boris

User Group: Members
Join date: 24-Apr-2006
Last activity: 11-Oct-2006
Posts: 447

Post History

Post: #215570
Topic: ORIGINAL STAR WARS TRILOGY OUT 09/2006 BY LUCASFILM
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/215570/action/topic#215570
Time: 2-Jun-2006 12:36 AM

Originally posted by: zombie84
I'm sure the quality will be acceptably watchable for SD television owners. However, "Acceptable for SD" is not what DVD is designed for. Anyone with a widescreen set, an HD, LCD, Plasma or a DVD-ROM will quickly discover the poor quality of the transfer.

DVD's are SD. Plasma and LCD have fixed pixels, that means 720x480 fixed pixels in NTSC countries, and if they want to play back a PAL DVD, which is 720x576 ... they have to display it at 720x480. The same with NTSC in Pal countries, ntsc movies in 720x480 has to be displayed at 720x576 on Plasma or LCD.

DVD-ROM on the other hand, has to resize ANY video for display on a computer monitor regardless of if it's pal, ntsc, anamorphic or non-anamorphic - so assuming the source video is non-anamorphic... what makes you think an anamorphic conversion of it will look better on a PC?

Guys, I'd be very interested in seeing a comparison between the ntsc and pal video when the DVD is released, because *one* of the two will be resized from the source material, I wonder if PAL will have more picture information, ... or if it'll just be an up-scaled version...

Post: #215568
Topic: .: Citizen's NTSC DVD / PAL DVD / XviD project :. (Released)
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/215568/action/topic#215568
Time: 2-Jun-2006 12:31 AM

Man all this discussion makes me want to download Citizen's PAL DVD's... are they (the first 2 anyway) on myspleen?

Post: #215564
Topic: .: Citizen's NTSC DVD / PAL DVD / XviD project :. (Released)
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/215564/action/topic#215564
Time: 2-Jun-2006 12:21 AM

Originally posted by: Doctor M
To be fair at least 23.976 is close. Until there's a true 24 fps home format it'll have to do.
If the lines of resolution bother you get an HD-DVD/BluRay Player.
Anyone with a tin ear can hear how bad 25 fps sped up audio is. Those extra lines of resolution mean squat in comparison. Well that's not true because pitch is preserved these days. And to be perfectly honest, coming from a PAL country you do miss the 90 or so lines that is missing from NTSC whos resolution holds 480 lines, PAL has 576 lines, so From your point of view (if you're in an ntsc country) the difference is about a 20% increase in resolution compared to what you're used to. If you don't think that's significant then why is it that so many people here think there's such a big difference between non-anamorphic and anamorphic NTSC?

2.35:1 NTSC: 720x272
2.35:1 PAL: 720x324

The September DVD's will be in (about) the above resolutions.

2.35:1 Anamorphic NTSC: 720x360
2.35:1 Anamorphic PAL: 720x432

You still don't think it's significant?

And even when I watch movie in PAL and then NTSC I cannot tell the difference in speed. Even movies that don't have a corrected pitch. And I have an excellent ear, I’m not tone deaf, I distinguish pitch and tone and volume probably better then most people - to me MP3's sound hollow compared to CDA... yet most people can't tell the difference. MY visual senses are probably more forgiving then my auditory ones. Can you honestly say that a Pal movie that isn't pitch-corrected sounds wrong to you? If I gave you 3 Pal movies (one shot in 25 fps, one shot in 24 fps and pitch corrected, and the other shot in 24 fps and not pitch corrected) – would you really be able to pick out the one that wasn't pitch corrected? I'd find it difficult just to find a Pal DVD that wasn't pitch corrected in the first place.

The one thing that does bother me is "steady" pan shots in NTSC, because they always look awful due to the jitter, aside from that the pulldown doesn't bother me too much - I read once on the internet that more of the American population finds NTSC jitter noticeable then British people find the increased pitch noticeable - and as I said, to be fair these days movies released in PAL still play at the correct pitch. Also, from what I've heard when NTSC is broadcast the signal is highly unstable which causes it to be called "Never The Same Colour". I've never seen NTSC broadcast, so I don't really know, but someone told me this was related to the framerate being 29.97 instead of 30 fps.Originally posted by: Doctor M
Frankly I'd go so far as to say 99% of all film (for theatrical release) is shot at 24 fps regardless of country. The rare times you'll find true 25 fps film is when the destination is expected to be TV in a PAL country. Even the U.S. shoots it's TV at 24 fps instead of 30.

