logo Sign In

Vigo

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

Post History

Post
#241785
Topic
Info Wanted: Mono mix - German Versions?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/241785/action/topic#241785
Time
Originally posted by: Belbucus
Thanks for responding.

I'm still not clear on a couple of things.

When you speak of the 1978 German dub, are you referring to its initial theatrical release?

And, does your 1995 THX Laserdisc feature the same mix?


That´s a good question. I know that they added some hall effects in some particular scenes. But other than that, I recall from memory that all sounds are exactly as my 1990 TV broadcast, which most probably used the theatrical sound of the German print, since this broadcast used the original "KRIEG DER STERNE" textcrawl, without "Episode IV".

Unfortunately, I lost the tape. But 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.

The 1995 THX LD has a cheaply made revised textcrawl which added "Episode IV"


Lastly, is the mix on the Laser mono or stereo?


Stereo.
Post
#241762
Topic
Info Wanted: Mono mix - German Versions?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/241762/action/topic#241762
Time
Yes, I listened to the english mono mixes examples and found out that in the 1978 german dub, all translated dialogue (tractor beam and "close the blast door!") and sound effects matches the english mono mix. This also happened to me while watching the 2004SE for the first time in english, and wondered why many soundeffects changed...

Furthermore, the German dub contains music from John Williams in the trash compactor scene which can not be found anywhere else!!

The German version I own is the 1995 THX Laserdisc which I used for comparison. Romours are that the 1993 "Silverscreen" release contains better audio than the 1995 THX LD.

The most interesting part may be that the mono soundeffects are still present in the German DD5.1 mix from 1997/2004! However, they TOTALLY fucked up the dialogue during this process... (they had to extract it from the stereo source, and the software used to accomplish this cut off most of the "s" sounds, which is the reason why Fox Germany recieved MANY complaints from Star Wars fans, because some scenes sound now ridiculous).
Post
#241403
Topic
So, this is how the DVDs are going to look...
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/241403/action/topic#241403
Time
Originally posted by: boris
Originally posted by: Mentasm
Bloody hell, Fox really didn't want me to open those DVDs! I don't know about anyone else, but the security stickers on mine were really tacky, and left loads of residue on the cases. I just spent ages using sticky tape to get it off a piece at a time. I'm in work at the moment so the only copy of PowerDVD I have is some useless cut-down Dell version, but first impressions of the transfers are not good. I'll see how they stack up when I get home.
They'll never look as good on a computer anyway.


*LOL*

Post
#241358
Topic
Preserving the "German" Original Trilogy (Released)
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/241358/action/topic#241358
Time
Originally posted by: R2D2

@vigo:
sharing was no problem for me. you are welcome. i am living in austria, next to germany.


Ok, I´m afraid that would be a little too far away...

I was thinking about getting the Silver Screen Collection myself, and extract the german title crawl and sound out of it. Since these discs are PAL CLV, some footage from them could perhaps be used to replace the "disc change" scenes from the 1995 THX PAL LD´s. But then again, it seems that the master used on these discs is not good...

Post
#241208
Topic
Selectable crawl on new DVD? Or just the old one?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/241208/action/topic#241208
Time
Originally posted by: marioxb
Originally posted by: MattyPhoenix
Ah I See, Why Does that not surprise me.
Why is it that the people who created 'Empire Of Dreams' can do a better
job remastering than the people working(loose term) on the 2006DVD's? Bloody George Lucas!
Why cant he just give us what we want, then we can all be happy and he can go and create whatever other rubbish he wants
to e.g. star wars tv show in 2007 and more changes to his artistic visions until he has milked all originality out of Star Wars
and no one cares anymore!


From what I remember, they were clips from the theatrical versions, but the 1997 theatrical versions. I don't know for sure, it's been a long time since I watched Empire of Dreams.


Nope, these WERE NOT 1997 SE shots:

-> you can see the original textcrawl
-> you can see the original Death Star explosion
-> you can see the original sequence where Han is running after the Stormtroopers facing a massive backfiring at the end of the corridor

Post
#241162
Topic
Preserving the "German" Original Trilogy (Released)
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/241162/action/topic#241162
Time
I´ll bump this thread up, since it is going to become more relevant since the German OOT DVD´s for 9/12 apparently don´t have the original German textcrawl preserved.

