Fang Zei

DrDre said:

I only wish that were true. The 2015 releases of the saga box set contained nothing new, yet it still was a huge hit.

If the history of releases teaches us anything, it’s that people will buy anything with the words “special collectors edition”, or “remastered” on it, or just a cool new cover.

True, but if you go back to the initial releases of these discs in 2011 and look at how people reacted to news of the additional changes and how it took the blu-rays more than a week to make what the 2004 OT dvd made in its very first day, then it should become clear that the fans wouldn’t be so excited about repeating the experience on a new format.

DrDre said:

DrDre said:

rodneyfaile said:

DrDre said: The OOT bootleg market is non-existent.

That’s definitely not true.

Really? Type either Despecialized or Silver Screen Edition in Ebay, and you will find only two or three sellers attempting to sell Despecialized, and none trying to sell the Silver Screen Edition. If nobody is buying and or selling, there is no market (market = an actual or nominal place where forces of demand and supply operate, and where buyers and sellers interact).

There are bootlegs, which are shared through torrent sites, but that is another matter. Before the release of the OOT on DVD, there were literally dozens of sellers on Ebay (mostly from Asia, where pirating laws are lenient or absent) attempting to sell bootleg copies of the OOT in varying quality.

Ye, Yes, I read it the first time.

I would still think that for every one person who actually goes through all of the trouble of downloading and burning a copy of despecialized or team -1 there are several more people who aren’t technically savvy enough but would be happy to pay good money for an official release.

Slavicuss said:

I won’t be buying any new box-set unless it includes the OOT restored. Any new bonus material will eventually appear online sooner or later. I already own enough copies of the S/E’s.

I have no desire to see CGI junk in 4K or in-my-face 3D either.

Neither do a lot of other fans, which is exactly why I think we’ll see the unaltereds included in an eventual 4k release. They’re going to need to give the fans a good enough reason to rebuy the latest SE revision on yet another format.

Of course, I’m the guy who thinks they should go full Blade Runner and include the '97 versions as well, but I’m probably in the minority.

DrDre said:

Z6PO said:

Remember when the unaltered were released on DVD, George Lucas wasn’t against the release, he was against spending any money on it. It is not his money anymore.

The reason the GOUT DVD’s were released, can be attributed mainly to the growing market of OOT bootlegs in the early 2000s, based on the old laserdiscs. By releasing a subpar release based on the latest laserdisc master, he could stiffle the bootleg market, but still have the canon version be the superior release in terms of quality. You just have to look at Ebay to see, that this strategy was successful. The OOT bootleg market is non-existent. A few fans preserving prints, and sharing them isn’t going to concern Disney. If OOT bootlegs start eating into their home video earnings, that’s a concern for them.

So, I believe Lucas is very much against the release of the OOT, especially if the theatrical releases could potentially compete with his canon versions. I also don’t believe Lucasfilm or Disney will release the OOT against the wishes of the artist who created them. My guess is, that a 4K mastered release of the SE is on the horizon, which is the reason the Disney people are culling through archive material, in order to supplement their release with unreleased bonus material, such as the footage shown at celebration.

The only “unreleased bonus material” people care about is the original versions of the movies themselves.

DominicCobb said:

Hidalgo did not mention Lucas and I see no evidence whatsoever to suggest he is still involved.

I’m not going to go searching for the tweet, but he was replying to someone’s question about it and said “there’s only one person who could authorize such a release, and he doesn’t seem interested in doing so.”

The “he” part would strongly imply GL.

Again, I’m not saying George has any real power, I think it’s more of an “honoring his wishes” type thing and Pablo not really knowing what he’s talking about.

One of Pablo’s tweets suggested that authorizing an OOT restoration is still up to George, but I kind of took it to mean that Disney, while under no legal obligation to honor George’s wishes, still isn’t going to release the unaltereds without getting his blessing.

What all of that says to me is this:

The unaltereds will be restored (if Disney isn’t in the middle of doing so already) and will be released whenever the time comes to release this new 4k SE we’ve been hearing so much about for the last three years. George really, truly will not care so long as the “rough drafts” aren’t presented in superior quality to his “original vision.”

As for when this will finally happen, I see two possibilities. They could put it out this year, but that would mean not only giving Fox their cut on all six films but also leaving one less thing in their own back pocket to sell post-2020. There is probably a not-insignificant number of fans who will probably never upgrade to 4k UHD.

