Wazzles

CHEWBAKAspelledwrong said:

also this one http://www.starwars.com/video/tusken-raider-attack

are they actively trolling?

Now how the heck did that happen?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BsyuBMLWF_s

RU.08 said:

yotsuya said:

That is awesome for a raw scan of a print. I can’t say that the changes to this film bother me as they do for some films. I appreciate the removal of the out of place elements and the correction of the sky. Not sure why they changed the sky in the flying scene. I’d have to watch it and see if I like the new version or not. But as I don’t have this film on blu-ray and my copy is the original version on DVD, I would be very interested in seeing the final product.

The Bluray is obscenely revisionist. Have a look at the Title card:

35mm (optical compositing):

Bluray (“glorious” digital compositing):

How can you tell? It looks pretty much the same to me.

I’d like to see that history if it’s ever finished.

yotsuya said:

. That Anakin would fall to the dark side leading to an epic light-saber duel between Obi-wan and Anakin in or around an active volcano. Anakin lost and was horribly injured and burned and ends up in the suit.

Is this in a book or something? I remember my dad mentioned something like this years before ROTS.

Fang Zei said:

SilverWook said:

Don’t most Blu-ray players have a zoom setting for non anamorphic DVD’s? I know Panasonic does.

But then you’ve got the problem of the alien language subtitles getting cut off. Unless of course the player doing the zooming also automatically repositions the subtitles, which I suppose is possible. I’ve got a panasonic bd player so maybe I’ll test it out on a 4:3 dvd.

If it’s on a player rather than a TV it might move the subtitles for you. At least, that’s what the Xbox 360 does.

I’m fairly certain those are legitimate- the 2008 set had an outer box like that and were kept in slim cases.

I think SW 2.7 has the wrong version number. If not, then the wrong version number is actually SSE.

One thing I would change about the letter would be to call it the Original Unaltered Trilogy, as Original Original Trilogy sounds slightly condescending.

Your Star Wars one seems to have an issue. Right across the Death Star is says “Rectangular”

It looks like you recolored the letterboxing too.

It doesn’t have an HD master. They seem unwilling to remaster it since there is so much work for what’s a comparitively small fan base (as opposed to something like TNG).

TV’s Frink said:

Wazzles said:

dahmage said:

Wazzles said:

yotsuya said:

Disco_Lobot said:

I laugh at people buying 4K TVs… your eyes are almost certainly not good enough to tell the difference in the vast majority of viewing scenarios. Total waste of money

http://bgr.com/2015/09/18/720p-vs-1080p-vs-4k-resolution/

If we were just talking about the absolute resolution, you are right. At my normal viewing distance I can’t tell the difference between 720 and 1080. I’m certainly not going to see much improvement from a 4k screen. But it isn’t just the resolution. The more pixels you have to display the image data, the better the image looks. The pixels start to disappear and be truly invisible. I’ve known this about printing for years, but when you apply it to video, it really helps the realism of the image, even if you are watching a 480 DVD. With the proper hardware, everything will look better on a 4k screen, even if you never get a UHD player or media.

My dad has a 43 inch 4K TV and DVDs look horrendous.

Often, if you turn off all that image enhacent crap, lower quality sources like dvd actually look better. I have a 51" 1080p plasma tv, and i think DVD’s look pretty damn good if they were authored at high bitrate. a bit soft, but good.

I have a 40 inch 1080p and DVDs look great unless I’m directly comparing them to Blu Rays. I honestly believe that 4k as a resolution is simply too high for a TV.

4k content looks better on my 40" 4k tv than 1080p. But then again, DVD is obviously poorer-looking even when not comparing directly to a Blu-ray, so…

[shrug]

That’s why I think 1080p hits a sweet spot for TV resolutions. This is especially true if you watch older TV series (or really made before the mid 2000’s), which look bad already. I have not attempted to watch something like MASH or The Simpsons on a 4k TV, but I wouldn’t anticipate good results.I think we have a ways to go before upscaling technology is good enough to make these palatable on a 4k screen.

dahmage said:

Wazzles said:

yotsuya said:

Disco_Lobot said:

I laugh at people buying 4K TVs… your eyes are almost certainly not good enough to tell the difference in the vast majority of viewing scenarios. Total waste of money

http://bgr.com/2015/09/18/720p-vs-1080p-vs-4k-resolution/

If we were just talking about the absolute resolution, you are right. At my normal viewing distance I can’t tell the difference between 720 and 1080. I’m certainly not going to see much improvement from a 4k screen. But it isn’t just the resolution. The more pixels you have to display the image data, the better the image looks. The pixels start to disappear and be truly invisible. I’ve known this about printing for years, but when you apply it to video, it really helps the realism of the image, even if you are watching a 480 DVD. With the proper hardware, everything will look better on a 4k screen, even if you never get a UHD player or media.

My dad has a 43 inch 4K TV and DVDs look horrendous.