Could you please make a screencap from the speeder sequence?
http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/4420/06atk9.jpg

In another thread, I remembered that on my VHS broadcast recording sequence, the speeder had a huge yellowish blob flickering to hide the wheels from the prop. My claim was that this was already fixed in the OOT Laserdiscs from the Definitive/THX edition!
Post
#239759
Topic
So, this is how the DVDs are going to look...
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/239759/action/topic#239759
Time
Originally posted by: Mielr
Originally posted by: Vigo

A little trivia: the speeder sequence on the OOT Laserdiscs has already been tampered with....


Really? How?


They removed the vaseline on the lens. I remember my video TV broadcast from 1990 had a HUGE blurry and flickering blob right under the speeder. This was the first thing I noticed was fixed when I watched the SE...

....and my 1995 THX LD!

Post
#239707
Topic
So, this is how the DVDs are going to look...
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/239707/action/topic#239707
Time
Originally posted by: boris
Originally posted by: Vigo
Did you actually watch the 2004SE so far (on proper equipment)? In all scenes, you can see natural film grain. They did NOT remove it. Many faults in the film material, like flickering and colour shifting during the end of a scene have remained uncorrected. Maybe so, but they did their best to as much of the film grain as possible. Compare it to the grain from their 1993 master... the difference is glaring.
Originally posted by: Vigo
As I said earlier, transfers taken directly from the negative have a lot less film grain that taken from 35mm n-generation copies. But again, you wouldn´t answer to this, right, because it would actually show your lack of knowledge. That supports my point, if there was more film grain in movie theatres in 1977 then on the master reel, then that's all the more reason not to remove all the grain.


*slaps his head* Man, your whole argumentation is ridiculous.

1. They did not remove all the grain. Repeat: they did NOT remove all the grain! Grain is still present everywhere on the 2004 SE! Even in the SE shots!
2. What people saw in movie theatres in 1977 easily surpasses even the 2004 SE on DVD, because a 35mm print has much more resolution, not to speak of people who saw the 70mm presentation.Neither the 2004SE and especially not the shitty looking OOT DVD´s will bring back the theater experience in terms of picture quality. Your whole whining about film grain removal is ridiculous from the beginning.
3. Careful removal of film grain, when done properly, is not even close to the damage done by shoddy non-anamorphic video transfers made with old equipment. If you complain on the one hand, about careful film grain removal but on the other hand have no problem about an awful non-anamorphic transfer, you have serious problems with your eyes.

Originally posted by: Vigo
You have already been corrected many times in the 35mm thread, by people who actually work in the industry Believe it or not, not everyone in the film industry agrees on it. What I said (which is the resolution of 35MM is roughly equal to HD, and 16MM to SD) is generally accepted mainstream in the film industry.

Aha , "not everyone in the film industry agrees with it" = "is generally accepted mainstream in the film industry" .

Originally posted by: VigoThis may be, but it is still the same blurry transfer, which is the main cause of the shitty picture quality. And besides being blurry, it is still non-anamorphic. My non-anamorphic spaceballs "laserdisc rip" dvd looks just fine.

Another disqualification. There are worlds between the first non-anamorphic Spaceballs release and the new release with a new anamorphic transfer available.

Originally posted by: Vigo
What you said was this:

It's still considered industry standard to release non-anamorphic sourced material as non-anamorphic (many DVD's with extras feature a mix of anamorphic and non-anamorphic features). It's annoying, but it's standard.

And the source material of the OOT is NOT non-anamorphic. I was shot on 35mm. According to 2006 standards, THIS source has to be used. It is standard procedure. Few A-movies have been released on DVD using an old non-anamorphic video master. The last DVD´s from major studios which came out this way date back more than 5 years ago. The point I was making is that the digital master is non-anamorphic, and it's standard to keep in non-anamorphic rather then to resize it to anamorphic.