The other possibility is that Lucasfilm will simply wait until the UHD debut, which given their history of waiting until a format has become widely adopted won’t happen until 2020 at the earliest anyway. If the 2011 discs are still selling well enough, why not wait? Why blow their load now with a regular 1080p blu of the OOT when that’s the final home video release many fans will ever care to buy? They could always release it the same day as the UHD and have all their bases covered, while still giving as little as possible to Fox.

SilverWook said:

43rd anniversary edition doesn’t have as nice a ring to it though. 😉

Very true, but then again 1997 was the last time a significant anniversary actually coincided with a major re-release.

danny_boy said:

Fang Zei said:

danny_boy said:

Fang Zei said:

danny_boy said:

Fang Zei said:

danny_boy said:

Fang Zei said:

danny_boy said:

Fang Zei said:

danny_boy said:

Fang Zei said:

doubleofive said:

My friend who is a projectionist talked to the projectionist at Celebration for us:

https://twitter.com/mumbles3k/status/853102458909978624

Spoke to the projectionist at #SWCO and confirmed that these are the same 2K DCPs used for the OT Blu-rays. No 4K (except for Rogue One).

I seriously question just how confidently the Orlando projectionist can actually state which master the dcp is derived from.

Again, let’s not forget Tack’s report on one of the roadshow screenings last summer. I’d be more interested in how the image actually looks in terms of color, contrast, grain, et cetera.

Also, the 2004 masters (the same ones used for the blu-ray) weren’t even done at full 2k resolution. They’re 1920x1080 hd. The Lowry guys were very specific about that during a press conference for the dvd way back in '04.

Anyway, I wonder if we can find out from an attendee in Orlando how the picture actually looks. Of course it would have to be someone who actually knows all the color timing quirks of the '04 master like we do, and I doubt there are many fans there who do.

Empire and Jedi are tonight.

I think the 2004 master was derived from the conventional 2048x1536 resolution scanning parameters (for scanning O-negs) in the early 2000s .This would also conform to the geometrical proportions of a 35mm anamorphic negative frame of film.

I honestly think that the 2004 article which stated that Star Wars was scanned at 1920 X 1080 was an editorial mistake.
You would be cropping out segments of the actual frame if you did scan at this resolution as well as introducing geometric distortions when optically(or digitally) stretching the frame back out to 2:35.

As far I am aware(correct me if i am wrong) the 2004 DVD/2011 Blu Ray features all the picture information(in terms of content-not resolution) when digitally re-scaled to the 2:35 aspect ratio(within the 16:9 HD frame).
This would indicate that it was indeed scanned at 2048 X 1536.

Yes, but I wasn’t talking about the scanning resolution. I was talking about the resolution of the final master Lowry delivered. The 1920x1080 number doesn’t come from an article, it came straight from the mouth of one of the Lowry guys at the press conference for the dvd back in '04. I had an audio recording of it sitting on my old computer I’ve since gotten rid of. Hamill, Kershner, and Jim Ward (President of Lucasfilm at that time) were also in attendence. There was a part where someone asks the Lowry guys if the new master is 2k and one of them responds “no, 1920x1080 HD,” which probably meant that the actual picture was 1920x817 because of the scope AR, with the black bars filling out the rest.

Maybe you are not remembering that Press exchange correctly.

An 8K,4k or 2k scan of a film negative(or 1st generation Interpositive) has to be re-scaled to 1920 X 1080 for the master of ANY Blu ray title.

In the case of the DVD from 2004, the 1920 x 1080 master(derived from the 2K scan)became the basis for that release.
And this would have been the case for any Standard Def DVD title from the early 2000s(or even now).
Many did not even get this luxury.
A lot of DVD transfers were generated from telecines of 35mm theatrical film prints(be they flat or anamorphic)…the same process used for Laserdisc,Selecta Vision, VHS,Beta and V2000 home video releases of the early 1980s.

The James Bond films(some of them) and Star Wars were among the first set of flicks to get the benefit of 1080p masters(that would subsequently be down rezzed to 480p) for DVD.

Which finally brings us back around to my original point, which was that the resolution Lowry finished their restoration at was 1920x1080 HD and not 2048x1080. Jim Ward called it a “digital negative” back in 2004, which might have been considered true at that time given the limits of digital projection technology in the cinema. But even then, I’m pretty sure they were already finishing new movies at actual 2k res (Oh Brother Where Art Thou, Lord of the Rings, etc) and even starting to finish some movies in 4k (Spider-Man 2, released in 2004, was the first 4k DI).