Yes I know that NTSC countries never shoot movies intended for cinema in 30fps, and I really don't know how accurate your "99%" is - because as I said you can never really know. If your ntsc dvd plays back at a 2:2:3:2:3 pulldown, then you may know - but I have a feeling that slowing the movie down to 23.976 fps is more common then using that pulldown (not that I'm an expert but someone told me that pitch suffers much more when it's slowed down a bit compared to if it's sped up). I have heard of cinema movies being shot in 25 fps instead of 24, mostly movies from Britain and other Pal countries - but you can never really know, I strongly suspect that quite a few American hollywood movies were shot at 25 fps too. I really wouldn't be prepared to estimate how many movies I think might be shot at the faster frame rate, because I'm really in no position to even make an informed estimate, I would simply be stabbing in the dark.

Anyway at least Pal plays back frame-for-frame, that almost makes up for the difference in speed (which although I can't notice it's still a little difficult to accept you're watching a movie timed incorrectly). At the end of the day they're both stupid standards. They have to make a 600Htz display standard for TV (that's 600 FPS), then that will handle everything fine (24 fps, 25 fps, 30 fps), played back at the correct frame rate with no pulldown, or shift in speed - when broadcast.

Post: #215549
Topic: Another way Lucas is screwing us! (re the 2006 GOUT DVD release)
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/215549/action/topic#215549
Time: 1-Jun-2006 11:02 PM

Originally posted by: THX
She is using the term loosely (like everyone else) to mean masters made for a Laserdisc release. They are not using Laserdiscs as the masters, trust me.

Or the be even more accurate - masters used for the laserdisc release.

Post: #215339
Topic: Close call for "Attack of the Sith"
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/215339/action/topic#215339
Time: 1-Jun-2006 1:04 PM

Shimraa the pic in your sig is awesome!

Post: #215329
Topic: ORIGINAL STAR WARS TRILOGY OUT 09/2006 BY LUCASFILM
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/215329/action/topic#215329
Time: 1-Jun-2006 12:17 PM

Originally posted by: THX
I'm gonna have to go with boris on this one. All VHS tapes were non-anamorphic but that doesn't mean it'll be VHS quality either. Anamorphic vs. letterbox has nothing to do with Laserdisc. The digital tape masters which these DVDs are made from have nothing to do with Laserdisc either.

Just to point something out:

“If Lucas can't be arsed to do the original trilogy justice, then I say, hand whatever he has over to Criterion and let them do the rest.”
see this link

I have some criterion DVD's... most of them were mastered form their laserdisc masters, for instance Robocop and Life of Brian. Silence of the Lambs was too (audio commentary lifted from the LD release too for both Silence of the Lambs and Robocop). When comparing Robocop to the MGM release I think Criterions looks much better... I think the guy who wrote that really doesn't know what he's talking about... if he hates DVD's released from LD masters Criterion should be on the TOP of his hate list!

Post: #215328
Topic: .: Citizen's NTSC DVD / PAL DVD / XviD project :. (Released)
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/215328/action/topic#215328
Time: 1-Jun-2006 12:14 PM

If you want my personal opinion both PAL and NTSC are terribly designed formats. PAL is obviously better, but being the lesser of two evils is about all it can claim. Now we have 24, 23.976 and 25 fps films, we have 24, 23.976, 25, 30 and 29.97 fps TV shows ... what a mess!

Post: #215325
Topic: .: Citizen's NTSC DVD / PAL DVD / XviD project :. (Released)
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/215325/action/topic#215325
Time: 1-Jun-2006 11:55 AM

Originally posted by: Darth Editous

Originally posted by: boris
I don't think the pitch was increased for the PAL releases of SW, I believe they're pitch-corrected.

I had to resample the snippets I took from the NTSC SE LDs to match the PAL DVDs, so it was just a straight resample.

