Vigo

User Group: Members
Join date: 8-May-2006
Last activity: 24-Jan-2008
Posts: 228

Post History

Post: #243818
Topic: First Impressions of the OOT ...
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/243818/action/topic#243818
Time: 13-Sep-2006 6:47 PM

Originally posted by: ShiftyEyes
They may not have been recomposited in 2004 for the DVDs, but they were recomposited digitally for the '97 SEs. Perhaps not all of it, and how effective it was, I do not know, but they did. They mention this on those "What has changed?" comparison articles on the official web site. Many of the models look drastically different in the SEs due to better compositing. Of course, I'm sure everyone's suspicious about the veracity of what gets posted on the official website.

BUT if you've ever seen some of the '97 press material (made available on disc by babyhum) you can actually watch a few minutes of a woman sitting behind a computer monitor, digitally recompositing Luke's training scene on the Millennium Falcon. Hell, she even switches it layer-by-layer for us.

Look at the screenshot comparision page as I did (and posted here) and there is enough proof that they recomposited the opticals... But thanks for the further information.

Post: #243796
Topic: First Impressions of the OOT ...
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/243796/action/topic#243796
Time: 13-Sep-2006 6:07 PM

Originally posted by: Mike O

Originally posted by: JediRandy
If you guys honestly think that LFL would take the time to purposely screw up the OOT, just to "stick-it" to the "fans".... it's beyond the time to take a step back from all this and grow-up.

The Luca$ conspiracy theories know no bounds, apparently.

It's not really a theory; it's right there on starwars.com. If you have eyes, you can see it. And no one said LFL did; Lucas did.

But they DID NOT ADD cgi grain to the movies. They have deliberately chosen an inferior transfer because they did not want to invest any amount of work into the OOT.

BUT THEY DID NOT ADD CGI GRAIN!

Let´s have patience. The foot is now in the door, and the OOT has become sort of official now again. If those who wanted are sending their scratched SE discs back to Lucas with a nice letter, I think it make some people there think.

Post: #243789
Topic: First Impressions of the OOT ...
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/243789/action/topic#243789
Time: 13-Sep-2006 5:59 PM

Originally posted by: casualimp
Yes, and the foot in the door has GOUT. Sorry, couldn't resist. I watched both versions; GOUT last night and watched the SE with comentary on. The picture was okay, but damn the laser fire kept making me want to convulse. I hadn't seen that much pink flash about since I went to the strip club.

Hey! Those are the original colours! I hate Lucas decision, and the transfer is really shitty inferior, but at least the colours are exactly as Star Wars is supposed to look!

Post: #243783
Topic: First Impressions of the OOT ...
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/243783/action/topic#243783
Time: 13-Sep-2006 5:44 PM

I have watched now many frames, and I come to the conclusion that:

a) The Laserdiscs were heavily processed through a grain removal filter, since all optical shots are grain-free but heavily "mushy" looking.
b) The GOUT has all the grain the original transfer print had, which was removed for the Laserdisc. It looks more like film.

Now what a great release this could have been using a modern film scanner and a reasonable well surviving print. But at least, with the release of this DVD, the foot is now in the door...

Post: #243763
Topic: First Impressions of the OOT ...
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/243763/action/topic#243763
Time: 13-Sep-2006 5:01 PM

Originally posted by: mverta
However, for the record, the images were NOT recomposited in the computer, eliminating the grain from optical effects. Lowry's method uses an algorithm to remove grain from the entire image as a flat element. The lack of grain in the optical effects is just from de-graining processing.

Which of course brings the question why the lighsaber looks different on the 2004SE than in all other versions...

Oh! How it would be cool to recomposite, digitally, all the elements as you suggest! We could finally kill all those garbage mattes and roto lines, which are still wall-to-wall in the 2004 and 2006 DVD's!

I did not say they did their best job to make the 2004SE transfer. Do you need another picture which clearly suggests they recomposited the optical effects?