The DCP for Star Wars that would be projected in a commercial cinema must be either 2048 X 1080 or 2048 X 1536 as stipulated by the SMPTE.

I think there has a been a lot of confusion that has been disseminated(unintentionally or otherwise) over the years from forums such as these and elsewhere.

For commercial projection they would use the DCP(2048 X 1080).
For Home Video they would use the 1920 X 1080 master which is no different to any other hi-def(or standard def)title on the market.

According to the video engineer who goes by the name of Vidiot(from the Steve Hoffman forum) Star Wars was scanned at 2K using a Spirit 2k scanner. It was also color corrected at this resolution.
Those 2k Files were also manipulated by Lowry for the re-scale for home video(DVD & Blu Ray).
But the DCP had to be 2048 X 1080.

In 2007, for the 30th anniversary, they used a Christie Digital Micromirror Device™ 2K 3-chip DMD DLP Cinema™
(2048 x 1080 pixels) to project all 6 films.
AOTC and ROTS DCPs would be upscaled to 2K.
The OT would use the DCPs which were already at their native 2k resolution for front projection.

Maybe the Lowry guy was only talking about the hd master for dvd and eventual hdtv/blu-ray, but he definitely specified 1920x1080. I suppose it’s possible they finished their cleanup at actual 2k first and then made an hd video master from there, but that’s not what I remember Lowry guy saying.

Lucasfilm’s color-correction would have happened first, so that doesn’t really tell us anything about what exact res Lowry was working at.

Even if the dcp’s being used for these screenings are 2k, they still wouldn’t truly be 2k if they’re being upscaled from a 1920 source. As Wazzles pointed out, even AOTC and RotS had their cgi and color-timing done at 2k.

According to the Digital Cinema Initiative Protocol (8.2.2.7.) there are only 2 options(2048 X 1080 or 2160 X 4096) for front projection.
So the DCPs for Star Wars had to be at 2048 X 1080 as a MINIMUM requirement.
The DCI protocol specifies that 2048 X 1080 can be upscaled to 4K IF the projector is 4k capable.
There is no allusion to 1920 X 1080 upscales to 2k (which is impractical for any number of reasons).

It also makes no sense for Lowry or ILM to have scanned at 2K…down rezzed to 1080p (for a master)…to only have that upscaled again for 2k commercial projection. That would introduce digital scaling artifacts, something the DCI is firmly against.

Then my question would be:

Do you think it’s possible, if Lowry was in fact only working at 1920x1080 res, that a 2k digital cinema master could have been made from the HD master (slightly upscaled at the source) as opposed to it being upscaled on-the-fly by a 2k projector?

One would presumably yield better results than the other.

My Sony 4K projector has a native resolution of 2160 X 4096.
The UHD discs are mastered at 2160 X 3840.

I notice the artifacts when I scale from 3840 to 4096.
I achieve incremental brightness by imaging the entire breadth of the Projector’s 2160 X 4096 panel.
But the picture is marginally sharper when staying at the native resolution of 2160 X 3840.

As for Star Wars,it makes sense that the DCP is 2K(to be used for commercial projection).
For the home video market, the 1080p master(derived from the 2k scan) suffices.

I’m like 99% sure the lowry guys specified that they were working at 1920x1080, meaning the final master is stuck at that resolution and any 2k dcp would had to have been upscaled slightly (upscaled at the source as opposed to being upscaled on-the-fly by the projector). I tried searching for the audio recordings of that press conference I listened to on TFN way back when but only found a written story about it. It was called Star Wars Media Day. Google even turned up this:

http://originaltrilogy.com/topic/Star-Wars-Media-Day/id/1103

Thanks for that Fangzei.

Our own OriginalTrilogy member, Zombie, made the mistake many years back,be it deliberate or otherwise, of repeating ad nauseum, that the O-Neg of Star Wars was scanned at 1080 X 1920. Of course he was only referencing that 2004 video magazine.
But the author of that article never DIRECTLY quoted any of the engineers as saying that it was scanned at that resolution. It seems like the author of that article misunderstood or misinterpreted what was relayed to him by Rick Dean and John Lowry.