Can pitch-correction be done in such a way that it doesn't cause audio artefacts? I believe they may have tried it with recent UK broadcasts of Stargate SG1, and you can hear the glitches. Yeah I read after I posted that.. still. Yes it can, but I don't know how. Basically you stretch the audio without changing the pitch (ie you never really "pitch correct"). It's one of those "more recent" developments I suppose, how NTSC used to just repeat every 4th frame but now they use the 2:3 pulldown (I also hear ntsc used to slow down pal material, whereas now they apply a 2:2:3:2:3 pulldown). Basically PAL and NTSC conversions are a lot better then they used to be.

Originally posted by: Darth Editous

1) PAL ... PC software ... can play back at 24fps.
2) NTSC ... PC Software can play back at 24fps without the pulldown. Lower resolution.

I just wanted to add the caveat that, in the case of PAL, 5.1 audio will be downsampled to stereo.

Howcome?Originally posted by: Darth Editous
This is true for Star Wars movies, and many other movies, but not all movies.

What movies would it not be the case for?

TV movies, and movies filmed in PAL countries, even if it's being filmed on forign soil which includes the occasional hollywood film that's shot in 25 fps rather then 24 (in cinema it would be slowed to 24 fps). I don't think it's very common, but then you can never know since they obviously don't publicise it. I think the main reason they sometimes do this is so they can watch their takes on a TV right away (interesting note is that sometimes when shooting on an open-matte the director would cover part of the tv/monitor with cardboard to mimic widescreen). There may also be some TV movies shot in 29.97 or 30 fps, which I would imagine is very rare.

Post: #215302
Topic: 1977-->1993: What?!
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/215302/action/topic#215302
Time: 1-Jun-2006 9:08 AM

Originally posted by: Gaffer Tape
It's already been confirmed, to my annoyance, that it will be in the matte rather than the actual picture. There was some interview referred to in the making of the '93 transfer that stated they had to go back to original elements before the subtitles were "burned in." I really prefer the subtitles in the actual frame. It just doesn't seem right to me that they should be outside elements that are digitally inserted in a black void that's not at all part of the movie, and that's the one thing about all my DVDs that I just have to do my best to ignore.

EDIT: I missed part of your question. On a 16x9, it most likely will be in the frame of the movie, even though it's still not actually part of the film element. On a standard TV, it will definitely be in the matte.

That's a good point, when I saw "hero" in theatres I was so distracted by how low they had placed the subtitles. I suppose you can fix this yourself with a DIY job. I always prefer "burnt-in" subtitles to "player-invoked" ones too...

Post: #215300
Topic: Another way Lucas is screwing us! (re the 2006 GOUT DVD release)
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/215300/action/topic#215300
Time: 1-Jun-2006 8:10 AM

Originally posted by: Luke Skywalker
DVD Times

have fun watching a non anamorphic widescreen laserdisc transfer that not even uses the whole disc...

Dude, "superbit" claim to "max out dvd quality and fill the disc with just the video and audio in their HIGEST POSSIBLE QUALITY!!!!" as justification for not including special features... but pop one in, and you'll find that the movie only takes up 6gig or less typically, leaving stacks of free space. Simply said, you don't have to use all the bits on a DVD to have a movie encoded in good quality. I mean come on!

Post: #215298
Topic: Just Saw The Unaltered Trilogy For The First Time...
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/215298/action/topic#215298
Time: 1-Jun-2006 7:57 AM

Originally posted by: Darth_Evil
So I looked into getting the September DVD releases, thinking it would be cool to have a better transfer and an anamporphic version. (I don't know if my bootlegs are anamorphic or not) Then I saw the news. No remastering. No anamorphic.

I'll stick with my bootlegs, thank you.

I own the 1995 vhs with a sticker that says "last time available" on it. I snagged myself some bootlegs too, you know - but I always said to myself I would buy the movie when it's released, and that's what I'll do. I've been thinking about downloading another version bootleg, but now I reckon I can just hold out to September... maybe i'll print me some nice DVD covers since the official ones are little... lame. I don't mean to burn you, but the official release will be of better quality, and best of all, it will be a LEGAL release. Why not sell your 2004 DVD's now, get what you can for them and then buy the LE's later this year? You'll still get the 2004 movies with them. You might want to try selling each episode separately on ebay now, you might get more for them like that. I also think it's a little hard right now to make judgements on the quality of the september unaltered trilogy since we've not actually got to see it yet.

