CatBus

PM sent.

DuracellEnergizer said:

TV's Frink said:

You forgot Gary Kurtz.

He's a bad mother--

Shut yo' mouth.

Pretty damned excited about this.

No. I can say with absolute confidence, no.

TV's Frink said:

I thought we weren't going to bring that up again.

Can't unsee it, sorry.

TV's Frink said:

Because some people shouldn't be allowed to use the internet.

You're probably not referring to our friend with the crotchless kangaroo outfit, are you?

I need a few drinks in me before I'm willing to do the Full Harmy.

Some have conspiracy-theorized that the GOUT went through an extra "add video noise" step to ensure it looked bad compared to the Special Editions. I don't think that's true, but it would provide an explanation.

deepanddark20 said:

I thought the idea behind their project was that the GOUT, even for all its flaws, is the best version of the unaltered trilogy that has thus far been officially released, but some comments made in this discussion are making me think otherwise

AntcuFaalb already answered this pretty completely, but I wanted to add that most of the issues with the GOUT are fixable, and indeed are fixed in our preservations.  The colors can be corrected so that they're even better than the JSC.  You can replace the lossy '93 stereo GOUT audio with the lossless theatrical audio of your choice.  The only thing you can't fix is the DVNR--and even though the DVNR is occasionally awful, for most people that's not enough to counteract the resolution advantage of the GOUT, or other advantages like the theatrical crawl, etc.  Most people, including myself, do consider the GOUT to be the best official release, but the point is arguable, depending on your priorities.  And frankly, the fact that it's arguable at all shows that there are very serious problems with the GOUT, because a half-decent DVD release would have been hands-down better across the board.

Wazzles said:

So I'm just curious, is it really worth it to pay $5k for a Laserdisc player? How much more quality could you possibly pull out of a Laserdisc? Isn't it still going to top out at lower quality than DVD? I mean, Laserdisc is awesome, but not THAT awesome.

Not worth it to me, no.  But everyone has their priorities (and budgets).

For Star Wars, the Laserdiscs would top out at less than DVD-quality, but remember that the DVD we're talking about (the GOUT) also tops out at less than DVD-quality, so it's closer than you'd think.  And since the DVD has issues other than resolution where it's bested by some Laserdisc releases (DVNR, color accuracy, theatrical audio, uncompressed audio), a Star Wars fan could quite reasonably prefer a Laserdisc to that particular DVD, and sometimes you just have to have the best.

It's not really that Laserdisc is so awesome, so much as that Laserdisc was awesome for its time, and some DVDs are so bad that the Laserdiscs can still compare quite favorably to them.  Kinda like when there's a Blu-ray release that's so bad people still prefer the DVD for that particular title.  Doesn't happen a lot, but it happens.  The GOUT is one of those releases that's so bad the previous generation media format is at least arguably better.

Also, for your amusement, look up MUSE Laserdiscs, which the $5K X0 can play, not that this applies to Star Wars.

ww12345 said:

CatBus said:

Won't anyone think of the Sorbians?

 The Sorbetians?

Not a typo.

fullmetal777 said:

My budget is infinite. Which Ld player is the best?

I'd say many here would recommend the Pioneer HLD-X0. You should be able to get a used one for less than $10K if you shop around.

It depends, there were lots of Laserdisc versions.  IIRC the Limited Editions (GOUT), video-wise, match the Definitive Edition LD's, except for the opening crawl of Star Wars.  Lots of people prefer the Japanese Special Collection LD's over the Definitive Editions, for example.  Also, the GOUT does not have theatrical English audio, so any pre-93 Laserdisc would be an improvement in that regard (but you might get 85 audio mix for Star Wars).  But no Laserdisc version has the theatrical crawl for Star Wars, so the GOUT is best in that respect.

Basically all home video releases of Star Wars fall short in some regard or another, even if you don't count the video quality that maxes out at Laserdisc-quality. You have to mix-and-match to get the best result. And that's why we're here.

Won't anyone think of the Sorbians?

Actually not all Blu-ray players play AVCHD on DVD9.  Sony's, Panasonics, and Oppos do by and large, others are more hit and miss depending on the model (e.g. Samsung).  If the DVD9 doesn't work, you'd need a BD-R or a different player.

But who's gonna scan it, kid? You?

Don't ask for projected release dates. The answer you get (March 14th, 2015 at 9:32:03 AM GMT) will be wrong, off by months or more.

If you want to watch it anytime soon, download 1.0 now. If you want better quality, you'll need to wait with the rest of us.

PM sent.

chyron8472 said:

First, you'd need the proper plug sound effect and make sure it's synced correctly to the video for your region.

I see what you did there.

RRS-1980 said:

It's one thing to link to this news item (as it features Star Wars costumes), it's another to promote political campaign. This forum is about sci-fi film saga.

You've all just registered for this very reason: Paladin9009, DarkDroid, Ragenic, Silence, Trs, Pff, Melanie.

If some of our new users would like to verify or improve the quality of our Ukrainian subtitles, I'm willing to tolerate a little promotion. As long as nobody tries to eat my Salo, that is))

As it is, Return of the King already has something like six consecutive endings. Maybe I could have handled Scouring the Shire if they trimmed off two or three other endings, but as it stands--no, no more fade-to-blacks are needed toward the end of that film, thank you very much.

Gah, I fully expect film adaptations to alter the story, for a host of reasons: some things work better in film media than print media and vice-versa, presenting for different audiences, etc. Films that stay too close to their source material end up more like fan checklists than enjoyable works of art. See also: Potter, Harry.

Fatty Bolger, Tom Bombadil, the Barrow Downs, Scouring of the Shire, I was very pleased Jackson et al saw fit to cut all of these out. Let alone Tolkien's more overt royalism and racism.

Love all of the books, love some of the films. But I have no expectation that they will be identical.  IMO, that would have made for dreadful cinema.

Actually that's good news, to me at least.  I was never that impressed by the HFR in the Hobbit--to me, it didn't seem "more real" so much as "a different kind of fake". It was still so far removed from realistic motion that it seemed like a lot of effort for very little payoff--hardly worth retooling the film production chain for, especially when it was going to seem just as old and crusty as 24p once people got over the novelty and started clamoring to fix its shortcomings with an even higher framerate. 120p might just be sufficiently better to be worth it, IMO.

The bad news, of course, is that it involves sequels to Avatar for crying out loud.

PM sent.

stretch009 said:

The screeching lizard isn't in AOTC it's in ROTS.

Edit:  (3:45)  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oGf-a1Dqlc

Wow. So it seems I remember absolutely nothing about AOTC. Which means it's now ahead of TPM as my new favorite prequel! Now if only I could forget the podrace or the lava duel!