Here is the original optical composite

http://www.aptirrelevance.com/otscreenshots/images/resized/GOUT-PAL-r-014.jpg

And now, you can clearly see that they newly recoposited it. They added vertical scanlines, and changed the shape of the projection beam. You can also see that they changed her position slightly.

http://www.aptirrelevance.com/otscreenshots/images/resized/aofficial-r-014.jpg

Btw, the newly composited picture looks like shit...

Post: #243752
Topic: First Impressions of the OOT ...
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/243752/action/topic#243752
Time: 13-Sep-2006 4:35 PM

Lets have a look at another scene.

A quote from John Lowry:

Most effects in the original trilogy were achieved, at least in part, with the aid of optical printing -- a process in which one piece of film is passed through a printer multiple times, once for each effects element. With each optical effect layer, grain can be introduced and some of the original clarity reduced. "Every time there was a lightsaber in frame, it was exceedingly grainy due to opticals," Lowry recalls.

The 2004SE of course looks best, since all optical elements have been recomposited in the computer
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.aptirrelevance.com/otscreenshots/images/resized/aofficial-r-017.jpg

The 2006 DVD matches what John Lowry says. Like in the shot mverta posted here, grain is now present due to the optical effects. This image is even worse!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.aptirrelevance.com/otscreenshots/images/resized/GOUT-PAL-r-017.jpg

And now, do the Laserdiscs show the grain, which MUST BE THERE, since this scene was optically processed?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.aptirrelevance.com/otscreenshots/images/resized/moth3r-r-017.jpg

Nope. For me, this is proof that the Laserdiscs have been processed with heavy grain removal. On ALL Laserdisc transfers, you see NO GRAIN, but a unusual very mushy picture.

Post: #243746
Topic: First Impressions of the OOT ...
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/243746/action/topic#243746
Time: 13-Sep-2006 3:48 PM

Originally posted by: mverta
I appreciate your interest in lumping all "conspiracy theorists" together so you can ridicule them more easily, but the truth is some of us may in fact have some expertise to bring to bear on these issues. If you'd asked that theoretical question about having all scenes grained or not, I would've answered, "I don't know," because I don't. I can only speculate - albeit intelligently - about the reasons why LFL would be interested in devaluing the product. It is a fact that they are doing so, by the way, not conjecture.

Yes, they have substantially devaluated this DVD release by using these inferior transfers, I don´t question that. It is a more than sloppy release, and if you would have happen to read some posts of me on this issue, you would have noticed that I am a strong vocal opposer of this release.

BUT....

You have to be careful to stay with the facts. This transfer is shoddy and does not represent what can be achieved on DVD. You can explain this to anyone, and some people will actually understand that.

BUT, if you are now building up a whole conspiracy theory without any proof, just some vague assumptions, and trying to sell this, ALL people will quickly oversee the whole point of this site (fighting for quality copies of the OOT), and just claim "Nah, these are unthankful über Nerdie nutjobs!".

FACTS and proofs please, not just some vague theories and references to things you have seen or people you have heard. Things like that can be made up by everyone here.

But one doesn't disprove - or prove for that matter - the other.

Exactly.

The images are degraded. That is a fact. Whether intentional or not, is another issue. Personally, I believe the DVD's are intentionally presented as inferior, because Lucasfilm told me they were, and have been proving it on their site, and I can see it . Plus, I can compare to earlier transfers which are largely superior.

They wouldn´t have needed to add cgi grain to the movie. The transfer itself is inferior and would have never achieved the amount of detail of the 2004SE, with or without added cgi grain.

Plus, I've seen high res clean source material, and been told it doesn't exist.

Again, some vague reference. If you mean film material, actually no one out there believes that there wasn´t any better material available to remaster the OOT. We all know that much higher source material exists, so this is no surprising secret.

