RU.08

A moving object, let's say Ben's face, is slightly closer to the camera in one frame compared to the next. Your algorithm goes through and pulls the detail from the previous frame for use in the current one, yet that detail comes from a slightly different depth. You get a picture with both superimposed upon each other, yes it has more micro-detail and in certain applications in specific situations that would be important (like if you want to footage to appear alongside native HD material). But it comes at the cost of the picture depth.

I'm not saying it's a bad method, I'm just saying it comes at the cost.

Love the telegraph's poll:

"Will you be buying the digital star wars collection?"

"Yes I am/aready have" - 9%

"No - it's overpriced/pointless" - 38%

"No - I want the theatrical originals" - 54%

The problem with super-resolution is that it assumes you're working with a 2D image and what you get is a two dimensional image. It doesn't understand depth and you lose it as a result of searching for more "detail". The image of Ben Kenobi is a good example:

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/121686

His face and hair just look flatter and so does his robe. You lose meta-detail in search of micro-detail.

And in motion it just looks worse as is "carries over" the "detail" frame for frame, transporting flat "detailed" images over the depth present in the source.

Harmy said:

OK, so the original LPP looks way better, so what's the point of all this? Just as an interesting curiosity?

Yep. The video looks worse than the stills - the colour is all over the place.

Well the film versions of AOTC and ROTS are derived from the digital versions.

Danfun128 said:

 ...that will be hard to reconcile with the available footage...unless...

But... where's Mickey Mouse?

For what it's worth I pretty much knew it was just the 2011 updated 2004 DVD version. Disney announced and released it very quickly so that fans wouldn't have time to do their research and find out that a 4k restoration has been taking place - originally intended to be used as the basis of the 3D theatrical versions no doubt - but could be used for a higher quality future release. It's just their way of double-dipping until they decide to release the 4k version

Are you kidding? It's always a selling point for any movie! Look how great Robocop 4k looks compared with the older releases.

And besides, a lot of people already own the existing blurays. The digital release should offer an improvement in quality in order to appeal to these customers, especially at the price they're wanting ($20 per movie!)

From the previews I saw on YT (and I love all those negative SE comments I'm seeing there, LOL!) it looks like this is just the 2004 DVD transfers again, and that the 4k scans haven't been touched. Is this right or am I missing something? They certainly aren't advertising it as a new transfer which suggests that the 4k versions will be released later in the year or sometime next year...

Interesting, I didn't know that. But whatever they used it would only have been one film source per reel (whether a negative or a print) per release, right?

I think it was the 1997 version. Before that my understanding is they just scanned the o-negs in Telecines to produce the SD outputs for TV/Laserdisc/VHS. The negatives were cleaned for the 1993 transfers, I don't know if that qualifies them as "restorations" though.

In any case, new theatrical prints were struck for the 1997 SE.

They'd have to use a print to show them the structure if there's no negative (i.e. the o-neg is configured to the 1997 SE).

Also, there are other LD caps available on the spleen, including the "dr gonzo" version which I upped a few months ago. It was done around the same time as this one from the 93 LDs.

The strangest thing about that  is that the OP's not even a new member.

SVHS said:

I'll echo the sentiment that if the theatrical editions appear on HD and 4K blu-ray and are of a noticeably inferior or revised quality to the Legacy edition or Harmy's, I say we get vocal about it and assure people that this is yet another ruined chance to obtain what the audiences saw thirty years ago and in turn, a piece of cinema history.

I should clarify what I meant. Regardless of whether they release just the SE, they don't want it to look worse than what is being shown by Mike. Mike isn't showing the full resolution, but he's showing the shots looking amazing - clean, graded, and free from DVNR or sharpening. SE or OOT they should want the quality to at least match what we're seeing from Mike.

It's interesting to hear you say that. We'll have to wait and see what Disney does. I think they should start restoring their catalogue correctly, they've already damaged their brand immeasurably since the late 90's by releasing crap after crap, and then when it came to DVD and Bluray their animated films (and I was able to see some of them on 35mm, recently) look absolutely horrible in comparison to the 35mm version.

So what I want to see is Disney restoring all of their films properly and releasing them in their original unaltered theatrical formats. That would be good business sense as much as anything else. The next time I see Alice in Wonderland, for instance, I don't want to see something that looks like it was animated on a computer instead of done physically. I'd rather watch the VHS than watch the Bluray.

If they want to do that they will, if they don't want to they won't. I guess we just have to wait and see.

I hope the clips you're releasing will encourage them to set the bar higher. They don't want to have a release come out look worse than what was achieved with your 4k theatrical print scan. If they do that it will be published to a much wider audience than just the members of this forum... and negative publicity is the last thing that Disney needs.

And to think, they could have auctioned off the props for charity!

Or for Lucas's wallet. Now I think about it, I'm surprised he didn't think to do that!

Well in a way it's good that technology has advanced as older films have degraded further and further.

-edit- nevermind

If only Vimeo was 4k...

Well I still say the perspective is all wrong:

The steps on the right are much smaller than those on the left, but they should be an equal size since they represent the same distance (in fact since they're direct on they're a bit closer) to the ones on the left. You can see the entrance has 4 steps below it on the left, but only 3 on the right. The whole perspective of this shot has never looked right to me.

ray_afraid said:

RU.08 said:

The thing I don't like about this painting, isn't the rock, it's the left wall that is recessed behind the vertical "door" that just looks so fake because there's no depth to it (it doesn't look like the wall is going back behind the door). And also for consistency the right-hand wall should be coming further forward. I guess this is the problem when a painting is done "in-place" and there's no time to go back and do another one to fix those things...

 Why does the wall on the left need to match the wall on the right? There's no need for symmetry there. Also, who said that was a door? I've always thought it was just a wall with a garage like door retracted underneath.
I don't see much problem with that part of the composite myself.

Because it isn't low enough, it looks like it's floating in the air. If it was a physical building the characters should be standing almost at the foot of the right-hand stepped wall, not so far in front of it. Look at that line on the concrete - it's straight the whole way and shows a straight shadow underneath it, that's straight with the door. On the left that line is under the door and behind the stepped wall, but on the right it's in front of the stepped door. It looks a bit like this:

By the way I've always wondered why that hanger door was so low, now I know.

doubleofive said:

Really can see the empty hanger they filmed it in front of now:

http://www.bedfordshire-news.co.uk/Star-Wars-Harrison-Ford-Carrie-Fisher-Luke-Hamill-space-38-years-filming-Cardington-Sheds/story-21725256-detail/story.html

Looks like the rock is there to cover the VW Bus!

LOL!

Before:

After:

I agree 100% - it's amazing the process works at all, it really is an art form. The thing I don't like about this painting, isn't the rock, it's the left wall that is recessed behind the vertical "door" that just looks so fake because there's no depth to it (it doesn't look like the wall is going back behind the door). And also for consistency the right-hand wall should be coming further forward. I guess this is the problem when a painting is done "in-place" and there's no time to go back and do another one to fix those things...

I think the safest assumption is that the mattes were visible in some cinemas but not in others. They also had 3 different soundtracks too, so not everyone in '77 got the same experience!