But I mean some movies are better when they are "changed" like Alien 3 - I don't think I ever want to watch the theatrical version again after seeing the special edition that was truer to the way that Fincher wanted it. I couldn't believe how different the movie was! When I was a kid I loved Terminator 2: Special Edition, but now I've had a chance to grow up I hate it compared to the theatrical cut. I don't know why I ever liked having so much extra crap in the movie! I don't know why Lucas didn't just start again and film the O.T. from scratch if he thinks he has to make so many changes to the movie. DAMN.

What strikes me as odd is how Lucas can like say about Empire Strikes Back that he always wanted the audience to see more of the ice monster - when he wasn't even the director! he must be a perfectionist/control freak.

Anyhow I'll destroy my bootlegs, or better still post them to LucasFilm with a "thankyou" note attached... or maybe I'll just use them as coasters. You can never have too many coasters.

Post: #215297
Topic: Idea: Personalized preservation possible with September 2006 OT DVD's
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/215297/action/topic#215297
Time: 1-Jun-2006 7:34 AM

Originally posted by: calamari
Doesn't solve the NTSC vs PAL problem. I see no way to resolve this.

Seperate patches. But at the end of the day both should have exactly the same *frame* count, so if you write a generic patch to cut at frame 11850 then that should be the same frame on either a Pal or Ntsc disc. In theory! Don't stone me if I'm wrong!!

Sounds interesting anyway.

Post: #215294
Topic: Mono mix for Moth3r's ANH DVD
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/215294/action/topic#215294
Time: 1-Jun-2006 7:25 AM

Mother, can you do a version timed to the PAL september DVD release later? oh please please please please please, I've never heard the theatrical mono track!

Post: #215271
Topic: .: Citizen's NTSC DVD / PAL DVD / XviD project :. (Released)
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/215271/action/topic#215271
Time: 1-Jun-2006 2:57 AM

Originally posted by: HyperYagami
Thx for all the answers Karyudo and Citizen. So are these correct?

1) PAL -> speeded up from original film (23.976fps -> 25fps), higher-pitch audiotrack
2) NTSC -> same framerate as the original film, no alteration to the LD NTSC audiotrack, resized from the PAL capture.

Thanks!

I don't know who told you cinema is 23.976fps, it's 24fps. NTSC is slightly slowed down as it runs at 29.97fps as opposed to 30fps - but it's not by much. I think you'll find that NTSC was originally 30fps not 29.97fps but was changed for some reason. I don't think the pitch was increased for the PAL releases of SW, I believe they're pitch-corrected. Thus this is correct:

1) PAL -> sped up from original film by 4% (24fps -> 25fps), higher resolution. PC software (PowerDVD, WinDVD, etc) can play back at 24fps.
2) NTSC -> slightly slowed down from original film (24fps -> 23.976fps), played back with a 2:3 jitter pulldown on DVD players, PC Software can play back at 24fps without the pulldown. Lower resolution.

This is true for Star Wars movies, and many other movies, but not all movies. Basically if you were to watch them on a projector through a PC the only difference would be that the PAL version has a higher resolution. But if you're to watch them on a TV through a DVD player then all those other differences come into play.

Post: #215214
Topic: ORIGINAL STAR WARS TRILOGY OUT 09/2006 BY LUCASFILM
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/215214/action/topic#215214
Time: 31-May-2006 11:13 PM

Originally posted by: vbangle

Originally posted by: boris It certainly sounds like they'll be great quality!

Your idea of "great quality" is WAY off from the other 99% of people on this board.....since when was non-anamorphic laserdisc considered great quality?

Just because its non-anamorphic doesn't mean it'll be laser-disc quality. It'll be much better then the laserdisc, which I'm sure 10 years ago everyone thought was amazing quality anyway.

Post: #215196
Topic: Info Wanted: What is the best preservation version of the Original Trilogy?
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/215196/action/topic#215196
Time: 31-May-2006 10:21 PM

Originally posted by: RobinHood
Hello everyone,

It´s been a while since visiting. What you too?Originally posted by: RobinHood
Yes, it´s very sad the the OT won´t be released in Anamorphic in september, which is the reason for this post.

