Sign In

team negative1 - star wars 1977 - 35mm theatrical version (release details and updates) — Page 171

Author
Time
 (Edited)

rodofshadows said:

For the love of Star Wars OT, where do I get this? I’m dying here guys…

Well, then stop your dying and start reading those 170 pages.

Or, you can open a Google search engine and type this

site:originaltrilogy.com

make a space, then type…

the name of this thread

make a space and then type…

your question.

There’s bound to be many folks asking this same question. Out of those people, one person gets his question answered.

So, you have a choice:

Be richer with knowledge and do the former option, or have a quick answer and do the latter.

Either way, you’ll win.

Good luck.

Edit:
To the seasoned members here: feel free to use to quote in other FAQ on other threads.

Author
Time

Also, the reason for the sarcastic sounding response from alexp above is that there is honestly no chance in all of this discussion that WHERE to get this project could have been skipped. It is talked about or mentioned or, at the very least, hinted about almost all the time, you’ll figure it out. We know people want the quick and easy path, but you know where that leads… Yep, it leads to not learning anything, where did you think it led?

Author
Time

Could someone please PM me a link to the non-corrupted version 1.6? I’ve only been able to locate the paradox version, which is incomplete and corrupted. Thanks, and may the Force be with you!

Author
Time

Anyone else think Harmy’s DeSpecialized version looks better than this? The silver screen version is still cool to have, but I prefer watching the Despecialized edition.

Author
Time

Cthulhunicron said:

Anyone else think Harmy’s DeSpecialized version looks better than this? The silver screen version is still cool to have, but I prefer watching the Despecialized edition.

They suit different needs. The SSE is more accurate and 100% HD, while DeD is much cleaner but not entirely HD.

Author
Time

Very little of the most recent release isn’t HD. Except that it’s limited to 720.

Author
Time

My eyes can’t tell the difference between 720 and 1080.

Author
Time

Disco_Lobot said:

I laugh at people buying 4K TVs… your eyes are almost certainly not good enough to tell the difference in the vast majority of viewing scenarios. Total waste of money

http://bgr.com/2015/09/18/720p-vs-1080p-vs-4k-resolution/

You know there’s more to it than just resolution, right? The increased dynamic range is enough of a selling point for me. And those who care are going to definitely make sure the viewing conditions are ideal for the 4k format.

Author
Time

Disco_Lobot said:

I laugh at people buying 4K TVs… your eyes are almost certainly not good enough to tell the difference in the vast majority of viewing scenarios. Total waste of money

http://bgr.com/2015/09/18/720p-vs-1080p-vs-4k-resolution/

At this point it’s getting pretty difficult to find good quality TVs above 40 inches that aren’t at 4K res.

It’s kind of a silly crabs-in-the-bucket argument really. I mean would you really opt for a 768p TV over a 1080p one these days given the choice?: https://web-beta.archive.org/web/20061205134842/http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6449_7-6661274-1.html?tag=ms

in perpetuity in perpetuity in perpetuity in perpetuity in perpetuity in perpetuity in perpetuity

Author
Time

Disco_Lobot said:

I laugh at people buying 4K TVs… your eyes are almost certainly not good enough to tell the difference in the vast majority of viewing scenarios. Total waste of money

http://bgr.com/2015/09/18/720p-vs-1080p-vs-4k-resolution/

If we were just talking about the absolute resolution, you are right. At my normal viewing distance I can’t tell the difference between 720 and 1080. I’m certainly not going to see much improvement from a 4k screen. But it isn’t just the resolution. The more pixels you have to display the image data, the better the image looks. The pixels start to disappear and be truly invisible. I’ve known this about printing for years, but when you apply it to video, it really helps the realism of the image, even if you are watching a 480 DVD. With the proper hardware, everything will look better on a 4k screen, even if you never get a UHD player or media.

Author
Time

Screen size also matters. I used to be happy with 720p on a 65 inch screen. But I recently got a projector and a 125 inch screen, and while 720p still looks pretty good, 1080 is definitely noticeably better.