My initial post stated I believe grain has been added - that I would bet money on it. I didn't say I was 1000% sure; I couldn't be. But my position stands, and I'd still bet money on it. I've tried to illustrate a bit, and explain a bit more; sadly having to trump my credentials out along the way somewhat, but I suppose that's to be expected...

The problem is: i could easily disprove your point by posting images here which where nowhere as grainy as this particular scene. Plus the fact that in this scene, optical effects were used, and Lowry himself said that everytime someone turned on a lighsaber, the image quality dropped noticeably.

Sorry, but I do not blindly believe what people say, I want waterproof facts.

In any case, the degradation of the imagery isn't an opinion, it's a quantifiable fact. How much of a grand conspiracy that represents depends on how much that sort of thing appeals to you, I guess. But I'm from the school of thought that says if the government killed Kennedy to turn on the war machine, it's not so much a conspiracy as a business plan. Different strokes, I guess. Anyway, the 2006 DVD's suck, and could've been a billion times better with almost zero effort, so perhaps you should turn your ire where it belongs.

I´m citing the T-800 regarding your claims made here: "This does not help our mission."

Hint: it isn't on me. And if you enjoy your substandard release, then that's awesome; you got what you deserved.

*yawn*

Sorry, still not convincing, still no facts despite elaborate language.

Post: #243728
Topic: So then, PAL or NTSC GOUT for best quality?
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/243728/action/topic#243728
Time: 13-Sep-2006 3:01 PM

Originally posted by: calamari

Yeah NTSC = NTSC, but the source image makes a difference! Play an original Atari 2600 someday. Or better yet, a Channel F. The black lines are extremely obvious in these old gaming systems. It is because the resolution of the source image is less than NTSC is capable of representing. When the video is being output, they don't want a squished image at the top of the frame. So, they stretch it out. This results in black lines where there isn't anything real to display. Non-anamorphic DVD does a pretty good job of filling up NTSC, but it doesn't appear perfect, at least to my eyes. When I squeeze the image, I can no longer see the lines.

Sorry, but the "thickness" of the black lines displayed by the CRT is determined by how many lines are displayed, which has an effect on the framerate. Most NTSC Atari VCS games generate 262 scanlines, but they appear thicker to you, because the games do not generate an interlaced display. Interlacing can hide those black lines to a certain degree.

I have read many of his posts. Some people have a gift for writing very clearly and concisely. Boris may not always write 100% clearly. However, I can usually understand what he is trying to say, even if he occassionally uses the wrong words or terminology to express it. I'm not an English teacher.. I am more interested in trying to understand what is being communicated than the way it was said. So, I wouldn't be a very good politician or lawyer. They like to pick people apart and NOT understand what people are saying unless it is just perfect.

The problem is, this way also works in the other direction... You can agree with people on anything and also not really understand what they are saying. And I suspect boris to take advantage of this effect, people who have not so profound knowledge agreeing with him because he can make it sound somewhat teccy.

He lost all credibility to me when I pointed out that the screencaps of the speeder sequence were clearly NOT THE SAME, just to get an answer from him that it was a "ploy" to trick people (yeah, sure a "ploy"...) into believing that the OOT shot was the TOP frame, when in fact it WAS on the top frame. He made a mistake, and instead of admitting it, he outright lied to me with this ridiculous explanation. And that´s the reason why I really don´t believe him anymore when he says something like "Yeah, but it was supposed to mean THAT.....". You can also see in this thread how he cleverly and subtly tries to change topic, when someone is nailing him on his false statements.

By the way, I'm not joining any kind of "dark side" for defending this post of Boris's. It is not because I "feel sorry". You didn't try to understand his post.

I have the feeling I figured him out much better than you do. Yes, it may be that boris meant it this way from the beginning on. But you surely know the story about the boy who cried wolf...

You spouted off some things over some past Boris hatred. And yes, I think you are taking out your frustrations on him. In your mind he is an easy target because of bad grammar or whatever standard you are using.