Is this confirmed?

I guess I'll stick to a PAL release then as at least non-anamorphic PAL isn't that worse then anamorphic NTSC (it's a little lower resolution without the 2:3 jitter, and still higher res then NTSC). Sigh... R1 DVD's are usually among the cheapest as well.

Post: #215192
Topic: ORIGINAL STAR WARS TRILOGY OUT 09/2006 BY LUCASFILM
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/215192/action/topic#215192
Time: 31-May-2006 10:08 PM

Originally posted by: Doctor M

I do encourage you all to buy this release, or else you are liar too - because you've all said that you would buy the O-OT if released..

Sure, but did we expect the father of THX to just crap out a set of Original Trilogy when we said that?

I'm looking forward to the release, one way or another. I may not agree with how Lucas has done it, but I'll buy the movies, and by the sound of it, enjoy them! It certainly sounds like they'll be great quality! And at least he's doing better then Spielberg did with E.T. ... that is he is doing a global release. I had to buy an R1 E.T. just to have the theatrical cut (though it should be noted that we get so little released on DVD anyway, even Australia gets like 4 times as many DVD's released - or more). But let's not beat about the bush, the copy I bought was the Special Edition... but on disc 2 it has the theatrical version.

So the way Lucas is releasing it as a 2-disc set, is fine really. At least he's not using seamless branching (which I really don't think would work as so much of the movies has been edited), and at least it will be a global release.

Post: #215026
Topic: ORIGINAL STAR WARS TRILOGY OUT 09/2006 BY LUCASFILM
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/215026/action/topic#215026
Time: 31-May-2006 3:02 AM

Originally posted by: Moth3r
But there's still the mono mix restoration... I suppose audio restorations would be handy, to be timed correctly for the Pal DVD's.

Originally posted by: Doctor M
Citizen

edit: HELL HAS FROZEN OVER!! ALSO, do not forget, by releasing an OT DVD, it now meets the Digital Millenium Copyright Act and probably the Library Of Congress film preservation critera.
Before what we did here was vaguely legal because we were preserving something that did not exist in a digital format. That is no longer the case, no matter how bad the official release may be.
Prepare for a lot of legal notices to be mailed to preservationists.... What's that? I didn't think this was ever legal anywhere, except maybe in countries which don't honour copyrights...

Originally posted by: zaz_fan
P.S. Why the sudden rush to remove all the torrents from MySpleen? Surely, these can stay up till the official dvds are released? Probably cause Rik is honouring his word - which is that he won't distribute films that are released?

Originally posted by: MeBeJedi
It should be enough to suck the wind out of many a preservationist's sails. Keep in mind that the '04 set, despite ridiculous color, audio and content changes, still sold tremendously well. Hell, the O-OT is being sold as an "added bonus". You could look at it as Lucas making sure his loudest detractors are forced to buy his bastardized editions in addition to their favorite version.

I knew he'd never have the balls to sell them seperately. Well he did say in 1995 that it was the last time the original movies would be available (there's a sticker on the box of my VHS trilogy saying that)... I suppose adding them as an "extra" means he's technically not breaking his word on that.

Originally posted by: Metallaxis
Wait a minute: If I have the original LD, I can have as many copies or transfers as I like in my home, provided that I do not sell them or progect them in public places. Backing-up is not illegal. Am I wrong on this one? I think the exact same thing applies to compuer game's no-cd copy protection cracks. As long as you have the original disc, you can copy it and use it with the appropriate crack to use your backup to play it.
I can number a few sites that on that ground continue to provide download links to such cracks legaly. Am I mistaken here?

Sorry for getting out of topic, but there are so many things on my mind right now, I have to share them!

Look I don't know if you can legally, but I certainly can't. Backing up software (not computer games) is the only form of back up that has ever been legal, and that was for provisions of "1 archival back-up only". Since the introduction of more stable and reliable digital media (CD and DVD), there has never been any use for legalizing back-ups as the originals are seen to be of high enough quality to be reliable without needing a spare back-up copy.

