Thanks to all who helped and offered help, and Molly in particular for putting the thing together to begin with. This is encoded and off to Harmy now.
SpilkaBilka said:
CatBus said:
Space Kaijuu said:
Will the Blu-Ray version of 2.1 have the 1985 laserdisc remix?
We are trying to package this up for Harmy ATM. I'm hopeful.
Awesome, glad to hear it. How's that going? Been away the last few days, haven't been keeping up with this or the 1985 thread. Thanks so much for your efforts, and I'm sorry I have absolutely no skills to contribute to this! :)
This is done now, and I've sent Harmy a link. DTS-MA lossless stereo FWIW.
yoda-sama said:
Meh, as far as I'm concerned, as long as it isn't tainting the movie itself, it isn't a huge deal if Episode IV and A New Hope are on the cover, it gives consistency with the other covers if nothing else... There's little denying that IV is where it lands in the line-up, after all.
For me, it strikes the exact same wrong note as the "Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark" cover art. Yeah, it's not on the movie itself in that case either (thank goodness!), but the fact remains it's simply not the name of the movie. For many years, many fans believed that Star Wars was Episode I and that they skipped a few episodes before Empire. If we're re-creating the theatrical experience, wondering about those missing episodes is certainly part of it.
Well he's got me fooled. I totally think he's two different people.
SpilkaBilka said:
CatBus said:
Space Kaijuu said:
Will the Blu-Ray version of 2.1 have the 1985 laserdisc remix?
We are trying to package this up for Harmy ATM. I'm hopeful.
Awesome, glad to hear it. How's that going? Been away the last few days, haven't been keeping up with this or the 1985 thread. Thanks so much for your efforts, and I'm sorry I have absolutely no skills to contribute to this! :)
I have the needed tools, but no means to get the FLAC file from the newsgroups. I've sent a PM to DM but no response yet. If you can supply it, that'd be fine too.
Just for being offtopic. Not that this thread seems to stick super-close to its topic...
Those clipped reds are the sort of thing snicker was trying to fix, but he needs a raw unprocessed capture of the ESB Blu before he'd be able to look into them. You could PM him if you want to see this happen--I don't know if there's time for snickers's (long, slow) process to be of any help to Harmy though.
Space Kaijuu said:
Will the Blu-Ray version of 2.1 have the 1985 laserdisc remix?
We are trying to package this up for Harmy ATM. I'm hopeful.
Cough, PM sent.
SpilkaBilka said:
So I could probably just ask Harmy to download it from alt.binaries.starwars, assuming he had newsgroup access?
Not a safe assumption at all, FWIW. He's more likely to have a copy of so-and-so's v3 he could just rip it from (lossy).
Twisty said:
TPM is my favorite PT movie.
Agreed, but this is much in the same way Dengue is my favorite hemorrhagic fever. "Favorite" just doesn't seem quite the right word. Least godawful more like.
timdiggerm said:
Was there really anything interesting in the film that one could spoil, if one had already seen the OT?
It was kind of interesting/surprising that it was the worst of the prequels. I didn't really expect TPM would be as good as the prequels were going to get, even after seeing AOTC.
Dang, forgot the spoiler tag. Hope I didn't ruin it for anyone. Sorry.
nos402 said:
What are the various formats? There's talk of the 15GB MKV, AVCHD, DVD5. What are the differences?
MKV: currently the best-quality version. Can be remuxed into a Blu-ray, or played as-is. I don't believe an MKV version of 2.1 is planned (see below).
AVCHD: mid-quality, can be burned to a DVD9 and played back in many Blu-ray players. This format is good for people with Blu-ray players, but without Blu-ray burners.
DVD5: lowest quality, also contains only one soundtrack option (English 5.1). However, this burns to a DVD5 and can be played back on any DVD player, which makes it a good "friends and family" edition.
Harmy also plans to release a Blu-ray version (highest quality with tons of extras) which can be burned to Blu-ray, and a standalone M2TS which is the same highest quality and functionally pretty much just like the MKV.
Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:
I too have been holding out for 2.1 - my fiance has never seen SW(!) and I am looking forward to her inaugural experience to be this one.
Same story with me and my son. So no pressure, Harmy ;)
TV's Frink said:
Harmy said:
If there's anyone I'm forgetting, please don't be ashamed to PM me also, even the smallest contribution counts and I'd really like to give credit where it is due.
All I ever wanted in life was to watch a movie and see "Stinky-Dinkins" in the end credits.
You laugh, but nobody else thought to mail Harmy a pube, and then where would this project be?
yoda-sama said:
One question I have is (if a link to some other discussion is enough to explain, that'd be fine), what does this '85 home mix offer in comparison to the '93 and non-mono '77? (Okay, I also am not sure what it is '93 [definitive LD sourced, I'm sure] has that's different or desirable either.)
IIRC, '85 is basically the first stereo track that merges back in the mono mix lines like Threepio's tractor beam line. The '93 one does this too but (among other things) it adds a bunch of sound effects that weren't ever in any of the original audio mixes. So '85 is desirable because, while not technically an original track, it could be considered a merged form of the original '77 tracks. Also people remember it from home video releases and like it from there.
Wow, mea culpa on the details, but I think my overall point is still valid--there are certainly creative decisions that were made because of the limitations of the time, so that simply adding in deleted scenes that couldn't be done before cannot possibly re-create the "original vision" sans limitations.
But wow, really? Both? Another testament to good editing in the original, I suppose! Jeeze.
timdiggerm said:
That's a tricky issue. If not for technical difficulties and/or lack of time/money, wouldn't a character called Jabba have been in "Star Wars"?
Sure, but if Jabba had been in Star Wars, there would have been no need to come up with the "Plan B" Greedo scene to communicate the same information. It's a cascading effect of would-have could-haves. And it's part of why the SE's are so bad, because they do not stem from a consistent editing perspective, and you end up with both Jabba and Greedo, when that result certainly would never have happened in 1977. If Jabba had happened in '77, Greedo quite simply would not have.
The fact is, at some point, George Lucas signed off on the 1977 version. If he didn't think the Greedo scene was an adequate replacement for the Jabba scene he originally envisioned, he could have decided not to sign off on it. Obviously he did sign off on it, so it wasn't a "rough cut" to him either.
crissrudd4554 said:
Sssoo. Has anyone successfully burnt this to a DVD with the multiple audio tracks?
Lots of times. Just use muxman and imgburn and you can't go wrong.
You can find lots of helpful suggestions reading through the thread starting on this page: http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Harmys-STAR-WARS-Despecialized-Edition-HD-REMASTERED-is-now-released/post/609884/
If you need help with more technical specifics behind any of those offered solutions, the Technical & Howto forum would be a better place to ask those questions.
IMO they have a good track record on this sort of thing; I hope they keep it up.
Harmy said:
So, really? No one noticed that the Dewback is now actually HD and almost no GOUT is used (except a tiny bit on 3P0 where they cropped him off a lot in the SE rotowork)?
Tiny laptop display brigade strikes again, sorry. I'm sure I'll notice when I watch it on a TV.
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.