On the contrary, he is a very hard "target" because although he lacks profound knowledge of home theater and film technology, he can express it in a way that most people (who don´t know more than him) would outright believe him. And that triggers my senses.

You mark him as a Troll so that you can rally your mob to bash him.

Nope, I mark him as that because I personally believe it. If you would have read more carefully, you would have noticed that long before I come into play with boris, he mostly has already been corrected a few times by other members of this forum. Hardly rallying my mob here.

I think he brings up some very good points. I can understand why you are so upset at Lucas. Just be an adult about it!

And again, try to explain to me: what has Lucas all to do with this???? Where do you get the Idea I am upset? I am much more reasonable concerning this DVD mess than other members on this forum. I just hate it when people are spreading FUD! You could see the same discussion with me on any other forum, when someone tries to do this. SO this does not make me everyone´s pal, ok. I could try to appease everyone, water facts down or just shut up. But I would hardly doubt this would make me a better forum member.

Believe me, as a politician, I would "Über-Suck!"

Post: #243703
Topic: First Impressions of the OOT ...
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/243703/action/topic#243703
Time: 13-Sep-2006 2:05 PM

Great, now we have boris, who is bickering about the removal of grain in the 2004SE (although it is still clearly visible) and mverta, who sees the conspiracy that the 2006 DVD´s have cgi grain added to the image (although lots of shots have very little grain in them). People outside reading this must really conclude that we are all nutcases here.

Sorry, but all your claims made in your last 2 posts still do not convince me. The shot you presented has optical effects in it, thus it HAS to be grainier, and there are a lot of pictures which barely have any grain at all. Still, you don´t know what type of processing was made during the LD mastering. There are more methods than just softening the image to remove grain, and you forget that ILM were the pioneers of digital film processing, you don´t know what kind of tools they had available to master the laserdisc.

But here is the problem about conspiracy theories: as soon as I would say: "if they wanted to look it really inferior, why didn´t they add grain in all those scenes?" you would say "because then, people would notice!" and the wheel turns around with no end. In the end, you can doubt EVERYTHING. This is no better than believing everything.

You started claiming that these shots were digitally manipulated adding cgi grain, because you can esaily spot it, and are now partly moving away from this position, saying a different print could have been used. This does not add much credibility to your point.

But it surely is exciting, isn´t it?

Post: #243661
Topic: First Impressions of the OOT ...
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/243661/action/topic#243661
Time: 13-Sep-2006 12:38 PM

Originally posted by: mverta
On the left, a pre-93 laserdisc image. On the right, the 2006 "1993-laserdisc-master" DVD. The image is grainier. This either means that the '93 laserdiscs were sourced from a different, and grainier print than the pre-'93 laserdiscs, which would mean they went through the re-issuing and quality actually went down in some respects, or this image has been artificially grained-up.

...or that in the Laserdisc mastering stage, it was removed. Laserdiscs can not faithfully reproduce grain, DVD´s can to some extend. There are many threads here complaining that image processing had been done when mastering these movies for the Laserdiscs. The 2006 DVD clearly has more horizontal resolution than the Laserdiscs.

There are some other differences in the images to suggest a different print, as well, so it's not 100% clear. The comment "mixed bag" is especially appropriate to describe the 2006 DVD, which is why I said I'd bet money, and not that I was definitively sure. Having done grain matching on more than 100 projects in the last 10 years, I see a good amount of evidence for post-added grain, which has a look you can recognize if you're familiar enough with it.

Then share your knowledge with us, and explain how you can spot digitally added grain. The shot you are showing has optical effects in it, so there is no wonder the image is grainier due to the optical printing.

The "logical" reason you give sounds really paranoid and ridiculous to me, and goes too far. We should be careful NOT to build up a whole fantasy conspiracy world now. This is the path where other people are rightfully starting to declare us nuts, if they read this.