NZ is the most beautiful country in the world. Aus are getting changes (damn them!) Their Government has plans to make "format shifting" legal - but this will not legalize back-ups.... so backing up a CD to CD-R will still be illegal, as will backing up a DVD to DVD-R. The laws will legalize "backing up" from VHS or LaserDisc to DVD-R for personal use only, but it will (of course) remain illegal to distribute, or share, these copies with others. If that makes sense, more info here:

MAJOR COPYRIGHT REFORMS STRIKE BALANCE

In no uncertain terms, it says clearly:

Can someone else make a copy in a different format for me?

No. A format-shift copy must be made by the owner of the original copy. It will not be possible for a business to make copies for a customer.

Can I make a 'back-up' copy of a CD in case the original is lost or damaged?

No. A format-shift copy must be in a different audio format to the original.

Will I be able to copy a computer game?

No.

As I've explained these laws are not yet passed, and when they do here in NZ they mean squat… but it's a good basis for change as our government mimics what Aus and UK is doing (f*ck they're sheep sometimes – no pun intended lol).Originally posted by: RATLSNAKE
Furthermore, I do not like that comment about "state-of-the-art of 1993". If this comment has any truth to it, this is stating clearly they are not going back to any original film stock, and that they will return to some archived master they made in 93 for the then LD and VHS releases. If this is the case that is lazy and poor.

This is fine by me, the digital master they made in 1993 is fine. It was extensively cleaned up and restored at the time, and was state-of-the-art 1993 technology - granted they may be able to do a bit "better" now, but they'd probably ruin it by applying that damned grain filter to the maximum level as the did in 2004.Originally posted by: RATLSNAKE
Further to my previous rant, September is still FAR AWAY! Until we get copies of what Lucas is feeding us, and we can confirm he has given us what we have wanted, let's go on as per usual doing what we do.

Oh come on you can't be serious?Originally posted by: Darth Editous
I'm sure someone will have a real answer for you, but as I noted in my ANH thread, if you watch the transition into the Jabba scene on the 2004 DVD, you can actually see, briefly, elements of the 1997 SE Jabba.

Interesting. I hired the 2004 DVD's when they came out, watched with the commentaries and have kept a copy of them on my HDD ever since (which i've not watched since, I've just kept them there in case there's something like this to check out)... i'll upload a pic of this so people can see what you mean:

Old Jabba ElementsOriginally posted by: andy_k_250
Could it be that the material released in September is going to be what was originally extracted from the original old theatrical master film reels for the 1993 Definitive Edition Laser Disc's? My reasoning is this - they keep mentioning 1993 technology - maybe they are talking about the first digital encoding done back in 1993. That first encoding was then compressed to fit a LD's space parameters, I assume. Maybe they are going to use the 1993 encoding and transfer it to DVD, which by should by definition create less compression from the digital source made in 1993 from the masters, as well as allowing more lines, which would let each image be able to breathe more than it did in the constraints of the LD format.

It's fully possible for this release to be what was hinted at by the OT (unaltered) scenes in Building Empire. Those few scenes, in my opinion, looked great.

The fact that they mention the original crawl for SW makes me wonder if they are using a theatrical master reel, since this would include the original crawl. However, as many here have demonstrated, it's not that hard to make your own crawl.

I would say that their digital master was transferred using way outdated technology to Laser Disc. If they were to transfer it from the same master at the same resolution using today’s technology I'm sure the end result will be much better. It wouldn't be difficult to capture just the opening crawl from a theatrical reel to insert onto the DVD release.Originally posted by: Zebonka
I did have one thought about it though. If they do screw this up (and I'm not for a moment saying they definitely will - I will offer up my trust until September) then it really will be the end, you know! It's not like one can start a new petition saying : "Well... ok, we've got the OOT now. But can we have it in better quality?". That'd probably get 12 signatures and not even 1/10th the publicity that the current petition got.

True, and any imperfections in the transfer will be minor at worst.

Anyway to quote my alleged irish roots... oh f*ck it... the rest of you who think you were drunk here... you're sober by my standards. I've had about 12 standard drinks over the last half hour (thank you Vodka!) and I bet none of you can tell this is written by someone who's so drunk he probably would knock on the wrong door getting home! Anyway until I visit this site next, which may not be for many months, stay well, enjoy this release, remember what I said in my previous posts and I do encourage you all to buy this release, or else you are liar too - because you've all said that you would buy the O-OT if released...