A little bit more research and common sense indicates that you cannot scan a 35mm anamorphic negative(such as Star Wars) at the native resolution of 1080 X 1920. It would not be conducive to attaining all the picture content of the entire length and breadth of the image as the geometry of a 35mm anamorphic frame does not conform to the dimensions of what would be a hypothetical HD(16:9) imaging sensor.
It’s why the scanning parameters are either 2048 X 1536(2k) or 4096 X 2160(4k)

The best information we have is from Vidiot, who worked directly with Lucas:

“As a result, it was done on a Spirit 2K scanner (at Post Group/LA). We did the color correction at IL+M’s offices on
Kerner Blvd. in San Rafael, using a temporary room with a Pandora Pogle Platinum color-corrector, working with 2K files
coming from a Quantel IQ server. Five years ago, there was no way to work with 4K files in real time; now, it can be
done, but it’s a slow and expensive process.”

They did do lots and lots and lots of digital 2K restoration on the project over at Lowry Digital in Burbank, and I thought it was a nearly-pristine image once they got done with it."

http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/star-wars-will-the-original-cinema-versions-ever-be-released-on-blu-ray.202658/page-3

There’s a difference between the resolution of the source scan (which was indeed 2k for scope as you said, but that’s more like 1820x1536 since the frame is 1.20:1 and not 1.33:1) and the resolution of the workflow it was actually restored at. I’m not 100% convinced that Vidiot isn’t using the terms 2k and 1080p interchangeably.

LexX’s post above suggests that not even the color correction was done at more than “high definition” resolution. That description (4:4:4 RGB) is exactly what I remember the lowry guy specifying in the audio of the press conference. He was also very specific when he said 1920x1080. The person asking him about it then said “so 2k?” and lowry guy then responded “well, no, 1920x1080 HD, but we were working at full RGB.”

Like I said, I really wish I could find the audio of this. TFN had a page with four audio files broken up by the people being interviewed (Kershner, Hamill, Jim Ward, and the lowry guys). I don’t remember now how I found it, this was of course way back in September of '04.

SilverWook said:

nickyd47 said:

This bickering is pointless!

Which reminds me, if they ever shot Vader getting a hot cup of joe during that scene, (as depcited in the novel and comic) it would have been shown at celebration this year. 😉

Wait, what?!

I’ll never think of that scene in Spaceballs the same way again…

danny_boy said:

Fang Zei said:

danny_boy said:

Fang Zei said:

danny_boy said:

Fang Zei said:

danny_boy said:

Fang Zei said:

danny_boy said:

Fang Zei said:

doubleofive said:

My friend who is a projectionist talked to the projectionist at Celebration for us:

https://twitter.com/mumbles3k/status/853102458909978624

Spoke to the projectionist at #SWCO and confirmed that these are the same 2K DCPs used for the OT Blu-rays. No 4K (except for Rogue One).

I seriously question just how confidently the Orlando projectionist can actually state which master the dcp is derived from.

Again, let’s not forget Tack’s report on one of the roadshow screenings last summer. I’d be more interested in how the image actually looks in terms of color, contrast, grain, et cetera.

Also, the 2004 masters (the same ones used for the blu-ray) weren’t even done at full 2k resolution. They’re 1920x1080 hd. The Lowry guys were very specific about that during a press conference for the dvd way back in '04.

Anyway, I wonder if we can find out from an attendee in Orlando how the picture actually looks. Of course it would have to be someone who actually knows all the color timing quirks of the '04 master like we do, and I doubt there are many fans there who do.

Empire and Jedi are tonight.

I think the 2004 master was derived from the conventional 2048x1536 resolution scanning parameters (for scanning O-negs) in the early 2000s .This would also conform to the geometrical proportions of a 35mm anamorphic negative frame of film.

I honestly think that the 2004 article which stated that Star Wars was scanned at 1920 X 1080 was an editorial mistake.
You would be cropping out segments of the actual frame if you did scan at this resolution as well as introducing geometric distortions when optically(or digitally) stretching the frame back out to 2:35.

As far I am aware(correct me if i am wrong) the 2004 DVD/2011 Blu Ray features all the picture information(in terms of content-not resolution) when digitally re-scaled to the 2:35 aspect ratio(within the 16:9 HD frame).
This would indicate that it was indeed scanned at 2048 X 1536.

Yes, but I wasn’t talking about the scanning resolution. I was talking about the resolution of the final master Lowry delivered. The 1920x1080 number doesn’t come from an article, it came straight from the mouth of one of the Lowry guys at the press conference for the dvd back in '04. I had an audio recording of it sitting on my old computer I’ve since gotten rid of. Hamill, Kershner, and Jim Ward (President of Lucasfilm at that time) were also in attendence. There was a part where someone asks the Lowry guys if the new master is 2k and one of them responds “no, 1920x1080 HD,” which probably meant that the actual picture was 1920x817 because of the scope AR, with the black bars filling out the rest.

