sent to Lowry for clean up.

I don't think Lucas will ever re-do it. Why would he? The prequels were done in 1080 as well (except Episode I). If ROTS had its effects done in 2k then they are higher resolution than the actual film. And either case, who gives a flying fuck, Lucas can dick around with his special editions until he dies for all I care. Re-doing it in 2k is almost pointless because there isn't much difference; 8K is becoming the new standard, but I guarantee you no Special Edition will ever be in 8K.

Also, why would going to the negs be counter-intuitive? Today you wouldn't re-conform the physical negative, you would do a DI, just like the 2004 special edition doesn't actually exist physically on the negative. If Lucasfilm ever got serious about the original film it would be easy to make a restoration from the negs.

I think he meant "color screwed."

zombie84 said:

Yes, the 2004 release was done in 1080. It was scanned in 1080, new footage was integrated and it was color corrected in-house at Lucasfilm, then sent to Lowry for clean up.

I don't think Lucas will ever re-do it. Why would he? The prequels were done in 1080 as well (except Episode I). If ROTS had its effects done in 2k then they are higher resolution than the actual film. And either case, who gives a flying fuck, Lucas can dick around with his special editions until he dies for all I care. Re-doing it in 2k is almost pointless because there isn't much difference; 8K is becoming the new standard, but I guarantee you no Special Edition will ever be in 8K.

Also, why would going to the negs be counter-intuitive? Today you wouldn't re-conform the physical negative, you would do a DI, just like the 2004 special edition doesn't actually exist physically on the negative. If Lucasfilm ever got serious about the original film it would be easy to make a restoration from the negs.

re: the resolution,

hmmm, I guess if it's gonna look good enough up there on the big screen then it doesn't really matter if it's 1080 or 2K. This isn't the first time I've raised the question of what resolution the "masters" for AOTC and ROTS are. I'm similarly confused over Cameron's Avatar, since that was shot in 1080 but "mastered" at 2K. Maybe that's only done at the very end of the equation, i.e. the digital intermediate for the 35mm and digital prints. At the end of the day, the resolution of the visual effects doesn't matter so much as how convincing/photorealistic they are.

I think I can now stop being so hung up on this issue of resolution.

re: the negs,

That's not so much what worries me. What worries me is them not getting it 100% accurate to how the film was originally conformed. I guess what they could do is use a print from '77 for reference (the quality wouldn't matter) and then match up the high-quality negs to make sure everything's there.

It's just that for whatever reason I think it would be smarter to just take the best quality IP they have. Maybe I'm just thinking too much about that Blade Runner set and how they used IP's for the older versions and the o-neg for the final version.

Fang Zei said:

zombie84 said:

Yes, the 2004 release was done in 1080. It was scanned in 1080, new footage was integrated and it was color corrected in-house at Lucasfilm, then sent to Lowry for clean up.

I don't think Lucas will ever re-do it. Why would he? The prequels were done in 1080 as well (except Episode I). If ROTS had its effects done in 2k then they are higher resolution than the actual film. And either case, who gives a flying fuck, Lucas can dick around with his special editions until he dies for all I care. Re-doing it in 2k is almost pointless because there isn't much difference; 8K is becoming the new standard, but I guarantee you no Special Edition will ever be in 8K.

Also, why would going to the negs be counter-intuitive? Today you wouldn't re-conform the physical negative, you would do a DI, just like the 2004 special edition doesn't actually exist physically on the negative. If Lucasfilm ever got serious about the original film it would be easy to make a restoration from the negs.

re: the resolution,

hmmm, I guess if it's gonna look good enough up there on the big screen then it doesn't really matter if it's 1080 or 2K.

 You misunderstand me. I wasn't saying 1080p is acceptable theatrical resolution. It's not. I was just saying since Lucas deluded himself into accepting that for the prequels, he's not going to change his mind for the OT SE.

This isn't the first time I've raised the question of what resolution the "masters" for AOTC and ROTS are. I'm similarly confused over Cameron's Avatar, since that was shot in 1080 but "mastered" at 2K. Maybe that's only done at the very end of the equation, i.e. the digital intermediate for the 35mm and digital prints. At the end of the day, the resolution of the visual effects doesn't matter so much as how convincing/photorealistic they are.

Probably that means that the raw live action was captured at 1080, but the VFX (in other 90% of the film) were rendered in 2K, making the final master 2K with certain elements (live action) composited in at 1080p and upscaled. Since the live action is almost always a composited element in a digital shot, that it is captured in 1080 isn't too big a deal since it is just one part of a larger image. The same thing can be said to a certain degree about some shots of the PT, but overall its a different beast.

re: the negs,

That's not so much what worries me. What worries me is them not getting it 100% accurate to how the film was originally conformed. I guess what they could do is use a print from '77 for reference (the quality wouldn't matter) and then match up the high-quality negs to make sure everything's there.

The extractions that were removed are in storage somewhere. If they scanned the negative and scanned the stored pieces and edited them together, it would be 100% faithful to every frame from the original edit. Theoretically you lose a frame in re-splicing the negative, but since Star Wars was an A/B negative I don't even think this applies (A/B just means the shots are checker-boarded on two reels with leader instead of on one big one; if you don't get it just ignore it, it's sort of hard to explain).

It's just that for whatever reason I think it would be smarter to just take the best quality IP they have. Maybe I'm just thinking too much about that Blade Runner set and how they used IP's for the older versions and the o-neg for the final version.

The only reason Blade Runner did that was because the situation was so complicated--make the Final Cut plus three other archival versions. It would never work using the negs because of the amount of work, so it made sense to just use the IPs for efficiency. If you are doing a restoration--which the Final Cut of BR was in part--then you would never go to the IP unless it was your only option. So, like I said, if LFL wants less work then they can take an IP, if they are actually committed then its not a huge deal to go to the negs and make a new DI.

Wouldn't the IP they used for Blade Runner '82/'91 be from the original anyway, (albeit in 1991)? I can't believe that those Blade Runner/Close Encounters sets are 3 years old and it's still this big looming question mark whether Star Wars can even be bothered to do the same thing. Oh please mighty LFL, give us the privilege of paying money for a new transfer from the best available film elements, like say, oh, season 2 of FUCKING LOVE BOAT.

Baronlando said:

Wouldn't the IP they used for Blade Runner '82/'91 be from the original anyway, (albeit in 1991)? I can't believe that those Blade Runner/Close Encounters sets are 3 years old and it's still this big looming question mark whether Star Wars can even be bothered to do the same thing. Oh please mighty LFL, give us the privilege of paying money for a new transfer from the best available film elements, like say, oh, season 2 of FUCKING LOVE BOAT.

I'm not sure when the IPs were made, but I assume it is at the time of release. So the 1982 theatrical IP is from 82 and the DC from 1992. The "workprint" is actually a 70mm dupe from a 35mm workprint dupe, if I am not mistaken (which is why it looks much worse; also because it was lost in storage and briefly was used as a projection print). With Star Wars it's not a question of "if", it's a question of "when."

No wait, the BR workprint is a 70mm dupe of a 35mm release print used for a test screening. But whatever.

I can't believe I just googled "Love Boat Blu-ray."

TV's Frink said:

I can't believe I just googled "Love Boat Blu-ray."

Oh yes you can.

;-)