Yeah like Dave88 says, the video bitrate for this set would be about 3000kpbps. The Dr Gonzo version is about 4300kbps, with AC-3 audio at 192kbps. Though to be honest, with the quality of the source there wouldn't be a huge different in the video quality between 3000 and 4300 kbps.
DrDre said:
Hope you enjoy the tool. Of course if you use the tool for your projects, any acknowledgements will be appreciated. The same is true for any comments, critisism or suggestions you may have. In that case write a post in this thread or send me a PM.
Can you use command-line processing? Example:
for %f in (*.tif) do regrade "%f" -ccm "correctionmodel.txt"
There's no "seam" because it's exactly the same transfer - just before and after post-processing. To be honest I'm amazed the 2011 84 Ent DVD left 12 minutes of the film wrongly mirrored! I have yet to figure out how they ended up with a mirrored scan of that part, but it's clear from the earlier releases they knew it had to be flipped back!
nafroe said:
This is really cool! I love seeing the different color timings and framing of the different releases. Makes me wish I was actually fluent in German! haha... Regardless, Thank you for the share! :-D
@RU.08 - Might I ask... Do you have one preferred version for each of the three films?
Also, more of a curiosity than anything else... Do each of the releases of the respective films have different audio dubs? Or are they all the same dub?
I do apologise I've been meaning to reply to this.
I can't give you a definitive answer on the question of dubs, but I hope some native German-speakers can answer that for you. :)
Yes I do have preferred versions - the two earliest full-screen versions. They both have their technical limitations of course, but they are two of the earliest home video releases!! Sadly there is no early version for RDJR (although that doesn't stop someone else from making one!)
But the reason I uploaded them isn't for my own amusement, but because of the story they tell.
1982:
1993:
poita said:
Yeah, only shitty movies from the 80s like Empire Strikes Back, Indianna Jones, Ghostbusters, Aliens, Ferris Bueller's Day Off, Down by Law, Full Metal Jacket, The Shining, Platoon, The Breakfast Club, Back to the Future, Raging Bull, Scarface, E.T. , Princess Bride, Gremlins, Poltergeist, Evil Dead, Stand by me, The Thing, Die Hard, Robocop, and (Insert David Lynch film here).
Yeah I was just giving examples. The two Timothy Dalton Bonds are quite well critically rated.
poita said:
This has been true all along though, take a look at the films released the same year as some of the best films of all time, there are plenty of soul-less quick money-grab turkeys out there amongst the gold, and plenty of films decried as crap at the time that 15 years later are now lauded as masterpieces. Remember, there are only ever 200-500 or so 'great films' out of the over 500,000 features that have been made, so there is plenty of crap, even in the best years of movie making.
Yep. Not a lot of great stuff from the 80's really - yes it has Terminator, Blade Runner and a couple of other exceptions but it also has all kinds of unbearable crap including some of the worst of the James Bond films. Although I think Live and Let Die is the worst and that was 1973. But at least they improved from there - Octopussy and A View To A Kill were sequentially released and are completely terrible.
Well that's weird.
Try this: mega.nz
Guys I just rick-clicked the link and downloaded it again (this time in Chrome), it definitely works:
It doesn't work if you open it in a new window, but if you right-click and select "save target as" it downloads it fine, and you can open it in VLC or MPC.
You can actually just right-clic the link in Mike's post too and select "save as" and all is OK.
ilovewaterslides said:
The 2004 edition was so badly done. You can actually see the tail of the '97 Jabba during the transition in the scene where he talks with Han.
http://i1.someimage.com/bGksBr9.jpg
See?
Yeah because they didn't want to re-do the wipe again. The 1997 disolve is the one in the o-neg now. You'll notice though that the rest of the shot they began with the clean Jabba-free frames and then stitched it back together with the film (so in fact what you're seeing in that frame is a dissolve into the 2004 version put on top of the 1997 dissolve). As people have noted it's barely noticeable especially when you compare it to the transparent ship example I gave which is in the O-OT.
The 2004 "restoration" was done internally (as was the 1997 version) - Lowy just cleaned it up a bit at the end when Lucasfilm realised they couldn't get it done on their own by their deadline.
towne32 said:
Of course, and it's very exciting.
It was more from the angle of Disney being reluctant to accept something like that in full. That, perhaps, they would be more likely to use their own restoration, only borrowing what is needed. I don't know. I am sure it would be best using Mike's entirely, of course.