Maybe you are not remembering that Press exchange correctly.

An 8K,4k or 2k scan of a film negative(or 1st generation Interpositive) has to be re-scaled to 1920 X 1080 for the master of ANY Blu ray title.

In the case of the DVD from 2004, the 1920 x 1080 master(derived from the 2K scan)became the basis for that release.
And this would have been the case for any Standard Def DVD title from the early 2000s(or even now).
Many did not even get this luxury.
A lot of DVD transfers were generated from telecines of 35mm theatrical film prints(be they flat or anamorphic)…the same process used for Laserdisc,Selecta Vision, VHS,Beta and V2000 home video releases of the early 1980s.

The James Bond films(some of them) and Star Wars were among the first set of flicks to get the benefit of 1080p masters(that would subsequently be down rezzed to 480p) for DVD.

Which finally brings us back around to my original point, which was that the resolution Lowry finished their restoration at was 1920x1080 HD and not 2048x1080. Jim Ward called it a “digital negative” back in 2004, which might have been considered true at that time given the limits of digital projection technology in the cinema. But even then, I’m pretty sure they were already finishing new movies at actual 2k res (Oh Brother Where Art Thou, Lord of the Rings, etc) and even starting to finish some movies in 4k (Spider-Man 2, released in 2004, was the first 4k DI).

The DCP for Star Wars that would be projected in a commercial cinema must be either 2048 X 1080 or 2048 X 1536 as stipulated by the SMPTE.

I think there has a been a lot of confusion that has been disseminated(unintentionally or otherwise) over the years from forums such as these and elsewhere.

For commercial projection they would use the DCP(2048 X 1080).
For Home Video they would use the 1920 X 1080 master which is no different to any other hi-def(or standard def)title on the market.

According to the video engineer who goes by the name of Vidiot(from the Steve Hoffman forum) Star Wars was scanned at 2K using a Spirit 2k scanner. It was also color corrected at this resolution.
Those 2k Files were also manipulated by Lowry for the re-scale for home video(DVD & Blu Ray).
But the DCP had to be 2048 X 1080.

In 2007, for the 30th anniversary, they used a Christie Digital Micromirror Device™ 2K 3-chip DMD DLP Cinema™
(2048 x 1080 pixels) to project all 6 films.
AOTC and ROTS DCPs would be upscaled to 2K.
The OT would use the DCPs which were already at their native 2k resolution for front projection.

Maybe the Lowry guy was only talking about the hd master for dvd and eventual hdtv/blu-ray, but he definitely specified 1920x1080. I suppose it’s possible they finished their cleanup at actual 2k first and then made an hd video master from there, but that’s not what I remember Lowry guy saying.

Lucasfilm’s color-correction would have happened first, so that doesn’t really tell us anything about what exact res Lowry was working at.

Even if the dcp’s being used for these screenings are 2k, they still wouldn’t truly be 2k if they’re being upscaled from a 1920 source. As Wazzles pointed out, even AOTC and RotS had their cgi and color-timing done at 2k.

According to the Digital Cinema Initiative Protocol (8.2.2.7.) there are only 2 options(2048 X 1080 or 2160 X 4096) for front projection.
So the DCPs for Star Wars had to be at 2048 X 1080 as a MINIMUM requirement.
The DCI protocol specifies that 2048 X 1080 can be upscaled to 4K IF the projector is 4k capable.
There is no allusion to 1920 X 1080 upscales to 2k (which is impractical for any number of reasons).

It also makes no sense for Lowry or ILM to have scanned at 2K…down rezzed to 1080p (for a master)…to only have that upscaled again for 2k commercial projection. That would introduce digital scaling artifacts, something the DCI is firmly against.

Then my question would be:

Do you think it’s possible, if Lowry was in fact only working at 1920x1080 res, that a 2k digital cinema master could have been made from the HD master (slightly upscaled at the source) as opposed to it being upscaled on-the-fly by a 2k projector?

One would presumably yield better results than the other.

My Sony 4K projector has a native resolution of 2160 X 4096.
The UHD discs are mastered at 2160 X 3840.

I notice the artifacts when I scale from 3840 to 4096.
I achieve incremental brightness by imaging the entire breadth of the Projector’s 2160 X 4096 panel.
But the picture is marginally sharper when staying at the native resolution of 2160 X 3840.

As for Star Wars,it makes sense that the DCP is 2K(to be used for commercial projection).
For the home video market, the 1080p master(derived from the 2k scan) suffices.