Often, if you turn off all that image enhacent crap, lower quality sources like dvd actually look better. I have a 51" 1080p plasma tv, and i think DVD’s look pretty damn good if they were authored at high bitrate. a bit soft, but good.

I have a 40 inch 1080p and DVDs look great unless I’m directly comparing them to Blu Rays. I honestly believe that 4k as a resolution is simply too high for a TV. As far as projecting goes, I’m sure it’s great, but when you’re watching 480i-1080p content from a 40-60 inch TV and sitting about 10-12 feet away, it seems unnecessary.

yotsuya said:

Disco_Lobot said:

I laugh at people buying 4K TVs… your eyes are almost certainly not good enough to tell the difference in the vast majority of viewing scenarios. Total waste of money

http://bgr.com/2015/09/18/720p-vs-1080p-vs-4k-resolution/

If we were just talking about the absolute resolution, you are right. At my normal viewing distance I can’t tell the difference between 720 and 1080. I’m certainly not going to see much improvement from a 4k screen. But it isn’t just the resolution. The more pixels you have to display the image data, the better the image looks. The pixels start to disappear and be truly invisible. I’ve known this about printing for years, but when you apply it to video, it really helps the realism of the image, even if you are watching a 480 DVD. With the proper hardware, everything will look better on a 4k screen, even if you never get a UHD player or media.

My dad has a 43 inch 4K TV and DVDs look horrendous.

He would like to release it as an official product.

Cthulhunicron said:

Anyone else think Harmy’s DeSpecialized version looks better than this? The silver screen version is still cool to have, but I prefer watching the Despecialized edition.

They suit different needs. The SSE is more accurate and 100% HD, while DeD is much cleaner but not entirely HD.

yotsuya said:

Though I could see another GOUT type release as a bonus content. Perhaps rescanning and half-assed cleanup of those 1985 interpositives.

Honestly I would be fine with this. It’s important that the general public and future generations are able to see them. As great as fan preservations are, they don’t have nearly the wide-reaching impact of an official release.

imperialscum said:

TV’s Frink said:

But if you think the PT is better made, or do something insane like give the PT a 5/10 and RO a 1/10, you’re just trolling for reactions.

TFA plot is way bigger mess than any PT plot. It is simply horrible. So ranking TFA below PT is completely natural in this respect. When you also count in the complete lack of originality in TFA, the judgement is clear.

I think that your opinion is ridiculous, but would you care to explain why you feel that way?

I think it’s silly to hide the existence of the PT/ST from children. Just tell them they exist but you don’t want to watch them yourself. That’s what I intend to do with the PT at least when I eventually have children.

One thing to note about the TB us that it has been slightly sped up for its PAL conversion.

nickyd47 said:

I think on the 2004 and 2011 discs it actually says copyright 1997 haha

It does.

I never gave exact reasons for mine, so here goes:

1. Empire
   All around great film, much more mature than the rest of the films. It also isn’t trying to live up to anything else. It was a bold move to go after Star Wars. The acting and writing are much improved, and the Falcon escaping through the asteroid field is my favorite scene in any movie.

2. Star Wars
   Works well as its own film, and the only one in the franchise that can say that. It has a clear beginning, middle, and end, yet it leaves it open for more to come. It’s a great adventure film that’s a lot of fun, as well as showcasing groundbreaking effects work. However, these effects date it far more than Empire, and the Lightsaber fight is not well choreographed.

3. TFA
   Great introduction to the new trilogy, introduces us to new character who are actually likable. Very well written, but asks too many questions for its own good.

4. Jedi
   A childhood favorite marred by poor decisions. The opening act, Luke/Vader confrontation, and the space battle are phenomenal. Yet it has pacing issues and stupid ideas galore (Ewoks, Luke/Leia).

5. Rogue One
   I’ve only seen it once, but I felt that it was far too dark for its own good. CGI Tarkin was extremely distracting, and the Vader scene made the Saber battle in Star Wars look even worse. It was also fairly forgettable. The Star Destroyers looked excellent, however. Still miles better than the prequels.

6. Phantom Menace
   This is primarily a nostalgia choice, since this was one of the first movies I saw in theaters. Obviously has issues with pacing, characters, humor, and racism. Most of the fights are dull and uninteresting. However, Duel of the Fates is absolutely incredible. The music and choreography are some of the best of the series.

7. Revenge of the Sith
   I honestly just find this really boring and poorly acted. It also continues the tradition of fucking up the timeline for the OT. Not many redeeming values, save for maybe Palpatine.

8. Attack of the Clones
   Utterly forgettable with almost nothing going for it. I like the seismic charges, and it was nice to see a Jedi fighting without a lightsaber, but that’s it. ROTS is just barely put together better.

It honestly wouldn’t have taken much more work to make acceptable discs out of them either. They just needed to make them anamorphic and few people would have complained. It wouldn’t have been that hard to do pan and scan discs either, since that work had already been done for the 95 tapes.

AOTC and ROTS have a 2K DI anyway. The live action was 1080p with the CGI rendered at 2K.