CatBus

Very nice, I like how the passers-by have actual hair now! ;)

michaelkirschner said:

I found some really cool high resolution behind the scenes photographs someone posted onto 4chan

I don't get it. What's that big teddy bear doing hanging out with the Jawas?

I think zombie84 nails it, that this is a philosophical discussion, and your position can vary depending on how you define your terms and what your basic assumptions are.

I think most of the people restoring classic films from original negatives would argue that "fidelity" means "closest to what was captured on film" rather than "closest to what was seen in theatres", for example.  It all depends on what you consider "the film", and what you think of the various processes that happen to film between shooting and projecting.

If you think "fidelity" could include any source higher up the chain than prints audiences saw in theatres, then it becomes important to sort of what you think of those processes. I think the processes that happen to a film during can be separated into a few categories:

1) Changes that a filmmaker expects to happen and they take these changes into consideration during filming.
2) Changes that a filmmaker expects to happen but which are not taken into consideration during filming.
3) Changes that a filmmaker does not expect.

What falls into these categories, of course, can vary a bit from film to film, but #1 could include generational loss hiding detail or aspect ratio cropping, #2 could include reel change cue marks and gate weave, #3 could include tears, scratches, bad duplication, etc.  Or to be more topical, Tantive IV's burn marks.

And there's the rub.  Assuming for a moment that these issues can be so neatly segregated, I personally think #2 and #3 are okay to take out by using a higher-generation source, but #1 is not.  How can you get some of these without the others?

Using The Wizard of Oz example, I think they should have used sources as close as possible to the original negatives--this would ensure a clean, undamaged print with no cue marks (color accuracy would be taken from whatever source best preserved it, not necessarily the earliest generation).  However, taking out the wires was IMO a mistake.  First, you have to ask yourself if the filmmaker really expected the wires to be hidden by generational loss--audiences at the time had no expectation of perfect visual effects, and seeing the wires would have been unremarkable to a contemporary theatre-goer.  So if you land on that side, leave the wires in--no big deal.  Or if you think, as I do, that there was just an industry-wide trust that generational loss would tend to hide wires, then the right solution would be to soften the entire film until the wires disappeared, simulating generational loss, but without the other unwanted effects.

I also think this is ultimately academic, because unlike a lot of film tinkering that goes on during Blu-ray restorations, this one is largely user-fixable.  If you think your 1080p Blu-ray is too sharp, set your device to 720p.  Still too sharp, go for 480p.  Yes, you still have to take positive steps to achieve the results you want, but compared to getting rid of DNR or revisionist color timing, it's pretty easy.  At least my player allows this, maybe it's not common?

Considering how much I already love ESB 1.0, that post pretty much made me swoon.  Thanks for being a damned perfectionist, Harmy.

torkus said:

...one thing I wanted to ask was, can anyone tell me whereabouts the layer break is please? (timecode). So I can check this. Thanks. 

Layer break is relevant only to DVD-format DVD9's.  If your player is capable of playing AVCHD-format DVD9's, that's all you need!

I've found MySpleen to be very particular about BitTorrent clients.  After a couple failures, I found that Vuze works.  I'm sure others do too.

Tobar said:

Craig Good a 30 year Pixar veteran tweeted this earlier today:

Craig Good ‏@clgood

Would you buy a Blu-ray or DVD of the Star Wars theatrical cut? Take & share my informal, personal, unofficial survey. http://fave.co/Us1oeb 

The phrases "cleaned up effects" and "A New Hope" give me some concern about what exactly he would consider a theatrical release, but luckily there's a comments field.  Our fan preservations have raised the bar so high, I have some doubts even an "official" theatrical Blu-ray release could meet that standard.  e.g. if they released A New Hope (Star Wars w/ 1981 crawl/flyover) with the 1993 audio mix and the same unexceptional color timing they used on earlier releases, I'd pass on it and keep watching the Despecialized Edition.  I might go for Empire or Jedi though--I guess it depends how high the bar is for those films by then.

