Wazzles

I have to wait for concrete? That sounds hard!

I guess it’s a matter of opinion. I assume it never showed up on home video because stereo compatibility was preferred to what George was calling his definitive version.

There’s nothing wrong with liking something. It really doesn’t matter if he likes it or not. Despite what you say, liking something it entirely subjective.

It looks to me like it will be a retrospective panel about the films and the CG shows. Hayden’s a natural fit for that. That doesn’t mean that they won’t say anything about the OUT, though.

Also, if Hayden’s in TLJ I’m going to be pissed. They should do everything they can not to canonize a specific version of the film. That way either version has legs beyond a curiosity.

It supposedly has less DNR than the 1993/US master, so they either went back to the telecine or something more radical.

TN1 sort of imploded, so who really knows what’s going on there. I know that there are plans to release a recolored and cleaned up version of the Grindhouse soon, so keep an eye out for that.

What was censored about it? I thought there were just changes.

I was just curious: are there any SE recomps left in this or is it completely theatrical?

Do we really need forum drama?

Fang Zei said:
Do we know what res the cg in TFA and RO was rendered at?

According to the IMDB pages, the DIs are in 4K. That doesn’t really tell us anything about the CG though.

NeverarGreat said:

joefavs said:

Incidentally, I think that TPM was the best CGI Jabba ever looked. I don’t understand how the 2004 version is so much worse than the 1999 one.

Time and money.

I think it’s lighting too. The TPM model is bathed in bright light, compared to the 04 which is very flatly lit.

Swazzy said:

I own that set. The GOUT is the same, non anamorphic widescreen with black bars on the top and bottom.

George had to make everyone​ angry. The people who wanted widescreen had to deal with letterboxing, and the people who wanted full screen had to deal with widescreen.

Could you post a few screenshots?

TV’s Frink said:

Look, for once we should all come together and agree that the SEs all suck.

In terms of most changes, sure. But that doesn’t make them bad films. There’s still Star Wars underneath all that CGI somewhere.

I like the idea, but in practice it seems like they would not be particularly sturdy. There’s nothing in them to provide support, like the Laserdiscs or LPs themselves. They need some sort of plastic tray to hold the discs. I also don’t like the artwork they chose. Plus they’re only available in the UK, or at least they were the last time I checked.

Mega?

Holy crap.

That looks perfect! If for some reason the OUT is not announced by May 25, I’ve been thinking about getting my dad the steelbooks for Father’s day and throwing a flash drive in there with fan preservations on them. These would go a long way to making it look nicer!

The 2004 DVD was announced in February 2004 and released in September. So 6-7 months from announcement to release.

Fang Zei said:

This “surprise” they’re teasing for the Celebration Orlando panel is either the announcement of a restored OOT or something entirely unrelated to a re-release of the movies, SE or otherwise.

An announcement of a 4k-restored SE - and nothing more - would be met with a big huge “who cares?”

That’s what I’m banking on.

Handman said:

I still have every VHS tape we’ve ever owned, except the few that were eaten up, I don’t understand why people get rid of them.

Because it’s an inferior format that takes up significant amount of room and degrades every time you watch them. I will be happy when all of my non-Star Wars tapes are gone.

I think there was some discussion a while ago about the soundtrack releases, and I think the consensus was that it was unrelated.

Pretty good.

flametitan said:

Editroid said:

Someone mentioned how obvious they felt the rotoscoping in Star Wars Despecialized 2.5 is, that the opening crawl wobbles and then speeds up weirdly at the end, and wishes the picture quality was more consistent.

The gate weave of the crawl is supposed to be there, though I agree the acceleration feels artificial (as far as I can tell, SSE suggests it should be a more gradual acceleration).

It’s the GOUT crawl, so it should be equivalent to the GOUT at least.

Ronster said:

Fang Zei said:

Ronster said:

I’ll tell you the answer 4k HDR.

Well it’s a good educated guess the only reason to do a new scan is really to add the HDR. You need to scan it in HDR to get the benefit of HDR.

But there would not be much point in that unless they sort out contrast color issues also anyway.

Just saying It could be good, really good. If it’s done right. It could also look totally different from what you are used to.

It needed a new scan anyway because the old lowry master isn’t even 2k, and even then it had serious issues like wrong color-timing. But the resolution of 35mm is at least 4k, so even if the lowry master looked perfect it was still only 1080p in terms of resolution, so that’s reason enough for a newer scan right there.

The HDR is added later, after the film is scanned in. Movies have been scanned and mastered in 4k for many years, since long before HDR was even invented.

Film is under 4k resolution about 3K. (areas do need to be cropped out also bear that in mind)

You can’t create color depth or a wider gammut that does not exist in a scan. either you capture it or you do not. You would need to capture it with a high exposure. It would not be any use putting your old DVD VHS or even Blu-ray and add HDR to it.

It would need to be prepared especially to have HDR and a wider color Gammut.

One estimate I read (for high quality still 35mm, mind you) is 175 megapixels. Still photography covers around 8 sprocket holes, whereas movie film is 4. A 4k 4x3 image is around 12 megapixels. I have also heard that the highest quality film stock can resolve about 6k of resolution. Honestly though, you really can’t compare the two. It’s an entirely different measurement system. No two people will give you the same estimate, and the quality of film stock varies, whereas digital is the resolution it is.