You can´t see these hefty grain structures here:

http://www.aptirrelevance.com/otscreenshots/images/resized/GOUT-PAL-r-001.jpg

http://www.aptirrelevance.com/otscreenshots/images/resized/GOUT-PAL-r-003.jpg

http://www.aptirrelevance.com/otscreenshots/images/resized/GOUT-PAL-r-005.jpg

and on lots of other shots.

Post: #243618
Topic: First Impressions of the OOT ...
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/243618/action/topic#243618
Time: 13-Sep-2006 11:09 AM

Originally posted by: mverta
There are two truths: 1) The materials exist to make a fully restored OT DVD, scanned already. 2) Lucas does not want the OT to supplant the SE. The images are being deliberately served up to look worse, from the unnecessary sourcing of laserdisc masters when better materials exist, to the non-anamorphic transfer, etc. They're even running a "campaign" on StarWars.com showcasing the differences between the 1977 and 2004 versions of the films, so that fans can see just how much better the 2004's are. It's a curious move to deliberately devalue a product you just released, isn't it?

_Mike

Sorry, but I do think your conclusion is just paranoid. It could have been that the grain was removed during the Laserdisc transfer. The GOUT DVD´s look actually more like film than the Laserdiscs, which have some kind of smooth video look. Laserdiscs have not the bandwith to represent film grain correctly.

What I have observed so far is that:

- these DVD´s have a worse vertical resolution than Moth3rs transfer
- but a better horizontal resolution than Moth3rs transfer

Post: #243614
Topic: So then, PAL or NTSC GOUT for best quality?
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/243614/action/topic#243614
Time: 13-Sep-2006 10:54 AM

Originally posted by: calamari

Originally posted by: boris

Originally posted by: Vigo
LOL! boris, you are truly an unicum here!

The first time I heard that NTSC has actually MORE visible scanlines than PAL.... What I mean is the BLACK scanlines, between the lines of picture, will be thicker - and more visible. This is what bothers some people. I thought I what I said was clear the first time?

It made sense to me. He was not saying that NTSC had beteer resolution. He was saying it looked worse, because of the lower resolution you can see blank lines between the real lines.

That´s not what he said. You just happened to have interpreted it the same way as he did in his follow-up post to my response.

I can see those black lines especially when watching laserdiscs. DVD's aren't so bad.

Then there is something wrong. NTSC=NTSC.

Honestly, why all the Boris bashing? It's almost like you guys are taking your anti-Lucas frustrations out on him. You were definitely not trying to understand his post... you just wanted to flame.

No offence, but did YOU actually READ AND UNDERSTAND what boris has written here over the past few months? His numerous false claims, and always repeating them over and over, despite being corrected many times by people who actually WORK IN THE INDUSTRY

Please, don´t go the dark path of the force with him, and try to defend him here, just because you happen to feel sorry for him, and feel angry about our "anti-Lucas" frustrations we are supposed to have.

Post: #243610
Topic: So then, PAL or NTSC GOUT for best quality?
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/243610/action/topic#243610
Time: 13-Sep-2006 10:44 AM

Originally posted by: Moth3r
Vigo - I'm surprised you even attempted a response to the scaled interlaced colour palette scanlines post.

I know I shouldn´t, but it is just so damn funny.

Post: #243606
Topic: So then, PAL or NTSC GOUT for best quality?
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/243606/action/topic#243606
Time: 13-Sep-2006 10:38 AM

Originally posted by: borisI'd be willing to bet my right nut that it's been corrected.

* kkkkrrrrrrg, plop! *

By the way, Moth3r, I do know what I'm saying... just like I knew what I was saying when I told you not to go comparing the colour of our captures when they weren't captured using the same method - and you know something? I was right. Mind you I didn't flame at you or call what you said a "load of techno-bullshit" that you don't really understand.

boris, let´s face it:

we don´t want to talk about how much you have been corrected here on this forum, do we? We don´t want to talk about how often you obviously are juggling with technological catchphrases without actually knowing what´s all behind this, do we? Give Moth3r your best shot now, will you?