-BORiS!!!

Post: #215003
Topic: ORIGINAL STAR WARS TRILOGY OUT 09/2006 BY LUCASFILM
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/215003/action/topic#215003
Time: 31-May-2006 12:17 AM

Anyway, fair's fair. Lucas may not be a man of his word, but I am. I said, before I ever touched a DVD-R Laserdisc copy that I would buy the official release, if released - and I'll sick by that. Even though I don't agree with how Lucas has played the market for fools, and is deliberatly trying to get people to buy the movie on DVD twice.

Post: #215000
Topic: ORIGINAL STAR WARS TRILOGY OUT 09/2006 BY LUCASFILM
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/215000/action/topic#215000
Time: 30-May-2006 11:55 PM

Originally posted by: TR47
I knew this would happen eventually, I just didn't expect it so soon. These sorts of manipulative business practices employed by so many modern companies have become very commonplace. I posted a theory about this roughly 6 months ago detailing my suspicions, and lo and behold, it has manifested itself. Lucas has known all along what people want, and has simply been stringing the fans along. Anyway, I'm just glad that it's now official. Don't be too shocked when the movies are rererererereleased onto HD-DVD within 3 years.

Yes, it's called 1. underselling, and 2. two-tier marketing. Underselling because hundreds of thousands of people who bought the 2004 DVD's will now buy this new release as well because they were "undersold" on the original release - in other words it didn't have everything they wanted. Two-tier marketing because this is now the 3rd release of the same movies, it's a way for Lucasfilm to (excuse my french) f*ck-over their customers. The Phantom Menace - which was released BEFORE the trilogy for instance, has had only 1 DVD release, not 3. It has not even been released "bundled" with the other 2 prequel movies.

Don't be surprised if Christmas time 2007 Lucas releases the Theatrical trilogy on DVD not attached to the 2004 SE DVD's as an oober special "30th anniversary ultra limited edition release!!!!!!!!".

It was just 1 year and 8 months ago that Lucas had said:

"The special edition, that’s the one I wanted out there. The other movie, it’s on VHS, if anybody wants it. ... I’m not going to spend the, we’re talking millions of dollars here, the money and the time to refurbish that, because to me, it doesn’t really exist anymore. It’s like this is the movie I wanted it to be, and I’m sorry you saw half a completed film and fell in love with it. But I want it to be the way I want it to be. I’m the one who has to take responsibility for it. I’m the one who has to have everybody throw rocks at me all the time, so at least if they’re going to throw rocks at me, they’re going to throw rocks at me for something I love rather than something I think is not very good, or at least something I think is not finished."

Post: #203771
Topic: US Market Set-top DVD players that can play both PAL & NTSC DVD's
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/203771/action/topic#203771
Time: 24-Apr-2006 8:49 AM

Oh also, as a note to nitpick ... lcd and plasma displays have physically fixed pixels and unlike crt technically cannot change resolution. What this means is that for a PAL monitor you have 576 lines ... for an NTSC monitor you only have 480 lines .... SO, if you're going to play a PAL DVD on an NTSC lcd or plasma TV then the picture is resized from pal resolution to pseudo-ntsc resolution at 25fps. Likewise if you're going to play an NTSC DVD on a PAL lcd or plasma TV, then the picture is resized into pseudo pal resolution as it cannot be displayed in its native resolution.

These limitations do not apply to CRT.

Also all yanks be thankful you have the MPAA. We have a crummy sheep of an O.F.L.C. that plagiarizes classifications from Australia and Great Britain! At least yours makes up their own minds.

Post: #203770
Topic: US Market Set-top DVD players that can play both PAL & NTSC DVD's
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/203770/action/topic#203770
Time: 24-Apr-2006 8:39 AM

As an interesting note, in New Zealand it is illegal for retail to sell region-locked DVD players. In fact when region coding came out your average joe doe didn't have a clue as to what region number he was actually in. To confuse matters more NZ now has (nearly unrestricted - see http://www.med.govt.nz/templates/Page____1230.aspx ) parallel-importing of DVD's - making cheaper overseas releases legally available to purchase at any retail outlet. For this reason if it were not illegal to sell region-locked players consumers would have it even worse. France, I believe, also has parallel-importing.