logo Sign In

boris

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

Post History

Post
#243885
Topic
The 1977 Crawl.
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/243885/action/topic#243885
Time
Originally posted by: zombie84
Good work, Boris.

Would this then indicate that they basically went and re-scanned the original crawl? Why wouldn't they just use the EOD scan? Makes one wonder what else they have in that Ranch, just waiting to be used for another release... The EOD actually starts from the Lucasfilm Ltd logo, and it's actually clear this moves around much more then it does on the GOUT as well. This indicates the transfer they used for EOD moved around more... so maybe they didn't even digitally stabilize it. The main difference between the two is that the GOUT one is higher quality then the EOD. I'd suggest they just did a quick transfer for use with EOD... and then for this release, they went and did a more careful transfer.

Also, and this is hard to spot, on all the CG crawls the text goes over the stars. On all the three (four) "original" crawls the stars are visible through the text. This is also evident on the OUT disc. This is a dead-giveaway that it was composted optically rather then digitally... so it's just plain crazy to think they CG'd the crawl and then optically composted it onto a shaking star background. Also, the stars are far brighter then they are on any of the three prequel crawls.
Originally posted by: zombie84
Also, based on the caps I've seen, it looks like the opening stardestroyer fly-by is pretty much the exact same shot taken from the 2004 SE. The detail, colour and image characteristics match perfectly. I am guessing that this is because the starfield on the 1993 LD fly-by is the re-created one and thus would not match the original crawl, so they just spliced the original crawl to the 2004 fly-by, which would also match in quality and image characteristics, perhaps downgrading their quality so as not to completely stand out (they certainly look better than any other shot on the disk from what I've seen, and are free of the ugly grain that this release is notorious for--the look of the Tattooine moon for me is a dead give away).
No it's not. It's got the grain, it's got the matte-line (which you can see on the Tattooine moon) and it's not got the SE lens-flare... here's the same frame from both versions, so you can see what I mean:

http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/4403/swotsf5.jpg

http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/8119/swsezz1.jpgOriginally posted by: zombie84
I had also heard that LFL had transfered all of the original negatives to the computer in 1997, but i'm not sure if this is true.
Yes that's true, however the master reels were permanently altered with the special edition parts first.
Post
#243619
Topic
The 1977 Crawl.
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/243619/action/topic#243619
Time
I'm going to stick my neck out here. I've just studied the crawl VERY closely. I will now reveal this:

1. I looked at the Revenge of the Sith Crawl first. As expected, the star-field does not move.
2. Then I studied the 1977 crawl. The star-field is moving - this is the first indication that it is the "real thing". If they used the same process for recreating the crawl as the prequels then the star-field should not move at all (they just take 1 frame, and put the star-field over it, they don't composite it over a movie of the opening crawl).
3. Comparing the quality to that of ESB, it has clearly been mastered after 1993.

OK, now I remember when I suggested that the 2004 crawls were recreated - and I didn't say that they were beyond doubt, but I thought they were - and people said "no, Boris, they're the originals"... so let's compare, if we shall, to the ANH crawl... the crawl is exceptionally stable, and the stars don't move. This would suggest they recomposed a digitally-stabilized crawl onto a stationary star-field.

Maybe it's just me, but the 77 crawl doesn't resemble either the generated ROTS crawl - or the digitally stabilized ANH one.

So, let's have a look at the EOD... the text does move more then on the "GOUT" disc... however the stars seem to move less.

It's my opinion that this crawl has been somewhat stabilized. It does not appear to be a recreation, and the 77 crawl does subtly "wobble" on the "GOUT" disc ever so slightly about once every 2-4 seconds.
Post
#243596
Topic
So then, PAL or NTSC GOUT for best quality?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/243596/action/topic#243596
Time
Originally posted by: seventiesfilmnut
Moth3r - perhaps you are right about it not being pitch corrected... it sounds correct, but obviously a little faster... haha! If I hadn't been so used to the 'Faces' LD for years I guess I wouldn't have even noticed.

- J
I'd be willing to bet my right nut that it's been corrected. In the digital age all you have to do is lower the pitch by a semitone... it's not hard anymore, it's standard. I really cannot notice the difference in movie speed - 4% is so small.

By the way, Moth3r, I do know what I'm saying... just like I knew what I was saying when I told you not to go comparing the colour of our captures when they weren't captured using the same method - and you know something? I was right. Mind you I didn't flame at you or call what you said a "load of techno-bullshit" that you don't really understand.

The difference will be small. If you like, you could use boba feta's crawl, which you can find on this page, burn that to DVD-R and use it as a test. Maybe someone else will be kind enough to upload the NTSC version for you. I really don't think the difference in quality would be worth importing the PAL.
Post
#243590
Topic
Are the PAL GOUT DVDs upscaled from the NTSC masters?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/243590/action/topic#243590
Time
Originally posted by: Laserman
No the text looks insanely stable and the stars do not.
Well, I think, now, that it's not recreated - but it has been digitally stabilized. The stars wouldn't moved if the crawl was CG. There's no real evidence that it is a recreated crawl. Recomposed, maybe; digitally stabilized, probably.