Perhaps we should open a "best of boris" thread, since it has become very boring to go through all your posts and search for your best remarks. My favourites are still:

"digital film scratches"
"better PAL colour pallet"
"more visible scanlines in NTSC"
"16mm is DVD, 35mm is HDTV"
"DV material looks very good in cinemas!"

and more most amusing remarks you have made here during your membership. Shall we continue?

Post: #243602
Topic: So then, PAL or NTSC GOUT for best quality?
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/243602/action/topic#243602
Time: 13-Sep-2006 10:23 AM

Originally posted by: boris

Originally posted by: Vigo
LOL! boris, you are truly an unicum here!

The first time I heard that NTSC has actually MORE visible scanlines than PAL....

What I mean is the BLACK scanlines, between the lines of picture, will be thicker - and more visible. This is what bothers some people. I thought I what I said was clear the first time?

No, it wasn´t. You can never be sure about what you actually mean with your posts. And how it can change during further posts.

Post: #243594
Topic: So then, PAL or NTSC GOUT for best quality?
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/243594/action/topic#243594
Time: 13-Sep-2006 10:12 AM

Boris, you are one amazing forum troll:

Originally posted by: boris

Originally posted by: seventiesfilmnut
The PAL version will be better, even if it has been resized. It's not the fact of the resolution, but the fact of the interlacing methods. Interlaced PAL will always look better then Interlaced NTSC

Please define "interlacing methods" for me. Both systems use the same interlacing methods, just with a different framerate (50 half frames vs 60 half frames).

What you probably mean is 3:2 pulldown. Now, go quickly check wikipedia to present us your knowledge here.

, also the PAL colour pallet is more accurate (and to be honest, it's been up-scaled from NTSC resolution, not from "NTSC").

Argh.... Please define "PAL colour pallet" for me, and explain, how PAL can have more colours than NTSC. Could be quite entertaining.

Also, a version up-scaled from SD to HD will look better, if it's been passed through a really good up-scalier.

Almost perfect repetition of what other forum members said here, except the spelling mistakes....

So I would have to say PAL. From the screenshots posted, the PAL picture extends all the way to both sides, whereas the NTSC one doesn't.

Ummm, huh? DO we have to understand that?

For me this is evidence and a give-away of scaling - but it's good news that they scaled it to the full width. The NTSC image may well be a bit sharper in certain scenes... but it won't look as good as a PAL image.

Again: what evidence? blablablablabla.....

Also, when played on a CRT telle, NTSC will have more visible scan-lines then PAL.

LOL! boris, you are truly an unicum here!

The first time I heard that NTSC has actually MORE visible scanlines than PAL....

This may not bother some, it doesn't both me ... but others are bothered by it - especially those who own widescreen CRT Telle's.

But it´s not as bad as the devilish film grain reduction of the shitty 2004SE´s, is it? *LOL*

However, ordering from Region 4 (NZ/Aus) may actually be slightly cheaper then buying off the shelf in the USA, as our market has lower prices. But then again, price is the least important thing when talking about quality.

Then, this DVD set would have absolutely lost against nearly every DVD release of a major motion picture during the past 6 years.

Post: #243585
Topic: Audio tracks on 2006 OOT
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/243585/action/topic#243585
Time: 13-Sep-2006 9:37 AM

TOday, I´m going to check out the german release, and check if the trash compactor music is still intact.

Post: #243572
Topic: So then, PAL or NTSC GOUT for best quality?
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/243572/action/topic#243572
Time: 13-Sep-2006 8:27 AM

Originally posted by: seventiesfilmnut
Hi everyone!

Well I'm happy with my PAL copy of the original Star Wars, apart from the 4% faster running time, though it does appear to have been pitch corrected, as the original THX VHS releases were BTW.