I’m like 99% sure the lowry guys specified that they were working at 1920x1080, meaning the final master is stuck at that resolution and any 2k dcp would had to have been upscaled slightly (upscaled at the source as opposed to being upscaled on-the-fly by the projector). I tried searching for the audio recordings of that press conference I listened to on TFN way back when but only found a written story about it. It was called Star Wars Media Day. Google even turned up this:

http://originaltrilogy.com/topic/Star-Wars-Media-Day/id/1103

nickyd47 said:

I think he just didn’t wanna spend the money on a restoration for versions of films he didn’t like. Thus why we got LD transfers on those DVDs.

It’s a moot point now since the master would already be outdated, but they could have done an hd transfer in 2006 comparable to the then “official” version from a couple years earlier. It probably wouldn’t have looked as good detail-wise since it wouldn’t have been from the o-neg, but it would at least have been a modern transfer, unlike the GOUT.

I would’ve brought this up in the more relevant thread but, y’know, spoilers:

So if this rumor about Hayden as Anakin’s ghost turns out to be true, Disney’s pretty much gonna have to restore the original versions of the OT, right? I mean, if we put the whole debate about “was that or wasn’t that a prequel reference” aside, TFA was %100 “version agnostic” as far as the OT is concerned. You could say the same thing about Rogue One. Yeah, both movies use cgi and have other attributes of being 2015/2016 movies, but there’s no reference to anything specific to a certain version of the OT films. Hayden showing up as ghost Anakin would change all of that. It would be Lucasfilm saying “sorry, but George’s version of the OT is THE version so far as these new films are concerned.”

I could see it becoming a sticking point with a significant percentage of the fanbase. Maybe I’m really overthinking it, and I apologize if this feels off topic, but Hayden as Anakin in TLJ will only make the unaltered versions feel all the more conspicuous in their absence.

TV’s Frink said:

Lol, what’s their source then? There’s no way they’re releasing a secret movie with no marketing three months out.

Or it’s some low-budget project they don’t feel the need to start advertising just yet. Or it’s been pushed back since Iger made that presentation.

They don’t get the distribution rights to Empire and Jedi back until 2020, so the “maybe it’s not just ANH” theory doesn’t hold up either.

digitalfreaknyc said:

Z6PO said:

Released 25th of July. To accompany a theatrical re-release ?..

That’s what my hypothesis was in this thread. Or was it another? I can’t remember.

It ties in with the July 28th “random” Disney movie that still has no name, trailer, etc.

The July 28th movie is almost certainly not Star Wars related. It simply said “untitled fairy tale.” Fox owns the distribution rights on ANH in perpetuity. It’s highly doubtful that Disney would have a movie they’re not even releasing listed on their slate.

Yeah, I acknowledge that movie fans who don’t feel particularly strong about the differences either way (if they even know about them at all) far outnumber the fans who do.

Like I’ve been saying, they could dip now on a regular blu-ray release and then dip again with a 4k OOT in 2020. They’re going to need help selling the 4k SE anyway, they might as well do a regular blu now while that’s still the most recent format most people have upgraded to.

Before you say “any version of the movies in 4k will be enough of a selling point,” I really think a sizable percentage of the fans are tired of all the changes. I’d be willing to bet a lot of them didn’t know about the additional 2011 changes prior to buying the blu-rays, kind of like how I knew more than one person who was shocked (in a bad way) to see Hayden as Anakin’s ghost in RotJ back in '04.

Most fans won’t upgrade to 4k if it’s for even more blinking ewoks and Vader noooooo’s.

Are there hardcore SE fans? Of course there are, but I’m starting to think they’re in the minority and that most fans merely tolerate the SE or actively despise it. That’s exactly why they should include both both versions when the time comes for the 4k UHD.

nickyd47 said:

Fang Zei said:

nickyd47 said:

There’s also a magazine coming out thats labeled itself as the “guide to the 1977 classic”

Now they’re really rubbing it in.

There’s a comic for the special edition version of the film and it’s labeled as the special edition and in the Amazon description it says and I paraphrase “a graphic novel of the special edition version of Star Wars”. Then there’s that magazine labeled as a guide to the 1977 classic. Not 1997 classic. Not 2004 classic. Not 2011 classic. Make of this what you will. I think it’s a good sign.

It’s a step in the right direction, to be sure. What I should’ve said was that they’re rubbing it in if we still don’t see the actual movie itself restored by the end of the year.

nickyd47 said:

There’s also a magazine coming out thats labeled itself as the “guide to the 1977 classic”

Now they’re really rubbing it in.