Yes, the non-anamorphic mastertape should be kept non-anamorphic. But you made a point about industry standards, and I was under the impression you think that using an old non-anamorphic video transfer is industry standard, instead of using the 35mm print.



Originally posted by: Vigo
Again, you are mixing. The LASERDISCS have apparently been mastered from PAL mastertapes. But since the OOT is supposed to be Bonus material on this DVD release, they are going to treat it as Bonus material on PAL discs, which is: up-scaling the NTSC material.
Nice speculation there.


Yeah, and it will most probably hold. OOT = Bonus Material = upconverting the NTSC source on a PAL disc. On the German release, they did not even restore the original 1978 "KRIEG DER STERNE" Textcrawl (something the 1993 Laserdiscs have), which already implies absolutely no effort. It would also further explain the bad rating from the French DVD site.


Originally posted by: Vigo
Again, an amusing proof on how you percieve picture information:

Originally posted by: boris
Originally posted by: bactaOT
Here is a comparison against a screen cap from the 2004 dvd release:

Can you guess which is which? Hmmmmm? Tough call I know.
Here's some more... All are identical film frames:

http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/4420/06atk9.jpg
http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/1603/06blb0.jpg


Yes, claerly all IDENTICAL film frames. *LOL* And it is of course, apart from the obvious, sooo hard to spot the superior image....
That one was a ploy, I deliberately chose a special edition shot. I was trying to set up expectations to be that the OOT frame would be on top. It is the same movie frame, though... and if you doubt this then I suggest you try to find the one that is.


*MEGALOL* The OOT shot ->IS<- on top. You just made my day!

Or shall we believe you, again, that this was also a ploy.

A little trivia: the speeder sequence on the OOT Laserdiscs has already been tampered with....


Originally posted by: Vigo
But you imply clearly, that scaling and making a new anamorphic transfer is roughly the same:
You are taking what I said way out of context. I'm talking in the context of the digital master source being non-anamorphic.Originally posted by: Vigo
The only parts replaced were the ones which used new CGI footage. The original negatives, while faded and dirty, still retained all of their picture information. Again, you are spreading bullshit here. Even if they had to replace parts of the negative with other film stock, it would still be superior to HD and of course vastly superior to 720x480.....
Oooh, now who doesn't know what they're talking about? They did permanently remove parts of the master reel which were not special edition hangs. The film would be superior to SD, but not to HD. It'll be embarrassing if I can prove this to you once all SW films are released in HD.


Well, I already implicated that I may be wrong that they only replaced SE shots in the negative (there was something in my head that some scenes became unuseable).

But this doesn´t matter: they most probably inserted new negative parts in those cases made from very high quality copies. There exists a 3 strip Technicolor copy of Star Wars, and probably the seperation masters to go with. With these sources, you can easily reconstruct a new negative which does almost look as good as the original. Those Technicolor copies could be easily used to make a far superior Version of the OOT than this rubbish we are going to get on Sep 12th...

And no, even a n-th generation copy (many generations away from the NEGATIVE) still has more resolution than HD.
Post
#239396
Topic
So, this is how the DVDs are going to look...
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/239396/action/topic#239396
Time
Originally posted by: boris
Originally posted by: Vigo
So, you think that an old non-anamorphic soft and washed-out transfer made in 1993 with obsolete equipment represent the originals better than an all-new transfer directly made from the negatives, right? You should read what I've already said addressing that exact point before coming and claiming that as my point of view. What I said was that it's better they release it like this then to put it through the same process the 2004 version went through.

Did you actually watch the 2004SE so far (on proper equipment)? In all scenes, you can see natural film grain. They did NOT remove it. Many faults in the film material, like flickering and colour shifting during the end of a scene have remained uncorrected. As I said earlier, transfers taken directly from the negative have a lot less film grain that taken from 35mm n-generation copies. But again, you wouldn´t answer to this, right, because it would actually show your lack of knowledge.


A new transfer would look a little bit better, yes, but not by much.

*LOL* Sorry, but you have absolutely no clue. A new transfer would look substantially better, since it would be made with modern equipment (digital film scanners like the Spirit Datacine), which yields much more clarity and resolution than the old telecining equipment involved in making transfers in the early nineties. You have already been corrected many times in the 35mm thread, by people who actually work in the industry, but you keep on spreading your false informations here. The worse part is, people which have as much lack of knowledge as you do will read your statements and actually believe them...