I also think the PAL DVD's are up-scaled from NTSC resolution. And although there was more resolution on the PAL LD's then the NTSC one's - I would guess they'd been up-scaled as well (I know there's different framing, and I'm not sure why that is - maybe it's due to the way they up-scaled it at the time... but that's what I'm thinking).
Post
#243587
Topic
First Impressions of the OOT ...
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/243587/action/topic#243587
Time
Originally posted by: Mielr
One thing I noticed in both films is the improvement in the stars. I noticed that as well... they are bought out quite well on this release.Originally posted by: Tiptup
Bah, I don't care how good these DVDs might look, Lucasfilm could have easilly done a better Job. More importantly, this release is not worth purchasing the 2004 edits again (I already feel like burning the ones I own and I don't want a freakin' pair set).
As a consumer, you have that choice. Let me ask you - if it was the same price but without the 2004 DVD - would you buy?
Post
#243586
Topic
First Impressions of the OOT ...
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/243586/action/topic#243586
Time
Originally posted by: Zion
Watch the crawl again. Notice how the stars wobble and the words don't. I would say that's more than a valid reason to suspect the GOUT has a recreated crawl. At the very most that is evidence of it being re-composited, or has been digitally stabilized. By the way, the stars would not wobble if it was recreated... when they generate the crawl (and you can confirm this over at Star Wars dot Com) all they do is use a still frame, and CGI the words over it... the stars don't wobble - watch the ROTS crawl - and if the stars wobble and the words don't then I'll eat my hat.What proof do you need that uncompressed audio is better than 192Kbps compressed audio? It's a fact.
Zion, I thought you of all people would know that it's not the bitrate that counts, it's the content. It would be an illegal DVD format without the DD track anyway, and you have to judge it based on how it *sounds*, not based solely on the technical specifications. That's why my non-anamorphic NTSC robocop looks better then my Anamorphic PAL one (I've provided some screen caps that demonstrate that as well).

I know what you're going to say "Boris, it's the SAME track as the uncompressed LD one"... maybe, but that doesn't mean there aren't flaws on the LD track that were ironed out for the DVD.
Post
#243581
Topic
So then, PAL or NTSC GOUT for best quality?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/243581/action/topic#243581
Time
Originally posted by: seventiesfilmnut
However it appears the PAL versions are merely upscaled from their NTSC counterparts from other comments on this forum.
The PAL version will be better, even if it has been resized. It's not the fact of the resolution, but the fact of the interlacing methods. Interlaced PAL will always look better then Interlaced NTSC, also the PAL colour pallet is more accurate (and to be honest, it's been up-scaled from NTSC resolution, not from "NTSC"). Also, a version up-scaled from SD to HD will look better, if it's been passed through a really good up-scalier. So I would have to say PAL. From the screenshots posted, the PAL picture extends all the way to both sides, whereas the NTSC one doesn't. For me this is evidence and a give-away of scaling - but it's good news that they scaled it to the full width. The NTSC image may well be a bit sharper in certain scenes... but it won't look as good as a PAL image.

Also, when played on a CRT telle, NTSC will have more visible scan-lines then PAL. This may not bother some, it doesn't both me ... but others are bothered by it - especially those who own widescreen CRT Telle's.

Is the difference big enough to warrant importing? No.

