logo Sign In

boris

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

Post History

Post
#244820
Topic
Star Wars Limited Edition Screen Captures.
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/244820/action/topic#244820
Time
Originally posted by: Zion
Most of them are not off by one frame. I used a combination of THX' and 88keyz' screenshots on the comparison site. But I'd appreciate a list of the ones you think are off so I can check them out, and maybe THX or 88keyz can get us a new shot.

btw, it looks like the PAL GOUT is off by one in shot 36. Can someone recapture that one?
Hey Zion, how about I do the PAL SE sceencaps for you? Would you like those?
Post
#244584
Topic
Star Wars Limited Edition Screen Captures.
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/244584/action/topic#244584
Time
Originally posted by: Zion
I don't know, looking at them side by side, it's hard to tell a difference. Where are you looking specifically?
I have to agree, with just a very gentle unsharp mask you can restore the crispness in the PAL version, after that any difference disappears. The more I look at it, the more impressed I am at their resize algorithm.

Moth3r, that's an isolated incident. I've checked other screenshots against yours, and your one contains significantly less detail. In fact, in many respects a lot of yours looks to be converted from NTSC resolution, rather then PAL resolution... which makes me wonder if the French PAL LD's were in fact mastered entirely from PAL Master-Tapes... or if only parts were mastered at PAL resolution. The Greedo scene is the only other frame where I can honestly say yours has more detail - from the one's I've checked (which isn't all of them)... we know that's a subtitled scene. So what if France simply sourced that scene, because it was subtitled, and the final scene... since that will be subtitled too from a PAL source, and the rest - or most of the rest was from an NTSC resolution source? I know it still doesn't explain the framing or the scratches... but it doesn't appear to have an edge on vertical detail in most shots... in fact, in most shots the GOUT disc does.

BTW, here's an interesting one:

http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/9127/goutntsc014pl9.jpg
http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/6383/goutpal014tu4.jpg

What happened to the horizontal scanlines in the hologram for NTSC?
Post
#244466
Topic
Are the PAL GOUT DVDs upscaled from the NTSC masters?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/244466/action/topic#244466
Time
Originally posted by: Karyudo
Leech.

I see you sucking up to those people providing you stuff for free, and dissing those people who you now consider of no use to you. Making covers is creative and difficult, but it's not nearly as creative and difficult as making a top-notch LD preservation (which you'd know if you'd ever tried it). And the X0 Project Zion is part of is as top-notch as top-notch gets.

I am very much looking forward to the day when the X0 Project trumps any official release. Which I am now sure it can, and will (especially since it now has access to the GOUT discs in addition to all its other sources). I know you say you're satisfied with the GOUT release, but you'll be curious to compare, and I believe you'll have a tough time finding a sympathetic audience for your continued support of the GOUT as best-in-show.

I imagine if Lucas ever put out a collection of alternate DVD covers, you'd find another "creative" group to kiss up to, tossing cover makers in the bin along with LD preservationists, eh?
I meant no offence. I do have respect for Zion, as I've explained.

pupil:

http://img174.imageshack.us/img174/6279/19oi2.png

As you can see, the picture doesn't go all the way to the sides on the NTSC version, and there's some slight distortion over the picture (introduced from compression next to the black borders) which is eliminated when the picture goes all the way to the sides, it seems to have affected the left-hand-side more then the right. These are both within the "tv safe" area anyway, so on a CRT Telle you won't see it anyway... but it's there. On a projection unit, plasma, or lcd you will see it, and the picture won't go all the way to the side of the frame. Many DVD's are like this though.
Post
#244460
Topic
So, a simple question....
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/244460/action/topic#244460
Time
Originally posted by: bactaOT
So, the PAL system would still need to upscale the NTSC dvd, and in turn introduce it's own interpolation, for playback at 720x576 .

