CHEWBAKAspelledwrong

YAREL_RGP said:

RM4747 said:

Clearly not, because the color grading on all previous home media releases has been way off.

First of all, if those releases look bad it’s because they didn’t use color references, not because they didn’t have any, the 2004 release looks awful because George was out of his mind

Bingo. It’s never been about available elements. It’s been about either how George wanted them to look or didn’t care how they looked.

JadedSkywalker said:

I’m really curious as to where they will get the original colors from 1977, 1980 and 1983 and to know they are accurate.

What references do they have. I’m somewhat skeptical because Lowry messed them up twice.

I don’t think Lowry “messed them up”. The DVDs and BDs almost certainly looked as George wanted them.

I’d be surprised if LF doesn’t have an actuate color reference in their archives.

What is with the magenta push on the UHD? It looks like a Blu-Ray that re-used a 90s timed-for-CRT DVD master.

That guy with no name said:

YAREL_RGP said:

That guy with no name said:

YAREL_RGP said:

That guy with no name said:

YAREL_RGP said:

Detail: ALI…

 
Detail: UHD…

Well, it’s important to note that this shot was digitized in 2K in 1997 to add the rope holding Han, so the UHD not only includes that shot with a clearly lower resolution, but also suffers from excessive DNR for the 3D conversion, which caused the image to lose detail.

Yeah, the point of the comparison is that this isn’t sourced from the UHD. Or you’re right, it would also have quality loss. Also good to note that the 97 filmouts also had fake digital grain added on top to disguise the new CG! So yeah, doubly worse…

I don’t know why you say “digital fake grain was added.” This shot was scanned, digitized, had CGI added, and was reprinted. If there’s supposedly more grain, it’s because of the reprinting. Although, back then, films had very fine grain, so no detail was lost when reprinting a film a second time. In the case of the enhanced shots in Star Wars, they look “worse” because they were rendered in 2K.

No, they had fake grain added onto them aswell… even in '97.
https://youtu.be/RMzif1D0nyA

Well, I think it refers more to the completely computer-generated shots, like the CGI shots of the Battle of Yavin, the CGI arrival on Bespin, among others, but the existing shots that were altered already had grain, and when reprinting, the natural grain of the new film did its thing.

I’m sorry, why are we making assumptions here? In the full video he says this was done to both new and “changed” shots. There are many original shots that appear to have had more grain in them in the SE evidenced by the need of more aggressive DNR…

I wonder if the terrible, dated quality of the SE shots had more to do with Disney going back to the Original than any kind of principle. Ironic, given the supposed intent of the SE, that a 4K transfer made with modern tools of the OOT will look better than one of the SE.

That guy with no name said:

YAREL_RGP said:

That guy with no name said:

YAREL_RGP said:

Detail: ALI…

 
Detail: UHD…

Well, it’s important to note that this shot was digitized in 2K in 1997 to add the rope holding Han, so the UHD not only includes that shot with a clearly lower resolution, but also suffers from excessive DNR for the 3D conversion, which caused the image to lose detail.

Yeah, the point of the comparison is that this isn’t sourced from the UHD. Or you’re right, it would also have quality loss. Also good to note that the 97 filmouts also had fake digital grain added on top to disguise the new CG! So yeah, doubly worse…

I don’t know why you say “digital fake grain was added.” This shot was scanned, digitized, had CGI added, and was reprinted. If there’s supposedly more grain, it’s because of the reprinting. Although, back then, films had very fine grain, so no detail was lost when reprinting a film a second time. In the case of the enhanced shots in Star Wars, they look “worse” because they were rendered in 2K.

No, they had fake grain added onto them aswell… even in '97.
https://youtu.be/RMzif1D0nyA

So when the 4K transfers came around, I guess George decided he was over it, and just said, eff it… freeze it all!

DaleJrFan2003 said:

Little Nemo said:

First of all I want to say this is all great fun and I’m not trying to “gotcha” anybody, but in the 4K clip compilation the dirt/dust that got through the Reliance 4K restoration seems to match that of these “ALI” clips, which isn’t helping dispel my theory that these are sourced from the UHD, re-timed (often appealingly so!), sharpened and re-grained. Just to highlight a few, comparing grabs from the D+77 and the vid Sonny Hale posted:

D+77

ALI

D+77

ALI

D+77

ALI

D+77

ALI

D+77

ALI

D+77

ALI

D+77

ALI

D+77

ALI

D+77

ALI

No I don’t always have this much time on my hands, but today I did lol. Thoughts?

Breaking news: local man finds out about baked in film artifacts. More at 11.

Little Nemo is our only hope!

That guy with no name said:

Hey guys, I’m not trying to “gotcha” anybody, but I think that 4K77 is just the UHD, but color timed and regrained! And these two sources were created almost 40 years apart! TN1 are such hoaxers omg.

This is all such great fun…

That’s the smoking blaster!

Ummmm given Reliance and this would both be sourced from the OCN… why wouldn’t we expect the dirt to match?

Not to mention using VV sources for effects shots rather than 35mm negative trims! Much more work than scanning a conformed negative or even trims, and hopefully a stunning result.