To make a flawed analogy:

35mm prints = eastman prints
DCI version = technicolor IB
IMAX prints = 70mm

nickyd47 said:

People are willing to drop hundreds of dollars on bootlegs and those s#### DVDs from 2006. Those DVDs that Lucas himself felt compelled to release. Millions of people have downloaded the Despecialized Edition. Popular American icons have publicly let their distaste of the SE known. Disney may not care for those versions of those films, but they care about money. You will never convince me that only a fringe want the OOT. The demand is there.

Agreed.

It would be more accurate to say many people would prefer the original versions but they simply haven’t been released and most (but not all!) of those people saw that there’s a blu-ray, said “close enough,” and worried about the more important things in life.

It just occurred to me that if Lucasfilm put out the OOT in 2020 it would be the second time they put it out on the current format the year after the conclusion of a main saga movie trilogy.

One thing I wonder about is the quantity of new copies they pressed for the reissue in October of 2015 (for the individual steelbooks and the repackaged complete saga).

Would they have made all the copies they thought they were going to need for the following two years all at once or do they make them in more limited batches and only make more when the supply runs low?

I’m probably reading too much into the “every two years a reissue” pattern, which could simply be coincidence. The 2015 reissue was definitely timed to take advantage of the coming onslaught of new movies. I can’t help but wonder why they wouldn’t continue to milk those same discs until after Episode IX is out and Star Wars mania starts to die down a little, and only then think about releasing the original versions.

danny_boy said:

Fang Zei said:

danny_boy said:

Fang Zei said:

danny_boy said:

Fang Zei said:

danny_boy said:

Fang Zei said:

doubleofive said:

My friend who is a projectionist talked to the projectionist at Celebration for us:

https://twitter.com/mumbles3k/status/853102458909978624

Spoke to the projectionist at #SWCO and confirmed that these are the same 2K DCPs used for the OT Blu-rays. No 4K (except for Rogue One).

I seriously question just how confidently the Orlando projectionist can actually state which master the dcp is derived from.

Again, let’s not forget Tack’s report on one of the roadshow screenings last summer. I’d be more interested in how the image actually looks in terms of color, contrast, grain, et cetera.

Also, the 2004 masters (the same ones used for the blu-ray) weren’t even done at full 2k resolution. They’re 1920x1080 hd. The Lowry guys were very specific about that during a press conference for the dvd way back in '04.

Anyway, I wonder if we can find out from an attendee in Orlando how the picture actually looks. Of course it would have to be someone who actually knows all the color timing quirks of the '04 master like we do, and I doubt there are many fans there who do.

Empire and Jedi are tonight.

I think the 2004 master was derived from the conventional 2048x1536 resolution scanning parameters (for scanning O-negs) in the early 2000s .This would also conform to the geometrical proportions of a 35mm anamorphic negative frame of film.

I honestly think that the 2004 article which stated that Star Wars was scanned at 1920 X 1080 was an editorial mistake.
You would be cropping out segments of the actual frame if you did scan at this resolution as well as introducing geometric distortions when optically(or digitally) stretching the frame back out to 2:35.

As far I am aware(correct me if i am wrong) the 2004 DVD/2011 Blu Ray features all the picture information(in terms of content-not resolution) when digitally re-scaled to the 2:35 aspect ratio(within the 16:9 HD frame).
This would indicate that it was indeed scanned at 2048 X 1536.

Yes, but I wasn’t talking about the scanning resolution. I was talking about the resolution of the final master Lowry delivered. The 1920x1080 number doesn’t come from an article, it came straight from the mouth of one of the Lowry guys at the press conference for the dvd back in '04. I had an audio recording of it sitting on my old computer I’ve since gotten rid of. Hamill, Kershner, and Jim Ward (President of Lucasfilm at that time) were also in attendence. There was a part where someone asks the Lowry guys if the new master is 2k and one of them responds “no, 1920x1080 HD,” which probably meant that the actual picture was 1920x817 because of the scope AR, with the black bars filling out the rest.

Maybe you are not remembering that Press exchange correctly.

An 8K,4k or 2k scan of a film negative(or 1st generation Interpositive) has to be re-scaled to 1920 X 1080 for the master of ANY Blu ray title.