However it appears the PAL versions are merely upscaled from their NTSC counterparts from other comments on this forum. Would having the NTSC version yield better picture quality as it hasn't had to go through this upscalling process? Any comparison shots between the two would be great as I need to know whether to get the other two DVDs in PAL or NTSC.

Thanks!

- John

Getting the original NTSC material would be better.

Post: #243319
Topic: 2006 OT DVD: The Crawl on Star Wars
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/243319/action/topic#243319
Time: 12-Sep-2006 6:19 PM

Originally posted by: THX

http://img102.imageshack.us/img102/8456/goutvseodcrawlyd7.png

Okay, so when you resize the EOD to account for anamorphic, the angle and layout match exactly.

Perhaps we were a little bit too fast here, dismissing the crawl as newly cgi generated....

Post: #243290
Topic: 2006 OT DVD: The Crawl on Star Wars
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/243290/action/topic#243290
Time: 12-Sep-2006 5:26 PM

Originally posted by: calamari
Nice catch! Here is a side by side version (perhaps easier to see the angle change):

http://kidsquid.com/files/starwars/title_angles.png

Note: I captured the same sized lower left rectangle of both images, but I had to move the OUT image so that the text would line up at the top.

Look at the letters and their relative position to the star background. Either it is a very well done recreation, or it might indeed be sourced from original elements. And yes, the angle change is anamorphic VS non-anamorphic.

Also, the graphical representation of the letters matches exactly.

Post: #242987
Topic: Star Wars Limited Edition Screen Captures.
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/242987/action/topic#242987
Time: 11-Sep-2006 6:10 PM

Originally posted by: Erikstormtrooper

Originally posted by: Vigo
Either your settings are incorrect, or it is indeed true that the PAL DVD´s are upscaled NTSC. On some shots, it is clearly evident.

This is the most important issue with these discs, IMHO. If the PAL discs are upscaled from the NTSC master, all hope is lost.

Vigo, can you (or anyone else) give us a little visual demonstration of what you mean?

Look here:

http://img178.imageshack.us/img178/8130/sw001td1.png

Look at the "S". You can clearly see edges in the rounds due to scaling.

http://img178.imageshack.us/img178/415/sw005gf9.png

Look at the bottom light grey curve of Vaders right eye. Again, you see edges due to upscaling.

Post: #242909
Topic: Star Wars Limited Edition Screen Captures.
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/242909/action/topic#242909
Time: 11-Sep-2006 2:40 PM

Originally posted by: Darth Cracker
PS - Vigo, BTW you could've made your points calmly and clearly without being so personal (re: Boris) you know - he was just stating his honest opinion

That's exactly how these threads turn from "interesting"... into "FLAME WARS! Argue! Argue! Fight! Fight! I'm right, you're wrong! etc etc etc"

Normally, I wouldn´t do this. But I hate ignorant people, and boris has been corrected MANY MANY times by people on this board here, yet he still is spreading false information here. There is absolutely nothing wrong with not knowing everything. We all make mistakes, I do a lot of mistakes. But I hate it when someone is constantly pushing his claims, despite being corrected so many times here on this board. I don´t care if he likes this DVD release and is totally happy with the transfer. That is his right. But babbling about film/home cinema technology, despite having very little to no knowledge about it, with the only purpose to praise this release, this drives me mad. If this would be an ordinary DVD release, it would quickly be dismissed as absolutely not standard and being given very low rates. But only in the Star Wars realm, you have a lot of braindead fans around, trying to defend this low quality release.

Yes, you are right, I shouldn´t get so personal. But I hate it when people are trying to manipulate.

Post: #242894
Topic: Star Wars Limited Edition Screen Captures.
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/242894/action/topic#242894
Time: 11-Sep-2006 1:15 PM

Originally posted by: boristhe image does drop in quality... especially the out-door shots, but I have a strong feeling this is due to the negatives...

