SilverWook said:
Star Wars used to sell high end audio gear.
Man I love those old ads! Takes me back!
doubleofive said:
Pretty sure this is at least the second time in the last 7 or 8 years.Tighe said:
Speaking of transfers, Dragon Ball Z is getting a proper 1080P transfer from the original film! And Lucas can't do it???
The last transfer was to DVD and they included the whole film frame to give it a 16:9 aspect ratio if I recall correctly. This version is blue-ray, and will have the original broadcast 4:3 aspect ratio. I think a bunch of fans were upset about the changes. LOL go figure.
CatBus said:
Tighe said:
What I wish would catch on is 60 FPS film like Showscan. I remember watching the Revenge of the Sith and in some of the panning battlescenes the 24 frames per second really showed and looked very jerky...
Not that 60fps isn't nice--it is--but I've noticed recent movies are having 24fps come-aparts a lot more frequently than I remember they used to (it did happen before, but not all the friggen time like now). Is the typical speed of pans some sort of filmmaking trend, and we're on the bad end of a fashion swing? Is there something about digital filmmaking that means you can't change shutter speeds during pans like you should? Just curious.
It was really apparent in ROTS!
Speaking of transfers, Dragon Ball Z is getting a proper 1080P transfer from the original film! And Lucas can't do it???
danny_boy said:
Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:
danny_boy said:
When people went to watch SW in 70mm back in 77'----all they had in their homes were crude mono sounding TV's(and stereo gramaphones for their vinyl's) So they were always going to be blown away by a 6 track magnetic audio presentation in a cinema!!
Nonsense. I wouldn't be surprised if the stereos in people's homes sounded better in 1977 - on average - than they do today. Back then people typically listened to music in high fidelity, whereas today people are accustomed to listening to music that has suffered from the "loudness wars", and/or been squashed into mp3 and listened through earbuds. So one could argue that on average a person visiting a theater in the late 70s is more likely to be able to discern a lack of dynamic range than today's average listener.
"Gramaphones"? The Gramophone company went out of business in the 1930s. My memory of the late 1970s was Macintosh, Thorens, Pioneer, M&K, Klipsch, etc. Quadraphonic surround had been around for nearly 10 years.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=XuxVAAAAIBAJ&sjid=zEANAAAAIBAJ&pg=6767,2774626&dq=70mm+6+track+star+wars&hl=en
Great article! I love reading old newspaper articles like this! What I wish would catch on is 60 FPS film like Showscan. I remember watching the Revenge of the Sith and in some of the panning battlescenes the 24 frames per second really showed and looked very jerky, and I thought with all this technology Lucas is doing 24 frames per second.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Showscan
I was surprised that when I put the DVD for Surf's Up in my computer I found that is was 60 frames per second! It really shows. The Blue Ray is even more impressive!
hairy_hen said:
As msycamore pointed out, the Lucasfilm marketing division has a vested interest in making it seem as though their latest revisions represent a vast improvement over what the film used to be. George himself is convinced that everything he changes is somehow automatically made better, because he is delusionally incapable of understanding how magnificent the film already was to begin with, so naturally his company will advertise this kind of propaganda without regard to objective fact. Their biased pronouncements cannot be treated as infallible authority.
Hoffman's observations are entirely valid, because aside from slightly lesser fidelity due to generation loss, nothing about hearing the 70mm mix on a theatrical print will be different in any way than listening to the printmaster. The enormously powerful dynamics are all there, and completely unequalled by the remix since that was run through a peak limiter. I'm sure they do think they managed to improve the sound quality, but I find that a dubious claim at best. I have the 1997 mix in 5.1 as captured from laserdisc by Darth Editous, and when I play it back to back, level-matched, with the 1993 version (which as I said was taken mainly from the 70mm printmaster), there's just no comparison. The EQ of the reissue makes it sound tinny and small, while the original is robust and strong. And just to clarify, this has absolutely nothing to do with AC3 compression versus lossless PCM, because it strikes me the same way even on the GOUT dvd.
There's a lot of subjectivity to this kind of thing, obviously, but I really think that in the course of making their "improvements", what they really managed to do was rob the audio track of some of the very qualities that made it sound so good in the first place. This is completely consistent with the kind of mentality that would drive them to make hackneyed CGI inserts that do not match up at all with the surrounding footage, or any of the other ludicrously awful things that have been foisted on the films of late.
Personally I agree with your sentiment, although not having heard all the versions. I can say that I personally think the first movie was best by itself, before Lucas went puppet crazy, then CGI crazy in the prequels. If I look at the first movie compared to the first 3 or all 6, in my opinion I think that the first by itself is the best. All these changes and revisions just kill the feeling of the original. Also probably the issues that people have with the digital remixes of the original might be to Psycoacoustics, the original audio was analog and therefore most likely had a greater audio range beyond what the brain perceives but the ear hears.
hairy_hen said:
The SE mix, better than the 70mm? Don't make me laugh. The '97 mix is very dynamically shrunken compared to the 70mm version, and often sounds tinny and weak in general. It's not nearly as bad as the 2004 version, of course, because it's still recognisable, but it's really not that good a lot of the time.