However, ordering from Region 4 (NZ/Aus) may actually be slightly cheaper then buying off the shelf in the USA, as our market has lower prices. But then again, price is the least important thing when talking about quality.
Post
#243577
Topic
Star Wars Limited Edition Screen Captures.
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/243577/action/topic#243577
Time
Originally posted by: Tiptup
Interesting. Based upon what I see on that site, the new release looks better than even the 2004 DVD despite not being anamorphic. After that, the "Gonzo" set most often looked the best to me.
Yes and no. Generally, the 2004 transfer is sharper, and generally has more stable colours... however they're the wrong hues and the saturation is also way off. So yes, overall the GOUT is more "pleasing" to me anyway.
Post
#243558
Topic
First Impressions of the OOT ...
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/243558/action/topic#243558
Time
Originally posted by: Karyudo
You don't have to ask for permission to exercise your fair use rights. They are rights. We do not have any legislated "fair use" rights. They are not rights. I know Australia is thinking of adding some "format-shifting" rights, we don't have them, there's no plans to have them, and even if we did have them copying someone else's transfer would still be breaching them. Ergo, the only legal way to own a transfer from Laserdisc to DVD of the Star Wars Trilogy in New Zealand is to write to the appropriate distributors of the LaserDisc (20th Cent Fox Home Video – I presume) and ask for permission to do it. Of course, they probably won't give it to me, since I can own the official DVD.
The EditDroid Star Wars has the original 1977 crawl -- and it had it about two years ago. It had a recreation.
Not to mention the fact that the DVD version is almost certainly CG, same as EditDroid. Rubbish. There is no valid reason to suspect the retail DVD isn't authentic.- First of all, PAL-sourced projects probably have a bit better resolution than the GOUT discs -- especially where resolution deficiencies are punished.
<Zion's site> I beg to differ.- Several projects keep the uncompressed PCM audio from the LDs, which is better than the Dolby Digital used on the GOUT DVDs.
Have you got proof, or is this another assumption like your previous one about the crawl "almost certainly" being CG...All in all, I'm definitely anticipating that some new projects (most notably the X0 Project, but possibly Moth3r's v1.1) could outdo the official release, by combining the best features of the GOUT discs and new LD caps.
Even if this were true, and assuming you had do do it yourself (ie, the upgrade "clips" are made available for download to add to your DVD)... the ever so slight difference simply would not be worth the trouble.
Post
#243494
Topic
First Impressions of the OOT ...
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/243494/action/topic#243494
Time
Originally posted by: The Dark Lord
am i alone here or are some of us breathing a collective sigh of relief? if you've seen the discs, please post your impressions.
I was actually thinking about this all last night. I don't buy the crap that the bootlegs are better, because 1. You should really OWN the laserdisc first, before owning the bootleg (which means the PAL French LD's if getting Moth3rs, or the Definitive Edition if getting Citizen's... etc - and even then it isn't legal, unless you transfer it yourself with written permission from the copyright holder), 2. The Laserdiscs are more expensive then the DVD's, even if you don't count the price of getting an LD player. 3. They're more work and more troublesome - you'll get analogue noise, you'll need to flip sides while watching the movie. 4. The official DVD is legal, has the original 1977 crawl - something no bootleg has - and is DVD quality.

I think if anyone is going to disagree they should at least own the Laserdisc and not just a DVD bootleg.
Post
#243119
Topic
Star Wars Limited Edition Screen Captures.
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/243119/action/topic#243119
Time
Originally posted by: Moth3r
boba feta's version was sharper and slightly more orange than boris's.
I don't know the process he used, but I darkened both the screenshots just slightly to match the black level of the EOD screenshot. Also, mine are saved as quality-90 JPEGS... that may be why they look a little softer then feta's PNG's. I suggest you take the archive I uploaded above ^^, as those are unprocessed PNG's. Though there's no screenshot of the crawl in there!

This is an unprocessed PNG of the crawl though, you'll have to get someone with NTSC to post the same shot:

http://img92.imageshack.us/img92/4526/sw002sd0.png

While I'm at it, here is exactly the same frame from EOD.

http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/9162/eodcz3.png

My process was PowerDVD... Use Profile: Original, Capture settings: Capture to File - Capture Aspect Ratio: Original Video Source Size. Version 4.0 (the version that came with my DVD-RW).
Post
#243113
Topic
Star Wars Limited Edition Screen Captures.
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/243113/action/topic#243113
Time
Zion/Moth3r, here are the screenshots for you. I know the numbering isn't correct... but they are in order. I've given you the raw unresized png files. The colour and brightness have not been altered. By the way Zion, there's no such thing as an "uncompressed" JPEG... even a quality 100 JPEG saves colour at 1/4 resolution as it does brightness (the same as TV). Personally I think you should save your bandwith and allow faster access to the page by choosing "quality 90".

  • http://rapidshare.de/files/32817986/starwars_screenshots_for_zion.zip.html
    • Post
    #243108
    Topic
    2006 OT DVD: The Crawl on Star Wars
    Link
    https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/243108/action/topic#243108
    Time
    Originally posted by: ReverendBeastly
    And that just proves that you're an asshole about everything, even when you may have a point.
    I was pointing out the fact that zombie84 hadn't checked his facts first. He deserved to have that called out, I don't see how that means I'm being an "asshole". I'm trying to contribute here, not partake in a flame-war. I said that when the DVD is released I would prove it's the original crawl, and here I have.
    Post
    #243106
    Topic
    2006 OT DVD: The Crawl on Star Wars
    Link
    https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/243106/action/topic#243106
    Time
    Originally posted by: zombie84
    But the two are from completely different raw sources. Not necessarily. It's likely they're different transfers, though.Originally posted by: zombie84
    The OOT however uses what appears to be the very same backdrop from the 2004 DVD crawl (incidentally being the original one) which also leads me to believe that perhaps this is a re-creation
    The starfiled is the same... I used the stars to help me know when the crawl was "the same frame"... I don't know if I captured exactly correctly... but I did my best.