Originally posted by: Vigo
They are LD transfers, made from the LD mastertapes, and the screenshots already show clearly all the flaws. They lack detail, and contrast and won´t, in general, look better than the fan preservations. Repeat: they won´t look better than the fan preservations. Yes they will, it's transferred from a digital source much higher in quality then laserdisc by professionals.

This may be, but it is still the same blurry transfer, which is the main cause of the shitty picture quality. And besides being blurry, it is still non-anamorphic.

I´m going to remind you of all your statements you are making here during this thread when the release comes out. This is going to be very embarassing for you.



Originally posted by: Vigo
The source material of the OOT is anamorphic 35mm film shot in 2.35:1 aspect ratio. Easy enough source material to make a HD transfer. The source they're using is a standard definition digital master tape, not an anamorphic 35mm film reel.

You are good in twisting your own statements, are you.

What you said was this:

It's still considered industry standard to release non-anamorphic sourced material as non-anamorphic (many DVD's with extras feature a mix of anamorphic and non-anamorphic features). It's annoying, but it's standard.

And the source material of the OOT is NOT non-anamorphic. I was shot on 35mm. According to 2006 standards, THIS source has to be used. It is standard procedure. Few A-movies have been released on DVD using an old non-anamorphic video master. The last DVD´s from major studios which came out this way date back more than 5 years ago.

Nice try, but no cigar.


Originally posted by: Vigo
Yes it is, i live and PAL land, and could (if I would buy them) "enjoy" the upscaled, overall sh/tty looking SD NTSC masters. It appears that: They.are.not.using.the.ntsc.masters.for.the.pal.dvd. Moth3r posted some information on this a while ago with some evidence supporting the idea that the PAL master tapes are not resized from the NTSC ones. If you think otherwise please cite your references.


Again, you are mixing. The LASERDISCS have apparently been mastered from PAL mastertapes. But since the OOT is supposed to be Bonus material on this DVD release, they are going to treat it as Bonus material on PAL discs, which is: upscaling the NTSC material.


Originally posted by: Vigo
If you don´t care about quality, fine. Converting.non-anamorphic.SD.to.anamorphic.SD.will.not.improve.the.quality.


*LOL* Do you actually read what I´m writing here in this thread? Or do you just deliberately put my statements out of context to hide your lack of knowledge.


Originally posted by: Vigo
You claimed yourself in the past that non-anamorphic Laserdiscs have the same quality as DVD´s when watched on a beamer..... But there are other people around here who aren´t so blind as obviously you are. The closest thing I ever said to what you just claimed is that watching this upcoming DVD will look better then watching a scratched up 16MM print, and watching an LD using good equipment will as well.

You are right, you just claimed the following. In full context, so that no-one can blame me that I´m putting your comments out of context:

Let me put it to you like this. We all know that for everything Lucas is, he's a perfectionist - right? Quality to Lucas comes well before any other sensibilities. However he's also artistic which is why he's a filmmaker - though he often tries to do "too much" himself and in my opinion could benefit from the input of others. With this in mind, Lucas shot both ep 2 and ep 3 in HD. That's in 1080p. Now, there are many obvious advantages to digital such as being able to see what you've shot right away, being able to edit scenes earlier, you don't have the problem of being on your last reel of film, etc - and it's cheaper then traditional filming (though as it was "cutting edge technology" this may not have been a draw card at the time). And the quality is amazing, as far as digital is concerned. Even at "laserdisc resolution" (roughly equal to non-anamorphic DVD) you can show a movie theatrically.

And this


If they transferred it again, and only removed large, visible, obvious deformities - it wouldn't be that different to the 1993 master, even if it was scanned at 720p or 1080p."
This is something a lot of people incorrectly assume.
If they fed the OT through one of the new arriscan machines, it would look immeasurably better than the 1993 transfers.