That said, I'd still be in favor of these releases if for nothing other than more raw materials for use in an unofficial preservation.

We just like you so much, Wookums!

Ackbar & Jeff

Livin' la Vida Lobot

Comfortably Nunb

Itchy & Scratchy

...Like a Bossk!

Wheel of Fortuna

Rebo Man

Sweet Sweetback's Zuckusssss Song

georgec said:

While many were saying, "Disney can't do worse than Lucas," I was quietly thinking, "Actually, they can."

I'd take that bet.  While Disney may still begin with terrible concepts, and maybe even follow through with terrible writing, you just can't deliver performances that wooden and lifeless without George Lucas directing.  Worst case scenario, a Disney-produced Star Wars film without significant Lucas interference would be about as bad as Alien vs. Predator.  That is, you may still want to claw your eyes out while watching it, but unlike ROTS, you won't still regret choosing not to for years afterward.

This deal is getting worse all the time!

TV's Frink said:

Fish?

Me too.  Although Firefly has made me retroactively appreciate Harris a bit more.

Thanks for taking more answers from the older set.  I was feeling like this forum was more likely to be able to talk about our favorite characters from Barney Miller than the PT.

    1. In one sentence, what is your description of a villain?

A villain is someone who intentionally thwarts the aspirations of other well-intended characters in the story.

    2. Do you consider yourself a Star Wars fan? On a scale of 1-10, 1 being not a fan at all and 10 being a “super fan”, what would you consider yourself?

I'd say 6.  I probably would have rated myself higher before I ran into this forum, but then I adjusted where the top of my scale was.

    3. In what order did you first watch the Star Wars films?

A. Just to be a bit pedantic, I saw them in this order: 0,5,6,1,2,3.  There was no episode number on the first Star Wars movie I saw.  And, in fact, I remember being excited about Empire being Episode V because that meant that there would be three more movies about what happened in the time between Star Wars and Empire, since Star Wars was implicitly Episode I in my mind.

    4. Who is your favorite character from the films?

Lando.  Seriously.  I'm a sucker for characters with ambiguous allegiances and realistic motivations.  He's a powerful guy who's suddenly put in a tough spot, and he tries to play it both ways to the best of his abilities (sacrificing his friends' opinion of him and a guy he doesn't know in order to save both his friends and his city).  When it's clear this strategy won't work and he's not likely to save his friends or his city, he switches tactics adeptly without tipping his hand to anyone.  And a nice cape too.

    5. Who is your favorite villain from the films?

Boba Fett (yeah, I'm one of those).

    6. What is the first thing you think of when you think of your favorite villain from the film?

I think of how shockingly competent he is compared to those around him.  This helps with my villain definition--it's not really quite enough to just TRY to thwart the heroes and fail repeatedly, you have to actually succeed every now and then.

    7. If your favorite villain was not the Emperor, what is the first thing you think of when you think of the Emperor?

The surprise I felt about the lightning.  I just did not see that coming at all, and it certainly bumped him up on the villain scale for me.  Scared the bejeezus out of me the first time.

    8. If your favorite villain was not Darth Vader, what is the first thing you think of when you think of Darth Vader?

His voice.  Without James Earl Jones, Vader would have been a much emptier suit.

    9. What is Senator Palpatine’s motivation for becoming the Emperor?

    10. What is Anakin Skywalker’s motivation for becoming Darth Vader?

I'm going to have to pass on those.  They weren't adequately explained in the OT, and I was too busy with self-injurious behavior during the PT to notice.

    11. Do you feel sympathy for the Emperor?

No.

    12. Why or why not?

He was presented exclusively as a villain, and the only development was in revealing his various deceits.  I was impressed by his machinations, but that's not quite the same thing as sympathy.

    13. Do you feel sympathy for Darth Vader?

No.

    14. Why or why not?

While he was certainly redeemed at the end, I think it took so long for him to come around to it that I'm not sure I could relate to his motivations for doing anything.

    15. When the Emperor died in Episode VI, what emotions did you feel, if any?

Relief.  There was lightning coming out of his hands fer crying out loud!