Steve Hoffman, who got to see a good condition 70mm print a few years ago, agrees with me. http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/archive/index.php/t-141011.html
Man! That is what I want!! Not a 16mm transfer. And by my saying I don't care about dirt on the film, I mean I would rather watch the higher resolution version with defects than some processed copy of a copy. I am guessing that nobody yet has done a transfer of 70mm? What about the 35mm? Is the 16mm the only version that has been transfered?
Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:
Tighe said:
Thanks! I don't even care if it is restored, a direct transfer would be fine with me. Dirt, scratches, and dots are all fine! That is what it was like in the theater! ;-)
That is what it was like in the theater AFTER the films had been played hundreds of times and got worn. The best prints in the best theaters on opening day would have looked sharper than blu ray, and sounded better too.
I would suggest spending some time reading the various threads in the preservation section. There are many different versions depending on what you're looking for.
I was born in 1975, so I didn't see Star Wars when it was first run anyways. I saw it just before ESB with my older brother.
timdiggerm said:
You could also look at Puggo Grande, a 16mm transfer. It has a different aspect ratio, with some cropping, and the colors are slightly funny, but it does have dirt!
I am not looking for dirt, just the original film like i saw it.
FrederikOlsen said:
In my mind, there's little doubt we are going to get reissues of the trilogy as it played in theatres originally. Lucas has turned out to be a fan of doubledipping, and with the release of the deleted scenes, we're close to reaching a point where there's nothing to gain by re-releasing the Special Editions.
Yes, the sales figures for the Blu-rays were astronomical even though some of the changes were way more controversial than back in 2004, but the fact that so many people bought it will also mean that there are less people who'll be buying a re-release that doesn't actually bring anything new to the table. I'm sure the 2006 DVDs mainly sold that good because they contained the original versions. Sure, 3D may be a factor, but personally, I've only been underwhelmed by 3D films so far. And I can't be alone.
Sooner or later, George Lucas just has to swallow his pride and release these films. There is a demand for it, and that would mean money right down his pocket. The longer he holds it off, the more money he'll have. Till then, the restoration projects mentioned in this thread are more than satisfactory.
Well, maybe when he kicks the bucket Fox will release the originals and destroy all the later edits! ;-)
CatBus said:
You can't get Mike Verta's version--this is a point of contention for many. He's restoring the movie but not distributing it, for legal reasons.
I love the work DarkJedi's done (GOUTv3, Project Blu), and it's the most faithful thing you can actually get, but it doesn't scale nicely to the size of screen you're talking about. Your best bet is Harmy's projects (Despecialized Editions), which aren't quite as faithful but scale to large sizes much better.
None are as good as a real 35mm version.
Thanks! I don't even care if it is restored, a direct transfer would be fine with me. Dirt, scratches, and dots are all fine! That is what it was like in the theater! ;-)
CatBus said:
I'm not sure I have all the facts 100% correct, but here goes. 70mm and 35mm have the same aspect ratio. For SW and ROTJ, I believe the 70mm print is visually just a blow-up of the 35mm print. The 70mm version of ESB has some slight visual differences from the 35mm/home video version. All of the 70mm prints have surround sound mixes which the 35mm didn't.
All screenings would pretty much have to be private non-commercial deals. If you live in Southern California, Mike Verta plans to do private screenings of his personal restoration project. I'm considering letting my local hippie independent theatre know about Harmy's reconstructions (I know they do private screenings and have a AVCHD-capable Blu Ray player, so it's no stretch). But seriously, just get into backyard projection. It's fun, cheaper than you'd think, and you get to know your neighbors. Be your own private screening theatre.
That is really helpful! So is there a raw transfer of the 35mm? What is Mike Verta's? Where can I get it? There are so many versions on this site.
Thanks for the correction. So the 35mm is 16:9 and the 70mm is 2.35:1? I am comfused as to what I should be looking for. I know there is a 9mm transfer too.
So is there a good transfer of the 35mm availiable?
doubleofive said:
Unfortunately, Lucas usually issues a cease and desist on all public showings of an original print. Technically, the prints should have been sent back to Fox, so they're basically stolen anyway.
Some manage to slip through, but they're usually not widely advertised. There isn't like a "midnight screening" party every week in old theaters like there is of Rocky Horror or The Room.
Well that really sucks! But there are copies of the original 77mm out there? Has anyone transfered that without any changes/edits? I know there was a version from the 35mm. There are so many fan versions out there and I just want them to see what I saw in a theater like I saw it.
There is a theater near me that I could most likely have access to play video from a computer.
Is this even possible? Is there a theater that has the original 77mm film version? I don't care about dirt on the film, I want them to see it in a theater like I did, and the original version.