In the case of the DVD from 2004, the 1920 x 1080 master(derived from the 2K scan)became the basis for that release.
And this would have been the case for any Standard Def DVD title from the early 2000s(or even now).
Many did not even get this luxury.
A lot of DVD transfers were generated from telecines of 35mm theatrical film prints(be they flat or anamorphic)…the same process used for Laserdisc,Selecta Vision, VHS,Beta and V2000 home video releases of the early 1980s.

The James Bond films(some of them) and Star Wars were among the first set of flicks to get the benefit of 1080p masters(that would subsequently be down rezzed to 480p) for DVD.

Which finally brings us back around to my original point, which was that the resolution Lowry finished their restoration at was 1920x1080 HD and not 2048x1080. Jim Ward called it a “digital negative” back in 2004, which might have been considered true at that time given the limits of digital projection technology in the cinema. But even then, I’m pretty sure they were already finishing new movies at actual 2k res (Oh Brother Where Art Thou, Lord of the Rings, etc) and even starting to finish some movies in 4k (Spider-Man 2, released in 2004, was the first 4k DI).

The DCP for Star Wars that would be projected in a commercial cinema must be either 2048 X 1080 or 2048 X 1536 as stipulated by the SMPTE.

I think there has a been a lot of confusion that has been disseminated(unintentionally or otherwise) over the years from forums such as these and elsewhere.

For commercial projection they would use the DCP(2048 X 1080).
For Home Video they would use the 1920 X 1080 master which is no different to any other hi-def(or standard def)title on the market.

According to the video engineer who goes by the name of Vidiot(from the Steve Hoffman forum) Star Wars was scanned at 2K using a Spirit 2k scanner. It was also color corrected at this resolution.
Those 2k Files were also manipulated by Lowry for the re-scale for home video(DVD & Blu Ray).
But the DCP had to be 2048 X 1080.

In 2007, for the 30th anniversary, they used a Christie Digital Micromirror Device™ 2K 3-chip DMD DLP Cinema™
(2048 x 1080 pixels) to project all 6 films.
AOTC and ROTS DCPs would be upscaled to 2K.
The OT would use the DCPs which were already at their native 2k resolution for front projection.

Maybe the Lowry guy was only talking about the hd master for dvd and eventual hdtv/blu-ray, but he definitely specified 1920x1080. I suppose it’s possible they finished their cleanup at actual 2k first and then made an hd video master from there, but that’s not what I remember Lowry guy saying.

Lucasfilm’s color-correction would have happened first, so that doesn’t really tell us anything about what exact res Lowry was working at.

Even if the dcp’s being used for these screenings are 2k, they still wouldn’t truly be 2k if they’re being upscaled from a 1920 source. As Wazzles pointed out, even AOTC and RotS had their cgi and color-timing done at 2k.

According to the Digital Cinema Initiative Protocol (8.2.2.7.) there are only 2 options(2048 X 1080 or 2160 X 4096) for front projection.
So the DCPs for Star Wars had to be at 2048 X 1080 as a MINIMUM requirement.
The DCI protocol specifies that 2048 X 1080 can be upscaled to 4K IF the projector is 4k capable.
There is no allusion to 1920 X 1080 upscales to 2k (which is impractical for any number of reasons).

It also makes no sense for Lowry or ILM to have scanned at 2K…down rezzed to 1080p (for a master)…to only have that upscaled again for 2k commercial projection. That would introduce digital scaling artifacts, something the DCI is firmly against.

Then my question would be:

Do you think it’s possible, if Lowry was in fact only working at 1920x1080 res, that a 2k digital cinema master could have been made from the HD master (slightly upscaled at the source) as opposed to it being upscaled on-the-fly by a 2k projector?

One would presumably yield better results than the other.

RooBee said:

Lucas himself announced the Blu ray release of I-VI at Celebration V in 2010.

Right, and as I remember it they got Hamill to show up at the 2011 convention to introduce the deleted scene from RotJ of Luke building his new lightsaber. I don’t remember now if that’s when they officially announced the release date for the blu-ray or if it was before/after.

The streaming versions of I-VI were actually released only a week or so before the 2015 convention.

nickyd47 said:

Yeah. If Disney wanted to bury the OOT, then we shouldn’t have access to a 96kHz copy of Lapti Nek or Yub Nub like we do now

It’s getting to the point where Lucasfilm has sold us just about everything directly related to the original movies except the movies themselves.

To be very Devil’s Advocate about it:

If nice restorations of the original versions are pretty much the only thing they’ve got left to sell us, then yeah, why wouldn’t they wait until the rights to the other five movies are back in their hands?