    16. When Darth Vader died in Episode VI, what emotions did you feel, if any?

A little boredom, honestly.  I was never the biggest Jedi fan, and this was one of those Soap Opera moments that just dragged for me.  Maybe it would have been different if I'd felt sympathy for him, but either the filmmakers or my cold, cold heart prevented that from happening.

    17. Do you think the Emperor fits into your description of a villain from question one?

Yes.

    18. Why or why not?

Lightning.  Hands.  But seriously, his goal was to crush the rebellion, which was pretty much everyone you cared about in the movie up to that point.  That's serious thwarting.

    19. Do you think Darth Vader fits into your description of a villain from question one?

Yes.

    20. Why or why not?

He spent almost all of his time chasing down and otherwise making life difficult for the rest of the characters.  A little redemption at the end doesn't mean the character is not a villain in general.

TV's Frink said:

In three years I'll be twice as old as someone having their first legal drink.

...

Oh Good God I'm old.

Now I feel even worse.  You whipper-snapper...

Can anyone who saw episodes 1-3 first please fill out this survey?

I agree, the thread title is pretty limiting.  To fit this requirement, you'd mostly be dealing with people born in 1994 or later, meaning... 19 and under.  Oh Good God I'm old.  Thanks a lot.  And I was looking forward to explaining why Lando is my favorite character in a totally non-ironic way.

Not enough punctuation for FS.  Okay, it's from smoothest to wrinkliest, although by a different definition of smooth, Lando would be on top.

Guess what I'm ordering these characters by!  I've excluded prequel characters because the prequels never happened.

R2-D2
C-3PO
Leia Organa
Luke Skywalker
Lando Calrissian
Han Solo
Chewbacca
Greedo
Darth Vader
Obi-Wan Kenobi
Grand Moff Tarkin
Aunt Beru
Admiral Ackbar
Yoda
The Emperor
Jabba the Hutt

skyjedi2005 said:

with the dnr knobs set to zero

That brings up an important question to me.  I already know Disney DNR's the living hell out of their film-based animated features, but can anyone tell me how they treat film-based live-action stuff?

Laserschwert said:

I prefer 5.1

I'm using that one!  Get your own number!

Maybe 2.5 Service Pack 3 and Update Rollup KB283740?  Kinda rolls off the tongue.

I'd reserve 3.0 for 1080p if it ever happens.

If they released the OOT as a non-half-assed Blu-ray set, the sheer weight of all those VHS tapes hitting the landfill at once would knock the Earth off its axis.  So really they're doing us all a favor.

Sturgeon's Law applies to anime as well.  You have to care enough to dig through the stuff you don't like yourself, find a friend who can recommend stuff based on your tastes, or you can just stay away.  Most choose the last option--they don't care enough to just dive in before they've seen anything they like, and their friends don't make good recommendations for them.

Me, I get some sick enjoyment out of some truly awful crap, so I go with option 1.  I thought the clip Silverwook linked was hilarious, but it's basically just about 10 million inside anime jokes strung together, so it's not necessarily going to make any sense outside a certain circle.  I mean, Love and Death is a brilliant film, but I'm not going to recommend it to someone who's not already familiar with Russian literature.

Ha, that's nice to hear, but I know I'm perfectly capable of losing my temper and then I become a real arrogant git by most accounts.  But thanks nonetheless ;)

AVCHD was chosen as the highest-quality format for the 1.0 versions.  It was chosen because it could fit on a DVD9 and then be played back on many Blu-ray players.

With 2.0, the DVD9 size limitation was abandoned, allowing for less compression.  Currently the highest-quality format in the 2.x series is MKV, but there will also be a Blu-ray ISO in the future.  AFAIK they will have the same video quality, although the Blu-ray may have better audio options.

It sounds like you've found the best versions of all of the films, as they stand right now.

That sounds about right.  The 1.0 versions were designed to fit on a DVD9.  Unfortunately that means they're MUCH more compressed than SW 2.0, but they're still quite good (and much better than any commercial release).