Thanks for the insight THX!
No it wouldn't. It would need to "upscale" it on LCD or Plasma - as they have fixed pixels... but on CRT you can watch it at it's native NTSC resolution.
Post
#244458
Topic
So, a simple question....
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/244458/action/topic#244458
Time
Originally posted by: bactaOT
Originally posted by: THX
Yes indeed.
That's what I was afraid of.
It is resized, but it has been resized very well from the screenshots I compared. Resizing both to anamorphic would have been even better (and would have eliminated there being one that wasn't resized) - but as it stands there's not a significant difference. All the detail is still in the PAL version, but is just slightly softer. Then again, there's more detail in the SE.
Post
#244456
Topic
First Impressions of the OOT ...
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/244456/action/topic#244456
Time
Originally posted by: umdesch4
Well, I've watched the so-called OUT from the new DVD on my reasonable DLP projection setup. The bottom line was that I had fun watching it, but there's one thing that bothered me.

If you're going to call it 'Original', doesn't it need to have those blue matte boxes around the ships, and all the other artifacts that I remember so well from seeing in the theatre when I was a kid? Hell, it was those blue boxes that first got me interested in how movie special effects are made. It was charming in the way that seeing the monster's zipper in an old horror film is charming.

So my question is...what is the best option available (in bootlegs or wherever) if I want to see that again?

Is this a divergent opinion of what constitutes 'original'?

umdesch4
WELCOME TO THE FORUMS!!!!!

They're still there, but not as obvious as they may have been on some cinema screens in '77.
Post
#244077
Topic
Are the PAL GOUT DVDs upscaled from the NTSC masters?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/244077/action/topic#244077
Time
Of course, someone who would describe the letterbox vs. anamorphic dilemma as a "little thing" wouldn't be bothered at all. Similar people couldn't care less about a potential significant improvement in video quality, so long as their widescreen display allows them to stretch their letterbox DVD horizontally to fill up the screen.
Zion, I'm not stupid. I've gotten so pissed off at seeing people here just dismiss the OUT as shit - before even seeing it - and then claiming that the crawl is recreated, that there should be PCM audio (name 1 official DVD with PCM audio?) whine, whine, whine. What would bother me is if we got an NTSC release, or an interlaced release.

But if you can't be happy with this Zion, if you can't be "mostly" happy with this release - then I doubt you'll ever be happy. I'm pretty sure that if they remastered it and released it in a pristine format I would be more disappointed due to the over-saturation, inconsistent colour, contrast and brightness that plagues the 2004 restoration.

It's good enough for me. And you know what? Personally - while I respect you Zion - I wonder how it could possibly be worth it to you spending soo much time restoring your X0 project, so that certain scenes may have a very slight edge over the OUT. I don't think it's worth that much time, blood sweat and tears. Also, I have more respect for Falle, Coov, Rikter and the other partakers in the SW covers thread - now that really is creative, and I think sometimes that it would never have existed if Lucas hadn't kept the OUT from us. And there's some great stuff in there - I've printed some of it too.

If you would rather spend 2000 hours restoring Star Wars from a laserdisc capture then to spend $20 to get the official DVD - well that's your choice. It wouldn't be worth it for me to do that, however... I have other hobbies which are more entertaining then removing defects frame by frame.

Anyway, I'm not trying to kill your passion for your project, I'm just saying my priorities are different, and if you can't see that then so be it - but I don't need to be flamed for my opinion.
Post
#243982
Topic
This is all I wanted. I'm happy, no need for another OOT release EVER for me!
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/243982/action/topic#243982
Time
Originally posted by: Harlock415
You get overscan on anamorphic movies though, for 16x9 tvs unless you're using a projector.
Or LCD. Or Plasma.

But then again, the movie was made for a cinema screen, not a tv screen. cinemas don't have over-scan (well... I think we all know they do... but they're not meant to). Anyway, IMO it's better to have the picture extend all the way to the side of the screen, and lose a little bit to over-scan, then it is to encase it in black borders all movie long.
Post
#243979
Topic
First Impressions of the OOT ...
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/243979/action/topic#243979
Time
Originally posted by: Zion
Originally posted by: boris
Whenever people here still complain about the quality of the 1993 masters, saying that they should have re-scanned the film from scratch I just think of that one frame – and I think what little difference it would have really made.