I kind of got that out wrong anyway, yes of course they would look better, more crisp and contain better quality - probably much better quality. But it would not look as good quality as the Special Edition. Also, I tend to confuse what I'm talking about (in other words, make it confusing for you, the reader) - most of the time I'm talking about "our" collective ability rather than Lucasfilm's abilities.

I also disagree with what you're saying about laserdisc quality - I've watched Laserdiscs projected by professional-grade mounted movie projectors (thanks to friends who are complete movie geeks - and it sounds like you've watched them too) and the quality is good. It's not fantastic, of course, but it's still good enough to enjoy on a big screen. By the way, many independent films are filmed digitally at DVD resolution and are still more then acceptable theatrically.

The full amusing thread:

http://www.originaltrilogy.com/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=2&threadid=6362&STARTPAGE=1

Yeah, sure, a Laserdisc can easily be shown theatrically, but you claim you can spot heavy usage of digital grain removal. Oh wait, it makes sense: as soon as a picture shows more detail, it HAS to be tinkered with, according to your (non)understanding and perception of film technology.

Again, an amusing proof on how you percieve picture information:

Originally posted by: boris
Originally posted by: bactaOT
Here is a comparison against a screen cap from the 2004 dvd release:

Can you guess which is which? Hmmmmm? Tough call I know.
Here's some more... All are identical film frames:

http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/4420/06atk9.jpg
http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/1603/06blb0.jpg


Yes, claerly all IDENTICAL film frames. *LOL* And it is of course, apart from the obvious, sooo hard to spot the superior image....



Originally posted by: Vigo
LOL. You clearly don´t have a clue what you are talking about, do you?

HD users won´t use DVD´s anymore. And watching a DVD on a high resulution medium, instead on a plain old CRT TV, brings all the flaws out even more. Upscaling does NOT add picture information, it softenes the pixels. But then again, this coming from a person who claims there is no difference between Laserdiscs and DVD´s on a beamer.... *LOL*
I didn't say it improves the picture, I said it scales it correctly.


But you imply clearly, that scaling and making a new anamorphic transfer is roughly the same:

People are going to start buying HD-TV's. And HD TV's will see DVD players with better inbuilt scaling (in fact I've seen some excellent scaling just on set top boxes)... which will up scale both anamorphic and non anamorphic PAL/NTSC to an HD signal. Or you can buy a progressive scan DVD player ... or you can rip it and resize it yourself on your home PC. So why on earth does it matter so much that the disc is non-anamorphic? You're nitpicking it to death. It's standard procedure, and there are movies released on DVD - that were made after Star Wars - that are not available in anamorphic form.


Either you do this on purpuse, or you have, after all, really no understanding about what anamorphic really is.


Originally posted by: Vigo
Btw, there are movie releases, made long time before Star Wars, that are not only anamorphic, but have already a HD transfer. What now, my friend?

YOU GOT TO FIGHT! *BOOM , BOOM* FOR YOUR RIGHT.... *FOR LOOOW QUALITYY!!!!!*
You're complaining about every little thing you possibly can. There is so much more I have to complain about the 2004 transfer (even if I'm not complaining about the changes) then you have to complain about this release.


Which clearly shows your inability to understand the technology behind making films and the processes involved in making it available for home useage.


This is a run-down of what I've said:

1. This release will look better then LD rips.
2. This release will look better then 16MM prints.


Hahahaha...


3. The colours will be better and more consistent then the 2004 version.
4. This release could have been much worse.


Yes,it could have been mastered from the 1982, 1985, 1986 VHS tapes....


5. This release will be decent DVD quality (I expect video to be 7 or 8/10).


BUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! This is going to e VERY embarassing for you when the DVD´s get out.



Since you are the person, who claimed in the past that a DVD can truly represent the full resolution of a 35mm frame (LOL),
What I said was:

16MM is roughly equivalent to standard definition, and 35MM is roughly equivalent to high definition.


Which is complete nonsense, but we can, of course, start the 35mm thread again here, with people working in the industry opposing your amateurish claims.


I said DVD resolution is capable or reproducing all the detail that a 16MM frame can hold (and yes I know the colour is stored at a lower resolution on DVD - I was talking about DVD resolution, not the DVD format).