Well I don't know if Disney does "their own" restorations? Many company outsource this to restoration companies, and the fact is Mike has a complete product that they can buy right now. They don't have to get someone else to do it. They know exactly what it will cost (since it's already done), and there's no need to worry about things like deadlines for getting it done.
About splicing it with another source, my feeling is that most companies prefer to avoid it. If they want to release two versions they use two sources if they can. For example, the 4k restoration of Deep Red will be released in less than a month, and includes the International cut. I would be surprised if the International cut is the same scan as the Italian cut. Especially since it's on a separate disc which is not necessary as Bluray seamless branching is easy and straightforward with any industry-standard authoring program. But with that said, attitudes could change in the future and there may be more interesting in doing hybrid versions more and separate versions less.
They don't have to splice Legacy with anything it's complete. I'll quote what Mike said on his forum:
It's going to film to get the quality of film that only film has - grain, curve, etc. The master files are being adjusted so that the negative is correct, meaning that if viewed, the original DCP would look different, not "better."
Prints will be struck directly from a negative, and yes there will be multiple negatives, this being the advantage of having a digital source.
Legacy is ready for a negative to be made and prints struck!
Well I'm sure Disney pays far more attention to fans on TFN than they do to ones on OT.com. Most SW fans just don't pay the O-OT all that much attention as TFN shows. As if Disney cares about a couple of dozen active users here who all love the O-OT and vehemently detest the PT - the fans they want are the ones who love all six films equally.
But Mike has completed his restoration of Star Wars 1977 so let's wait and see how Disney wants to respond to it. I mean at this stage we don't really know if they will say "no" to public screenings or not, I kind of get the impression that could well be possible now that the restoration is ready for DCP and 35mm outputs.
towne32 said:
And most of all, they'll tell us that there's no way to see the original in HD, because the negatives were destroyed in order to produce the SE. I think that's the single most effective mistruth that Lucas spun on the matter.
The negatives were changed for the 1997 special edition, that's no myth. How else did they strike the 1997SE prints? But we all know you don't need an intact o-neg to digitise the film (plus they most likely stored all the parts cut from the o-negs anyway ... mind you many of those parts had deteriorated the most or so they said).
But they're now in the hands of Disney and they don't have a track-record for not caring one bit about preserving the theatrical versions. If they aren't going to release BATB or the Lion King unaltered - two of their classic animated features - then there's not much hope that they'll care to give the Star Wars Trilogy the restoration and release it deserves.
towne32 said:
Speaking of wretched hives...
edit: Oh god, I actually read that thread. I don't see why you felt the need to subject yourself to those people, Dre. A screenshot comparison where the blu-ray had literally no color except for blue present in the shot, and some kiddo exclaims that it looks "WAY WAY WAY better!" :(
Personally I don't know why MikeV tried to explain his point of view to them. They do understand it, but they also have their point of view which is that Lucas is the creator and so he should have control of the movies. There's nothing really wrong with that point of view, lots of people love the SE's, the issue is they have access to a reasonably decent quality version whereas fans of the pre-SE trilogy do not. They're not mutually exclusive, no one wants to erase the SE's and tell TFNers they can't ever watch them again.
Take this example from Empire:
Well some people prefer seeing this:
And are willing to "tolerate" the other changes made.
Whole arguments get started over whether the originals really are "great" or not - and there are plenty of examples of technological limitations or less than ideal matte-paintings. We on the whole should argue there should be both versions available.
I'm still hoping Disney buys Legacy. The work's already done and it's ready for release - DCP, Bluray, DVD, etc.
Great work Mike!
For the THX editions the Lucasfilm logo is replaced with the English version:
And the originals look like this...
KDS:
DISZ:
RDJR:
Also the original KDS logo:
Is replaced with this one on the THX editions (along with the newly rendered crawls):
Laserschwert said:
Holy fuck, that TFN-thread is a painful read...
Yeah totally, what do you expect from TFN though?
I have added the Das Imperium schlägt zurück screenshots.
Danfun128 said:
Why does the 1995 laserdisc have the more recent 20th century fox logo? I understand the SE's and the prequels having it, but an OUT release?
Most of these versions also feature different audio to the theatrical over the substitute-20th cent logo and the lucasfilm logo.
-V
The blown out picture is from the 1993 Silverscreen Collection LD, I'll have some more screenshots of it over in my thread shortly.
That looks great, but for some reason this is how it looks in Avisynth:
Any ideas?
I did plug in the full-bold condensed adobe one into my subtitle script and it was way too bold.
LOL! That looks great!
All it needs now is a decent gaussian blur and a crop. ;)
But DrDre...
Surely this is how it looks?