Do we really think George cares? He did in fact release the OUT on disc, just lazily and cheaply. And he has approved screenings of OUT prints. I think it’s more he never wanted to spend the millions to restore them, given they’re not his preferred version. If someone else spends the money, which Disney appears to be, I doubt he’d care so long as his preferred versions also remain available.

ThatPixarGuy said:

My preference may still be 4K83 2.0 in the end due to the DNR’d Disney source, but I can’t deny what an amazing release this is. 3.0/3.1 is a huge improvement over 2.5 and will be my go-to if I want to watch a cleaner version of ROTJ.

Thanks for everything, Harmy.

While I share opposition to DNR, we need to remember why it’s a problem… because it kills detail. The DNR’d and regrained O-neg has more detail than the non-DNR’d print.

For my curiosity, are you guys burning 4K-UHD spec onto a BD-50, or are these data discs?

HanDuet said:

CHEWBAKAspelledwrong said:

has anyone else encountered an error that part 2 of the RAR is corrupted, when trying to extract the 3.1 UHD MKV? I’ve tried redownloading part 2, and still get the error.

The multipart downloads also include a .SFV file that contains the checksums of each individual multipart RAR. If you use a checksum verification program to open this .SFV file, it will verify if part 2 (or any other part) is truly corrupted or not.

If all parts pass checksum verification, you may be getting this “corrupted” error when something else is wrong, such as using the wrong extraction password. This depends on what extractor program you’re using and on what system.

I fixed it by downloading the latest version of Unarchiver… rather embarrassing.

SnooPac said:

CHEWBAKAspelledwrong said:

has anyone else encountered an error that part 2 of the RAR is corrupted, when trying to extract the 3.1 UHD MKV? I’ve tried redownloading part 2, and still get the error.

It’s available at 2 different sources. Did you try both?

Just tried it. Same result.

has anyone else encountered an error that part 2 of the RAR is corrupted, when trying to extract the 3.1 UHD MKV? I’ve tried redownloading part 2, and still get the error.

Harmy said:

Also, in your example, the people look like they fell asleep in a tanning bed, while having an infusion of carrot juice.

But it POPS!!! :roll eyes:

I thought he was doing Empire first this round. But this is exciting nonetheless!

It’s not that interesting, I assure you. This is not the gossip you’re looking for. Move along.

jdryyz said:

I am now going to derail this monumental occasion with an ignorant question. Isn’t GOUT and “theatrical” referring to the same thing?? I thought anything pre-Special Edition adheres to George’s original trilogy.

Yes and no. GOUT is a presentation of the OOT on DVD. In terms of this discussion though, the “GOUT standard” refers to a precise collection of frames for syncing audio tracks. Theatrical prints differ by a handful of frames from the GOUT. These aren’t substantial content differences but are enough to throw off sync with audio tracks if they are used on different video presentations.

To use a GOUT synced audio track, the chosen video component needs to have the frames synced to the GOUT standard.

Harmy said:

Yes, please - I already did and anyone else, who can, should do so too. Thanks.
Reporting these listings is kind of like fighting moisture vaporators, but it’s the best we can do.

FTFY

This is really amazing.

It also underscores how pathetic Lucasfilm is on this issue. This is certainly orders of magnitude more work for the fan restorationists than it would be for [salaried] LF restorationists with proper elements. Shame we have to resort to this, but bravo!

Ryrynz said:

Agreed, that’s wonderful. Very nice colors.
Could one capture grain from other the other grainy sources and lay it on top?

This is just the color correction of the BD source as i understand, not the final restoration. I believe they are planning to do something with grain.

I just finished a marathon of the OT.

I thought 4K77 DNR looked really good. I’m glad I went with this version. I would not want anything noisier than this. I can’t wait to see what the next versions of 4K77 and SW Despecialized bring.

D+80 was entirely different. Detail on the UHD Blu-Ray footage is amazing, but the frozen grain is distracting and the quality drop of the DNR’d restored footage is unfortunate. This is certainly an amazing effort and a great stepping stone to ESB Despecialized. Can’t wait for this and an eventual polished 4K80.

4K83 minimal DNR color by Dr.Dre: drop down gorgeous. If there was never a new version of ROTJ, I’d still be happy.

This was inspired by my viewing of D+80, but since it’s pertinent to all of the films, and I imagine Star Wars 3.0 is the current project, I am posting it here.

I found the UHD disc footage to be great in detail and color, but was really (really) distracted by the godawful frozen grain, especially in bright footage on Hoth and Bespin (I absolutely do NOT mean this as a criticism of ohteedee’s fantastic work putting this together). Further, I found the DNR’d 35mm footage to leave a lot lacking in detail and continuity with the “official” footage.

I am curious where on the spectrum the 3.x versions of Despecialized will lie. Will restored footage be DNR’d to match the UHD Blu-Ray footage? Will Blu-Ray footage be “re-grained” to match the restored footage? Or will both be done to some extent to “meet in the middle”? In addition to its utility for “matching,” I think some artificial grain added to the Blu-Ray footage could help hide the frozen grain.

Thank you all for your hard work, I can’t wait to see what you come up with on the next round!

thisistheway said:

Hi I’m new here

Is it possible someone could give me a copy of all three of the despecialised star wars films I really want to see these as I havet seen them for years and couldt find them in this forum.

I’d be really grateful

Read the introductory guide linked in the first post.