Author
Time

yotsuya said:

Disco_Lobot said:

I laugh at people buying 4K TVs… your eyes are almost certainly not good enough to tell the difference in the vast majority of viewing scenarios. Total waste of money

http://bgr.com/2015/09/18/720p-vs-1080p-vs-4k-resolution/

If we were just talking about the absolute resolution, you are right. At my normal viewing distance I can’t tell the difference between 720 and 1080. I’m certainly not going to see much improvement from a 4k screen. But it isn’t just the resolution. The more pixels you have to display the image data, the better the image looks. The pixels start to disappear and be truly invisible. I’ve known this about printing for years, but when you apply it to video, it really helps the realism of the image, even if you are watching a 480 DVD. With the proper hardware, everything will look better on a 4k screen, even if you never get a UHD player or media.

My dad has a 43 inch 4K TV and DVDs look horrendous.

Author
Time

Wazzles said:

yotsuya said:

Disco_Lobot said:

I laugh at people buying 4K TVs… your eyes are almost certainly not good enough to tell the difference in the vast majority of viewing scenarios. Total waste of money

http://bgr.com/2015/09/18/720p-vs-1080p-vs-4k-resolution/

If we were just talking about the absolute resolution, you are right. At my normal viewing distance I can’t tell the difference between 720 and 1080. I’m certainly not going to see much improvement from a 4k screen. But it isn’t just the resolution. The more pixels you have to display the image data, the better the image looks. The pixels start to disappear and be truly invisible. I’ve known this about printing for years, but when you apply it to video, it really helps the realism of the image, even if you are watching a 480 DVD. With the proper hardware, everything will look better on a 4k screen, even if you never get a UHD player or media.

My dad has a 43 inch 4K TV and DVDs look horrendous.

Often, if you turn off all that image enhacent crap, lower quality sources like dvd actually look better. I have a 51" 1080p plasma tv, and i think DVD’s look pretty damn good if they were authored at high bitrate. a bit soft, but good.

Author
Time

The best TV I have in my house is a 13 year old, 42" Panasonic 480p plasma EDTV. Everything looks great on it: 1080p blu-rays are scaled down and look great, 1080i HDTV looks fantastic, DVDs look awesome at their native resolution and even old, lower quality, 512x218 DIVX/XVID AVIs and standard definition TV channels are watchable. Also in the house are a later 32" 720p Panasonic LCD TV and 50" 1080p Smart TV by LG that I was going to use to replace the old EDTV, but it’s just not as good.

When all my content is 4k, I’ll want a 4K TV, but for now, that 480p is great because scaling down always works better than scaling up…

http://www.thestarwarstrilogy.com

http://www.the007dossier.com

Author
Time

Williarob said:

The best TV I have in my house is a 13 year old, 42" Panasonic 480p plasma EDTV. Everything looks great on it: 1080p blu-rays are scaled down and look great, 1080i HDTV looks fantastic, DVDs look awesome at their native resolution and even old, lower quality, 512x218 DIVX/XVID AVIs and standard definition TV channels are watchable. Also in the house are a later 32" 720p Panasonic LCD TV and 50" 1080p Smart TV by LG that I was going to use to replace the old EDTV, but it’s just not as good.

When all my content is 4k, I’ll want a 4K TV, but for now, that 480p is great because scaling down always works better than scaling up…

I owned that TV for a while! Until I decided to take it to my friends house to play God of War 2 on his Playstation 2. Apparently, leaning those against the wall is a bad idea, because after I went home to take a nap, my friend called me in a panic “I just… It just… I’m so sorry brother your TV fell over and the glass is smashed to pieces.”

Honest to God, I don’t know what got into my wife but after a few months she bought me the 50" Panasonic at 720p, and I’m STILL running that.

But if I had $4000 I’d drop it on a 65" LG 4K OLED in a heartbeat. TRUE black, and with 4K you can be inches away from the TV and not lose detail! So immersive!

Author
Time

Williarob said:

Yeah, the blacks are not even close to black on the the plasma.

That seems odd to me, perhaps it is an age thing related to your specific tv. but isn’t deep blacks one of the things plasma does better than lcd?

Author
Time
 (Edited)

dahmage said:

Williarob said:

Yeah, the blacks are not even close to black on the the plasma.

That seems odd to me, perhaps it is an age thing related to your specific tv. but isn’t deep blacks one of the things plasma does better than lcd?

You’re missing a generation in the middle. Old school LCD’s were TERRIBAD at blacks, the best they could do was a glowing blue/gray. But then the TV makers figured out they could divide the backlighting into zones and once they got good at it, blacks got MUCH better on LCD’s.

Panasonic was known for it’s “deepest blacks of any plamsa” but no, plasma blacks aren’t quite true black. Though they are good enough that you have the lights in the room completely off to notice an issue.