What is the difference between the resolution and the format? And again: nonsense.


In the same way, HD resolution is capable of reproducing all the detail in a 35MM frame.


Again: the biggest nonsense.


This is widely accepted to be true


Sure.


- it does not resolve the issue of whether films shot digitally look as good as those shot directly onto film - but when talking about display formats ... 16MM=SD, 35MM=HD. What I said was that because the Star Wars film was in such bad condition that parts of the film had to be permanently replaced on the master reels, and because it had deteriorated so much that there isn't much more detail in the film then can be represented in SD.


The only parts replaced were the ones which used new CGI footage. The original negatives, while faded and dirty, still retained all of their picture information. Again, you are spreading bullshit here. Even if they had to replace parts of the negative with other film stock, it would still be superior to HD and of course vastly superior to 720x480.....


Note I was talking about the original film - I do think that ROTJ may look better then the other two - and I also said that a lot of the detail in the 2004 version is an illusion caused by the detail in newly added digital elements


In the 2004 SE you see no difference between the shots which are clearly unaltered and the new cgi shots. Again, a hint that you actually did not watch the 2004 SE very careful. Funnily, even in the new, digital recomposited shots, you can clearly see film grain.


- I stand by that with this as my proof:

*various images*



Ummm, what proof?

YOU GOT TO FIGHT! *BOOM , BOOM* FOR YOUR RIGHT.... *FOR LOOOW QUALITYY!!!!!*
Post
#239388
Topic
Slideshow of ANH changes since 1977
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/239388/action/topic#239388
Time
They forgot to mention the following changes:

- Insertion of vertical scanlines into the holographic projections of Leia.
- Changing of graphics during the Death Star Battle of the "aiming computer" displays
- they fixed the "jump cut" when 3PO and R2 are walking past the shooting stormtroopers at the beginning, when the explosion to the right is detonating
- they fixed the "jump cut" during the beginning of the movie when R2 unrolls his third leg, after Leia gave him the plans...

There are probably more...

And while I´m now watching the 2004SE for comparisons: There is still lots of film grain in the 2004SE, so all this talk about a digitally washed up version is really stupid. The only thing they totally fucked up in the restauration is the colour.



Post
#238883
Topic
So, this is how the DVDs are going to look...
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/238883/action/topic#238883
Time
Originally posted by: tellan
the only way for us to get OOUT on DVD in top quality is for LFL to do what they did to the 2004 SE. rescan the original film neg, recomposite everything digitally.

Most of us don´t even demand this. We just want them to be remastered from a good 35mm copy, which various sources have already claimed to posess.


considering that to make the 1997 SE, the had to scan and recomp everything in the first place, there must be a full versioin of the original film to start with, Lucas just doesn't want to acknowledge its existence.


Well, he recut the negative, which means the OOT can not easily be obtained from the negative anymore. But negatives aren´t the only high quality sources.


laserdisc.

=

film neg


Afaik, the Laserdiscs were not mastered from the negatives but preservation copies.


to master tape


Involving old telecine equipment, which does not yield the clarity and resolution modern film scanners achieve.


to laserdisc processed version
to capture version (raw footage reinterpolated by a computer system)
to re-encoded. (ad infinitum depending on how many processed you run it through.)


Laserdiscs are not digital, hence there is no re-encoding.


that means, our bootlegs are between 4 or more steps between us and the original film which is a lot of processing.


Which is even more shameful considering that the pictures already suggest there won´t be much quality difference.


new OUT DVD

=

film neg


Again, no.


to master tape
to dvd


You forgot the encoding process.


gives us more grain etc but we are working with more raw footage. okay, it means the film grain is there (bear in mind that the lowry processing pretty much eliminated the original film grain anyway, giving us a really pristine image but it always felt a little odd to me because its almost too perfect.)


Another jump on boris "but there is no filmgrain!!!!" wagon. First: DVD is too much of a low quality medium, to see film grain when movies are mastered from the negative. If you master from n-generation 35mm copies or 16mm, you can see grain even on DVD´s.

