SilverWook said:
Besides the fact whoever did the new shots don't get any onscreen credits...
If it were me, I'd tell them to credit me as Alan Smithee >_<
So you are doing noise reduction, then, or what?
Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:
It might be on tehparadox...
It is.
Magnets.
Speaking of that documentary, is Moth3r's name really pronounced like a moth?
lightman said:
I noticed people seemed to be talking about cleaning dirt/dust/etc from the film as post-production step. Normally this would be done by cleaning the film physically before scanning. Is that not possible for anyone that has actual film of the original trilogy?
Obviously, this is excluding other damage the film stock may have incurred.
From what I've seen of it, there's not much dirt, but there are little green scratch marks that occur along the left-hand side of the film.
Not too distracting if you're used to seeing that sort of thing, but I'm sure it'll be first priority.
Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:
The Deranns have very good color. But the 16mm print I'm using for PSB also has very good color.
I was, of course, referring to the first movie ;)
But mostly it's just wishful thinking. I'm not sure spending that much money would really be justified considering the fact that there's 35mms out there (though I've only seen screen grabs, I don't know what the actual details are on that project).
For what it's worth, it was (mostly) blue in '92:
More here: http://tinypic.com/useralbum.php?ua=CDgaYJp8mF%2Fm0YMdtQMt%2FA%3D%3D
Not sure if that link works, I've never linked a TinyPic album before. If it does work, you have to sort it from "Oldest to newest".
However, this shot (right before Luke turns off his saber) is a bit more greenish.
Why can't we just plug a 360 into a capture card?
I know I keep saying that, but nobody's explained yet.
A really good example (it's in the Reivax, dunno about the LDs) is when C3PO and R2 take off in the escape pod, you can see the stars spinning behind them, and they all leave spiral trails.
I was just reading about that on SaveStarWars the other day, and supposedly the Derann is much higher quality than most 16mms.
But it also said you (Puggo) couldn't transfer them because your workprinter won't hold 600 ft of film (or whatever length it was).
Jacobss said:
Do you prefer 2004 edition, without Vader yelling noooo? Well, the best possible quality is DVD.
Unless you catch it on Spike ;)
lurker77 said:
1. You claim that the absolute best element in the world is Lucas' IB print. I've read that IB prints are actually bad sources for restorations due to high contrast. They are very useful as a colour reference, however.
Basically, it said that the Technicolor print would be a lot more work to restore from it. Everything us fans are doing is already a lot more work ;)
I don't have a dual-layer burner, so DVD-5 just saves me an extra step.
A film like Star Wars would need to be copied at 4K and then dropped back to film, and the prospect of doing that was and still is too expensive for LoC.
So it seems like everyone has been expecting much more from LoC than they are actually able/willing to do.
After all this, it seems like the fans are still the #1 hope.
The Aluminum Falcon said:
Do you mean the ESB SWE disc I posted samples of?
Yeah.
Mr. Bungle said:
Admittedly, I'd gotten so used to the DVD edition that I'd forgotten what the original Star Wars film looked like.
Weird. I think I've only watched the SEs once each (1997 and 2004). I didn't feel the need to view them ever again, but I do still need to check out the commentaries.
All this 2011 nonsense has given me this strange itch to rewatch the '97s, though. I skimmed through the Reivax for Ep IV a little bit, but didn't watch the whole thing. The sabres/lasers and general colors aren't as definitive as everyone makes them out to be, but they do look a whole lot better than the '04.
Maybe I just play too many PC games, but the aliasing has never bothered me. Especially this transfer, seems much better than others.
I'm wondering if there might be some way to blend the VHS into the picture a little bit and see if that takes care of some of the rainbowing, but it's probably too far "out there". I'm looking at the caps I took, and it seems like there might be less of it (or at least it's in different spots maybe), but it's hard to tell as it was never that bad in any of those shots.
msycamore said:
I would say it's only a choice between the JSC and this one... Have not seen the actual JSC LD to make a fair comparison.
Well, the JSC has all of the colors smearing to the right, and in this one, the colors seem much more similar to the Technicolor print, so I'm really favoring it. I do notice some sharpening artifacts (they're much more noticable in Aluminum Falcon's captures), but it's not as bad looking as it is in the JSC.
shandy706 said:
Totally and COMPLETELY FALSE on the resolution jump. Also the people that say that are either watching Blu-ray on an SD TV or they're BLIND.
I wouldn't call myself blind, but I certainly don't notice the jump unless I wear my glasses and sit uncomfortably close.
Our theatre ran a bunch of 80s/90s movies over the Summer, and being blown up on the big screen, I could definitely notice a difference when very sharp looking Blus like Tron and The Princess Bride were up, compared to some of the late 90s DVDs they showed, like Jaws and Sixteen Candles. But then they showed Wayne's World, and it was shot so soft that you could hardly tell it was BluRay, except that there was no artifacting between letters in the intro credits.
shandy706 said:
VHS = 480x333
DVD = 720x576 or 720x480 (barely a step up from VHS res in comparison)
Keep in mind that anamorphic DVDs are going to be using all 480 rows of that resolution, whereas every widescreen VHS I've ever heard of was letterbox.
Also, just the jump from analogue to digital was a pretty big thing. Bonus features, digital RW/FF, chapter selects, menus, and not having to worry about your tape getting eaten were pretty nice perks.
Awesome news.
Mr. Bungle said:
She is captured on film forever as a big blueberry alien.
You forget, this is Star Wars we're talking about. Nothing is "forever".
No clips, but there are some stills.
Nearsighted Scrappile said:
...nobody here has managed to secure at least one of the films this way...it's a long, expensive process...
...yep...
*sneezes*
Harmy said:
Ha ha, awesome:
Star Wars BD set is completely fire-proof. Who knew?
There isn't really any "definitive" version, each one has its own set of problems.
You just have to decide which problems bother you most, which problems bother you least, and weigh the pros and cons.