Harmy

I think of this project as a preservation, because I'm trying to preserve the experience of seeing SW in the cinemas when it came out.

I didn't say anything every time someone said the like DJ's work better, because I don't feel like I'm competing with DJ, our projects have similar goals but each appeals to different people.

Yeah, DJ's right that it's definitely an unfair comparison. On the other hand, as we're both working towards very similar goals, I'm afraid that it's inevitable that people will compare the projects. Go back and re-read the Aluminium Falcon's reviews of project Blu, he compares it to DeEd too.

A little bit of both - the scenes were too dark, so I brightened them - unfortunately I didn't always manage to keep the blacks black - something I hope to fix in the next version.

Baronlando said:

I like to say it averages out to over one alteration per minute. (I mean, there's well over 120 in the movie...)

There's well over two hundred obvious ones, not even counting recomps and such.

cthulhu1138 said:

 

 Good luck. Amazon stopped selling them so I hear. But yeah, back on topic...  The only movie out of the six that looked really good was TPM.

Um, really? What about the seriously excessive DVNr? 

And as far as ANH goes, you can really tell the color timing is off during the shootouts. In the original versions the screen would flash red, now I get these cringe inducing purple flares going off.

You all might not have noticed, but your brain did. :)

LOL. Yeah, we noticed. 7 years ago ;-)

Yeah, thanks for your care but I think it's fine. And besides, there's gonna be a new version anyway :-)

I also made this trailer ages ago:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-N0FxV3SqcI

Also not the same thing but similar :-)

Try this then: http://www.uloz.to/10396805/mos-eisley-matte-v1-2-mp4

I would say that when you put LD into play, the jumps in quality are pretty much equal. IMO the difference in quality between VHS and LD = diff. between LD and DVD = diff. between DVD and BD.

But yeah, most people (me included) had VHS and then straight DVD, so the jump was pretty big.

But then, at the time DVD started we had a small CRT, so the difference in PQ wasn't that huge either and we had a DVD drive in our PC before we had a player, and on a computer monitor DVD didn't look perfect either (because you normally tend to sit very near to a computer screen), so when I first saw an HD film on my PC (coincidentally it was STAR WARS) I was actually more amazed then when I first saw a DVD.

Well, actually as they're working from digital files, they didn't necessarily have to redo the wipe. They could have just followed it on the added element. That's what I'd do (and actually did on numerous occasions ;-).

OK, guys, once again, I have bad and good news about the matte paintings from the Blu-Ray - it seems I will only be able to use one of them for SW. The good news is... well, see for yourselves. (Mirror here)

The unfortunate thing is that the goodness of the good news makes the bad news even worse, because I thought the 2nd matte of Falcon in the DS hangar (you know the one that didn't look all that great in v1.0) was there but it turns out it's a completely different matte, which was never used in the film :-(

Ooops on loossless :-)

Anyway, what I'm really trying to say is that it boils down to whether you're a casual viewer who doesn't really care or a film enthusiast who can appreciate high quality film presentation. If you're the latter, in the 80s you would have bought LD over VHS and now you'd buy BD over DVD.

And it would also be good to point out that unlike other formats such as Betamax or CED, the LD format lived happily alongside VHS for over 20yrs. I wouldn't call that a failure.

Actually, I think that the comparison of BD to LD is quite accurate in the sense that BD is to DVD what LD was to VHS (here's hoping that BD will become somewhat more mainstream though).

Just look at it - 

Yeah. Dad came in yesterday and he couldn't get over the fact that I moved a chair right in front of the TV to watch a Blu-Ray. He was like: Are you nuts?

And you just can't explain to him how great it is to see all this detail and see it big. LOL, he even complains about the screen in the cinema in our town being too big and how he has to turn his head (and it's quite a small screen, too)...

Yeah, exactly. My dad's got a 30" 1080p Samsung and when you sit on the sofa, you can't tell the difference between a DVD and BD coming from the same master (I tried like yesterday with Harry Potter). Sit like 3ft closer and you'll start seeing a huge difference but from where he's sitting, he unfortunately has no need to buy Blu-Rays.

Sure, I never said there was more information in the captures :-)

Mr Ghostface said:

Harmy said:

Well, the broadcasts themselves weren't perhaps 1080p, but the captures of them available on the internet sure were.

That doesn't even make sense.

A capture is not 1080p or any other broadcast resolution and although I know what you meant, a capture at a high resolution does not contain more information/detail than its source.

No, I don't think you do know what I meant.

Let's see:

Each frame of 1080i video consists of two fields of 1920×540 pixels each.

The field rate of 1080i is typically 60 Hz for countries that use or used System M as analog broadcast television system (such as United States, Canada, Japan, and Brazil) or 50 Hz for regions that traditionally used television systems with 25 frames/s rate 

In other words, as these were PAL land broadcasts, they were effectively broadcast at 25fps (50 field p/s), so all the information for every frame was there, only it was divided between two fields - so you can then put these two fields together and what you get is a full 1080p frame, so the on-line available captures of the 1080i 50fields p/s broadcast were native 1080p 25fps.

Well, the broadcasts themselves weren't perhaps 1080p, but the captures of them available on the internet sure were.

Read the first post!!!

IMO Forrest Gump is one of the best films ever made. It just went down on my list, because I've seen it like million times - I already watched it like 10 times since I got it on Blu-Ray. I think I'm gonna go watch it now...

That is usually true but the reason usually is that the HDTV Broadcasts are from an HD master made for DVD, whereas the BDs are an all new dedicated 4K or even 8K master. Which is of course not the case here.

It might be. Having seen Avatar projected in digital 3D and IMAX 3D (70mm) , I must say that grain is pretty distracting in a 3D presentation, as it looks quite unnatural on 3D surfaces. This shouldn't affect the 2D release though! And if it does, it is wrong.

There's no jump in resolution. The broadcasts were 1080p and so are the Blu-Rays, and as they're from the same master, they're practically identical (the blus do have slightly less compression of course but not by much).

It's GOUT. They altered the placement of the hologram and the beam is very different, so simple colour correction wouldn't have brought it close enough.

Both of which I did for every single static matte...