Furthermore: most people here don´t mind film grain. Film grain is a natural element of 35mm. What we mind is loss of resolution and brilliance through:

1. Non anamorphic transfers
2. Transfers made with old telecine equipment (lack of contrast, and resolution).


then I can use my filters, colour correction etc to bring the footage up. Russ15 knows what my filters can do after I showed him some samples from when I fiddled with the editdroid version.


Yo can not add picture information where there is nothing.


of course. all the work being done by X0 project is relevant because as the LD and the new OUT DVD is struck from the same master tapes, then the footage suffers from the same problems of dirt, grain, damaged frames etc.


No, because they are hand-fixing these problems. I believe that in the end, the X0 transfer will look better than the official DVD´s. They are working with raw uncompressed images while when workind with the DVD, you have to re-compress everything, introducing more digital artifacts.


so, while this release isn't exactly top, we were already adjusting non anamorphic LD to be anamorphic, so nothing changed there, we have an original source to look at.


Again: YOU CAN NOT ENHANCE THE PICTURE QUALITY BY UPSCALING A NON-ANAMORPHIC FRAME TO ANAMORPHIC.


I think the only unanswered question is whether or not the original trilogy release to come is using master tapes? or master tapes that had the additional processing etc for ´LD added to it.


Isn´t this irrelevant? Both will look like sh/t on DVD.

Post
#238872
Topic
So, this is how the DVDs are going to look...
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/238872/action/topic#238872
Time
Ah, here we go again:

Originally posted by: boris
Originally posted by: Mike O
As these DVD transfers do not meet industry stards, I must repectfully disagree. It's still considered industry standard to release non-anamorphic sourced material as non-anamorphic (many DVD's with extras feature a mix of anamorphic and non-anamorphic features). It's annoying, but it's standard.


The source material of the OOT is anamorphic 35mm film shot in 2.35:1 aspect ratio. Easy enough source material to make a HD transfer.


They're using SD non-anamorphic master tapes, so it's not necessary to resize them for DVD.


Yes it is, i live and PAL land, and could (if I would buy them) "enjoy" the upscaled, overall sh/tty looking SD NTSC masters.

Yes, I'm well aware they could do it really well if they chose to, but I still fail to see how this is a requirement.


If you don´t care about quality, fine. You claimed yourself in the past that non-anamorphic Laserdiscs have the same quality as DVD´s when watched on a beamer..... But there are other people around here who aren´t so blind as obviously you are.

Better stick to your VHS tapes.


People are going to start buying HD-TV's. And HD TV's will see DVD players with better inbuilt scaling (in fact I've seen some excellent scaling just on set top boxes)... which will up scale both anamorphic and non anamorphic PAL/NTSC to an HD signal. Or you can buy a progressive scan DVD player ... or you can rip it and resize it yourself on your home PC. So why on earth does it matter so much that the disc is non-anamorphic?


LOL. You clearly don´t have a clue what you are talking about, do you?

HD users won´t use DVD´s anymore. And watching a DVD on a high resulution medium, instead on a plain old CRT TV, brings all the flaws out even more. Upscaling does NOT add picture information, it softenes the pixels. But then again, this coming from a person who claims there is no difference between Laserdiscs and DVD´s on a beamer.... *LOL*


You're nitpicking it to death. It's standard procedure, and there are movies released on DVD - that were made after Star Wars - that are not available in anamorphic form.


Yeah, Sex flicks and Zombie/Splatter movies coming from low-budget DVD labels. Oh man, you are defending this ridiculous point to the death, aren´t you?

Btw, there are movie releases, made long time before Star Wars, that are not only anamorphic, but have already a HD transfer. What now, my friend?

YOU GOT TO FIGHT! *BOOM , BOOM* FOR YOUR RIGHT.... *FOR LOOOW QUALITYY!!!!!*
Post
#238869
Topic
So, this is how the DVDs are going to look...
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/238869/action/topic#238869
Time
And here goes the further defending FOR low quality:


Originally posted by: boris

LinkLoucst demanded the highest level of grain removal. It does not truly represent the original negative.