A new transfer would have gotten rid of a much bigger problem, the nasty ghosting that plagues this release from start to finish:

http://img103.imageshack.us/img103/1192/anhdcbi8.jpg

(Above is a cap from the LD, but the GOUT looks exactly the same with a slight edge in "detail".)
Does it? You know if that cap was off the OUT then you would have had a point. As it is, here is a real cap of that frame from the OUT - captured with VirtualDubMod, unretouched, just resized:

http://img174.imageshack.us/img174/7151/outcapxv3.jpg

Where did the ghosting go? Oh sure, it's still there.. but it's not much any more. Not to mention that it has a little more then just a "slight edge" in detail over the laserdisc, wouldn't you agree?

Post
#243937
Topic
First Impressions of the OOT ...
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/243937/action/topic#243937
Time
Originally posted by: Doctor M
Sure the stripes are gone and other detail from the Lowery cleanup.
But the problem isn't the lack of a clean up, it's the lower lines of resolution in the source used.
A new anamorphic transfer would still have film grain but it would have even BETTER detail than the '04 DVD.
THAT'S what we are all bitching about.

I mean if he really wanted to screw us, he could have dubbed the DVD from a VHS tape.
And if he did it again, it may come out looking like the 2004 DVD... colour and all. It's not bad how it is.
Post
#243934
Topic
First Impressions of the OOT ...
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/243934/action/topic#243934
Time
Originally posted by: ronlaw
The 2006 DVDs are NOT encoded from a higher resolution source than a laserdisc.
I think you'll find the colour bandwidth is higher on the digital master then it is on analogue laserdisc. At any rate, they were mastered from a source higher in quality then a laserdisc.

Take a look at the screenshot I posted of Luke (from Zion's site)... It's my favourites to compare with, because in some parts of it the 2004 has more detail... but in other parts the 2006 OUT seems to have more detail. Take a look at the seatbelt... a side-effect of all the grain removal done for the 2004 version is that the stripes are now much less distinct. Also, if it wasn't for the difference in grain the quality of both images could even be equal. Whenever people here still complain about the quality of the 1993 masters, saying that they should have re-scanned the film from scratch I just think of that one frame – and I think what little difference it would have really made.
Post
#243933
Topic
Info Wanted: Making a 5.1 Original Trilogy Sound Mix?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/243933/action/topic#243933
Time
Kalinda - WELCOME TO THE FORUMS!!

Originally posted by: MeBeJedi
Yes, it's been done. By me, awhile ago, and recently by someone else (forgot who.)
Are you going to release them timed to the OUT discs? I believe this is the main question Kalinda would like answered.

Also, MBJ... did you just take the raw digital audio from the THX LD's and pass it through a DD decoder to produce the 5.1? And if so, wouldn't this be essentially the same as the retail DVD's soundtrack passed through a DD in a 5.1 home setup?

Or did you go through and somehow make a new 5.1 mix?
Post
#243923
Topic
First Impressions of the OOT ...
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/243923/action/topic#243923
Time
Originally posted by: JediRandy
Originally posted by: mverta
... Another curious move is making up shit to make yourself sound intelligent. Alright, there was no need for that.
Originally posted by: Obi Jeewhyen
It almost sounds like a conspiracy theory to say they added film grain. No...
Originally posted by: mverta
http://www.mikeverta.com/Posts/SW_Compare_1a.png

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. 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. Ditto the digital gate-weave added to the recreated crawl - it's very distinctive, and easily recognizable. This is a compelling compare; judge for yourself. NOW it sounds like a conspiracy theory!
Originally posted by: mverta
I have personally seen the source files Lucasfilm claims don't exist to produce restored OT discs.
...
In the end, there are just too many of us, with too much material and expertise, too many inside contacts, and too many privileged sources to make the idea of a deliberately substandard release anything less than fact. Oh yeah, that certainly sounds like a conspiracy-theory to me!Originally posted by: Mentor
More grain is revealed simply because the DVD's are encoded from a higher resolution source than a laserdisc.
I think you've hit the nail on the head there.Originally posted by: mverta
In this case, the pre-93 laserdisc is unquestionably a touch softer than the 2006 transfer, but not by a significant enough margin to justify the extra grain; not by a long shot.
But Mike, Lowry Digital was told to do the highest level of grain removal for the 2004 SE.In fact, even Lucasfilm is aware the images are substandard: they're deliberately posting compares on the StarWars.com site to show you how shitty the OT DVD's you just bought are.
I was really impressed by the level of detail in the 2004 DVD's. But honestly, it's not that much more then the detail in the OUT:

http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/6523/goutpalr035sc0.jpg
http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/9350/aofficialr035ug8.jpg