Meet boris, the most stubborn, learning resistent guy in the world...

it drops to around a 7/10 quality... but it rises to an 8.5 and 9/10 quality in other scenes. There's very little digital scratches/glitches...

LOL, explain me the concept of "digital scratches".

If you give this a 8-9/10, what grade would you give true high quality transfers like "Gladiator"? 18/10?

there are some (hallelujah!) and it's certainly not an amount to worry about. You've certainly seen more scratches on a james bond movie.

The lack of scratches doesn´t make up for the terrible softness of the picture.

The un-steady "movement" is, I believe, due to the way a film camera works. It can't guarantee every frame gets a perfect field of view, and at the same time all the moving parts cause the camera to physically "shake" a little. The camera-shake is something that exists on the negatives, and is a by-product of shooting on film. Removing that is like removing the film grain, which is like colourizing a black and white movie.

Ah, and a soft and unsharp letterbox transfer made with old equipment truly represents the original movies, as they were seen in cinemas? Here goes boris again.

And again, the 04 transfer has lots of film grain. My theory is, you don´t even know what film grain is, its nature, and thus can only "spot" it when it is so much evident that the picture becomes really noisy.

It's not distracting, and it is normal. Godfather has worse camera-shaking going on.

Again, you understand nothing. A shaking picture can of course be camera shaking (in action scenes, when the camera does constatnt movement), but most of the time, it is an effect caused by shrinking of the old film material and defects of the film perforation. It can also be introduced in the lab, which made the 35mm copy. It was never supposed to be there.

There's some aliasing here and there (there isn't much though)

Yeah, so less aliasing that you can clearly spot the NTSC upconversion....

- but on the whole it's a very nice transfer. It's a nice and sharp picture, with good colour... the screenshots don't do it justice, you have to actually watch the movie to fully appreciate it.

I don´t see anything which can be appreciated about this mess. In 1997, when the DVD format was introduced, it would have been a good disc. But nowadays, it is clearly substandard. There are lots of films out there which are not anything as important as Star Wars, and have FAR better transfers than this. For example Flash Gordon (1980), Spaceballs, They Live...

I popped the '04 disc in and watched a couple of scenes… it does have more detail in the image, so it's a bit better… but on the whole it's not that much better. The soundtrack is very good.

There are WORLDS between the level of detail of the 04 transfer and this old mess. You have either very bad eyes, or total inoperable equipment to watch these movies. Or just plain denial...

Post: #242889
Topic: Star Wars Limited Edition Screen Captures.
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/242889/action/topic#242889
Time: 11-Sep-2006 12:59 PM

Either your settings are incorrect, or it is indeed true that the PAL DVD´s are upscaled NTSC. On some shots, it is clearly evident.

At least, those DVD´s can be a nice colour reference for further preservation efforts, since the colours are exactly as I remember Star Wars.

Post: #242167
Topic: Info Wanted: Mono mix - German Versions?
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/242167/action/topic#242167
Time: 8-Sep-2006 4:57 AM

Originally posted by: Belbucus
There is little documented history (that I’m aware of) surrounding the mixing of the foreign language versions other than they were done in and around late 1977 - along with the “Story of Star Wars” LP project which we know uses the monomix elements. So, with the known chronology of the mixes (and Burtt’s preference), it would not be unreasonable to assume that they used those elements as well. From what Vigo indicates, it seems quite possible that there could be several examples out there of foreign language STEREO mixes using the monomix elements.

Originally posted by: Vigo

…I´m looking forward to capture the sound from the Silverscreen LD, since it most probably has the original theatrical german sound on it, since it also features the original textcrawl without "Episode IV" at the beginning.
Vigo,
I would love to somehow get a copy of this file when you’re done.

Originally posted by: Vigo

…I posted a sample, which is now inactive, but at least THX downloaded it...

THX,
Do you still have this? If so, would you consider emailing to me?

My PM is active.