If you look careful, you can still spot the film grain in the transfers. Since you are the person, who claimed in the past that a DVD can truly represent the full resolution of a 35mm frame (LOL), I highly doubt that you are the one who actually can spot hard film grain removal and its symptoms in digital restaurations.

So, you think that an old non-anamorphic soft and washed-out transfer made in 1993 with obsolete equipment represent the originals better than an all-new transfer directly made from the negatives, right?


And as for your other comment, I wish you would stop calling them "LD transfers" - because it just shows that either you don't know what you're talking about, or you're biased to the point of over-exaggerations and false claims.


They are LD transfers, made from the LD mastertapes, and the screenshots already show clearly all the flaws. They lack detail, and contrast and won´t, in general, look better than the fan preservations. Repeat: they won´t look better than the fan preservations.

Now, go ahead, and think of something new, how to defend this procedure coming from a multi billion dollar company.

Sorry, this is just plain ridiculous. "Fans" fighting for low Star Wars quality, *LOL*
Post
#238670
Topic
So, this is how the DVDs are going to look...
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/238670/action/topic#238670
Time
Originally posted by: boris
Originally posted by: Vigo
By the way, the way the 2004 SE looks is closest to what the negatives look like (except the boosting of the colours). No they do not.


Of course they do. Those movies were in perfect shape when freshly unloaded from the camera... The only tinkering done to it was ridiculously boosting up the colours and of course the SE changes.


And the funny thing is on any other DVD release people wouldn't even be aware that they used the same master tapes as were used for LD releases.


Such unaware people exist everywhere, you are right. But only in the Star Wars fanbase, they get vocal and try to explain the low quality problems away, citing idiotic phrases as "They look great!", "This is the way how these movies looked back then!", "...but they HAVE the right aspect ratio!!!", "as long as they look better than my old VHS, I´m gonna buy them!!!!". Only here, you have people who actually FIGHT FOR low quality.

And, another aspect for the lack of awareness is that LD transfers are not an issue anymore, unless you prefer to buy from very small labels, releasing splatter/zombie/porn flicks.

And you can bet your @ss that this "awareness" will suddenly increase once the first reviews will come out and customers bought those "Bonus Discs".
Post
#238657
Topic
So, this is how the DVDs are going to look...
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/238657/action/topic#238657
Time
Originally posted by: borisI've said it so many times that it's getting really really old - but so many DVD's were mastered from the old master tapes used for LD's that I don't see what the problem is here. It's not like they're promising more then they're delivering - and the quality will be good. Again, I'm glad they didn't grind it through the process the 2004 version went through that resulted in a picture that is good quality yes, but does not look like the star wars film.


The funny things is: on every average movie, people would justly dismiss inferior quality and simply not buy the DVD. There would be no discussion. But in the Star Wars universe, you have a whole horde of people who constantly try to downplay this ridiculous treatment. They look ugly and nowhere close to DVD quality, nothing what fan preservations already hadn´t done, which is just plain embarassing, Period. If you like that, and are willing to spend money for it, that´s fine.

By the way, the way the 2004 SE looks is closest to what the negatives look like (except the boosting of the colours).
Post
#232014
Topic
Making the best of a bad situation
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/232014/action/topic#232014
Time
Originally posted by: Jobel
Has this been confirmed?


Nope, but I bet on it, since all "bonus features" from NTSC DVDs have been just upscaled to PAL for release here. My guess is that in the best case, they use the NTSC master and just remove the 3:2 pulldown.

Hmmm, would be cool, if my PAL Laserdiscs will actually have more resolution than the official release. Too bad the the Pioneer X0 from the X0 Project can only handle NTSC discs.
Post
#228318
Topic
first viewing of the 2006 OOT dvds
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/228318/action/topic#228318
Time
Originally posted by: ESHBG
It's funny to me how LFL is pimping out the whole "Han Shoots First!" thing now. To me, it is pretty ridculous because Lucas is the one that started the whole issue from the beginning! It is like me creating a car design everyone loves. I later change it and people are upset, saying things like, "Bring that body style back!" Years later I offer the same style again and say, "Yeah, bring it back!" almost like I had nothing to do with it.


Ever heard of New Coke?