Spot the difference.

http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/91/goutpalr027yi3.jpg
http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/1313/aofficialr027ck3.jpg

Just a hint of ghosting on the OUT disc there.Originally posted by: mverta
in the interest of preservation, accuracy, and love for the trilogy, I'm not going to turn a blind eye to the deficiencies which are patently obvious in these transfers.


mverta: There is a lot of evidence for deliberate image-quality reduction in the 2006 DVD. It's not a fact; it's an informed opinion.

mverta: In any case, the degradation of the imagery isn't an opinion, it's a quantifiable fact.

Nice flip-flop there. Which is it?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.
Thank you for backing up something I've been flamed at for, many times - on the issue of grain removal on the 2004 DVD's. I also know that they also manually removed deficiencies.



Mike, I don't think you're a fool. I have a lot of respect for you, as I'm aware you do work in the industry. Some others may also realize this "authority" with which you speak. I was challenging your claims (and then others did as well). Enjoy the rest of your week Mike.
Post
#243905
Topic
Star Wars Limited Edition Screen Captures.
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/243905/action/topic#243905
Time
Originally posted by: Tobar
Erm, hey everyone. I have the new release in region 1. Would you like me to try and capture some screens?
That would be great, let us know your method for capturing (Zion recommends VirtualDubMod, a program I don't have - when I tried to visit the website it was so slow I gave up on it... you may have more luck), if you could post PNG's that would be best... and any of the screenshots on Zion's Site would be nice. You can upload single frames to imageshack, or if you've got a lot you may want to zip them up and use rapidshare.
Post
#243904
Topic
So then, PAL or NTSC GOUT for best quality?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/243904/action/topic#243904
Time
Originally posted by: Vigo
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. You are so sad. I didn't lie, I told you exactly why I chose that shot, and then you claimed I was hiding a mistake, and flamed me. FFS, get over yourself. The shot was chosen because I'd flipped the order of the Jedi shot, and I wanted a shot that clearly showed the OOT was on top. I couldn't find a more subtle example (remember, I could only work with the shots that were up on the website), but I wanted it to be obvious. I can't believe you find it so hard to believe that - it made sense at the time, it makes sense now, and it seemed like a good idea at the time.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.
It's called avoiding flaming, and trolling. You should try it some time.

Oh wait, no that must be another ridiculous lie and "cover-up" for the mistake that I made, right? Get over yourself.

PS: There are many other members here who are wrong at least as much as I am - and you keep saying I'm "wrong" when expressing an opinion - an opinion being a certain point of view.



By the way, I post - well I try to post - respectfully to every other member. So if you have problem with me - well it's your fucking problem and get over yourself.
Post
#243893
Topic
Are the PAL GOUT DVDs upscaled from the NTSC masters?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/243893/action/topic#243893
Time
Absolutely not! The picture may actually be greater quality, because they've stretched it (professionally) all the way to the sides of the display, whereas they haven't with the NTSC. Therefore, the thin black borders will distort the picture at the very edges right and left. Also the audio isn't a problem... technically they don't "speed it up" anymore anyway, what they do is they "stretch it" in a way that keeps the pitch consistent (rather then speeding it up, which raises the pitch slightly). Also, you get thicker scan-lines on NTSC which may bother some people, and the NTSC pulldown - which is far worse the speeding the movie up 1 frame per second.

Personally, I don't think it would be worth importing PAL if you live in NTSC-land either.
Post
#243888
Topic
The 1977 Crawl.
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/243888/action/topic#243888
Time
Also before I forget, I just wanted to say I think it's wonderful they released this with the 1977 crawl, and without a "selectable" 1981 ANH crawl. I know it sounds crazy, since some people wanted a selectable crawl - however the way I see it is that the 1981 crawl was the first of MANY changes made to the Star Wars Trilogy. And to have it released faithfully is simply fantastic.