- Post
- #239943
- Topic
- Star Wars DVD Covers
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/239943/action/topic#239943
- Time
boris
- User Group
- Members
- Join date
- 24-Apr-2006
- Last activity
- 11-Oct-2006
- Posts
- 447
Post History
- Post
- #239883
- Topic
- Lord Of The Rings Limited Edition DVDs
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/239883/action/topic#239883
- Time
Originally posted by: Jay
DVD-18's are basically two DVD-9's glued back to back. They're a pain in the ass to handle (no label) and their reliability has been questionable.
Except that it's better to have 2 DVD-9's, IMHO. There are also "DVD-14's" which are DVD 9 one side and 5 the other (I think terminator R1 is an example). DVD-18's are basically two DVD-9's glued back to back. They're a pain in the ass to handle (no label) and their reliability has been questionable.
- Post
- #239881
- Topic
- Sending the SEs back
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/239881/action/topic#239881
- Time
Originally posted by: Gaffer Tape
What? What would simply scratching the discs and then doing nothing with them accomplish?
What would scratching them up before sneding them back accomplish? What? What would simply scratching the discs and then doing nothing with them accomplish?
- Post
- #239879
- Topic
- Selectable crawl on new DVD? Or just the old one?
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/239879/action/topic#239879
- Time
Originally posted by: ESHBG
I was going to bring that up but I was giving the benefit of the doubt. But yeah, I am really wondering how legitimate this is and if any place would get these in early, especially THAT early....and at a rental store no less....
I'm glad I wasn't the only one. Rental outlets don't have to pay any royalties, they just take all the profit for themselves, once paying the wholesale price. That's the reason for my skepticisim (that, and the fact that I've not seen any US reviews yet). Originally posted by: boris
LOL those aren't off the official discs. The very last places that would the DVD's more then 2 weeks ahead of time is rental stores.
LOL those aren't off the official discs. The very last places that would the DVD's more then 2 weeks ahead of time is rental stores.
I was going to bring that up but I was giving the benefit of the doubt. But yeah, I am really wondering how legitimate this is and if any place would get these in early, especially THAT early....and at a rental store no less....
- Post
- #239876
- Topic
- Selectable crawl on new DVD? Or just the old one?
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/239876/action/topic#239876
- Time
01
02
03
or any other frames that outnow.ch has posted. I know it's hard to say this based on the two that you posted, but I strongly think a different master tape was used for the PAL. If you don't want to do them unresized+png... then resize to 720x540 and save a JPG quality 90.
- Post
- #239839
- Topic
- Sending the SEs back
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/239839/action/topic#239839
- Time
Originally posted by: Cable-X1
I know people will rip me for this, but I will scratch the disks. I don't see it as immature or stupid. I think it sends a message that I don't want to see these versions and that they are basically wrong in principle.
Do one or the other. Either scratch it, or send it back. I know people will rip me for this, but I will scratch the disks. I don't see it as immature or stupid. I think it sends a message that I don't want to see these versions and that they are basically wrong in principle.
- Post
- #239835
- Topic
- Selectable crawl on new DVD? Or just the old one?
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/239835/action/topic#239835
- Time
- Post
- #239833
- Topic
- So, this is how the DVDs are going to look...
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/239833/action/topic#239833
- Time
Originally posted by: Vigo
1. They did not remove all the grain. Repeat: they did NOT remove all the grain! Grain is still present everywhere on the 2004 SE! Even in the SE shots! No, but they removed as much of it as they could, and you can clearly see this in the screenshots I posted. And the colour correction is awful.
Yeah, and it will most probably hold. OOT = Bonus Material = upconverting the NTSC source on a PAL disc.
That's still just speculation. 1. They did not remove all the grain. Repeat: they did NOT remove all the grain! Grain is still present everywhere on the 2004 SE! Even in the SE shots! No, but they removed as much of it as they could, and you can clearly see this in the screenshots I posted. And the colour correction is awful.
Originally posted by: Vigo
Another disqualification. There are worlds between the first non-anamorphic Spaceballs release and the new release with a new anamorphic transfer available.
I'm talking about the non-anamorphic one, and it looks just fine.Originally posted by: VigoAnother disqualification. There are worlds between the first non-anamorphic Spaceballs release and the new release with a new anamorphic transfer available.
Yeah, and it will most probably hold. OOT = Bonus Material = upconverting the NTSC source on a PAL disc.
- Post
- #239677
- Topic
- O-OT Star Wars "Bonus Disc" menus (www.starwars.com)
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/239677/action/topic#239677
- Time
Originally posted by: MeBeJedi
Ever hear of an NDA? (Non-disclosure agreement)
Not in relation to review discs, no... and what will they do? fire them? they're not employees of Lucasfilm! Ever hear of an NDA? (Non-disclosure agreement)
- Post
- #239657
- Topic
- Letterbox ---> Anamorphic?
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/239657/action/topic#239657
- Time
Originally posted by: Darth Editous
Still, seems a bit pointless when TVs scale anyway
Some TV's assume that progressive scan means it's anamorphic, and don't allow you to scale it, which is why good DVD players will scale it for you.Still, seems a bit pointless when TVs scale anyway
Anyway, here's the thread you're after:
http://www.originaltrilogy.com/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=9&threadid=5499
- Post
- #239624
- Topic
- Sending the SEs back
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/239624/action/topic#239624
- Time
Originally posted by: TheCassidy
Why not donate them to a local children's charity or hospital? I'm sure they'd get great use out of them.
because it's not nice to donate things because you hate them, it would be better to buy a new set and donate it to charity. Why not donate them to a local children's charity or hospital? I'm sure they'd get great use out of them.
- Post
- #239606
- Topic
- So, this is how the DVDs are going to look...
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/239606/action/topic#239606
- Time
Originally posted by: boba feta
You still haven't explained just how exactly you're getting the DVDs two days before everyone else. Retail will sel them they day they get the stock in.... which will be Monday 11 Sep (or in some cases maybe even before this). GMT +12 is 22 hrs ahead of GMT -10 (Hawaii).Originally posted by: zombie84
I'm not even sure what you are saying here. Anything shot on 35mm will be superior to HD. And not just by a little bit--by a huge margin. Why do you think 90% of the worlds movies are still shot on 35mm film??? Cinematographers arent idiots.
I didn't say shooting on HD was better. I said transferring from 35mm to HD prduces as good a result as transfering from 35mm to 35mm. You still haven't explained just how exactly you're getting the DVDs two days before everyone else. Retail will sel them they day they get the stock in.... which will be Monday 11 Sep (or in some cases maybe even before this). GMT +12 is 22 hrs ahead of GMT -10 (Hawaii).Originally posted by: zombie84
I'm not even sure what you are saying here. Anything shot on 35mm will be superior to HD. And not just by a little bit--by a huge margin. Why do you think 90% of the worlds movies are still shot on 35mm film??? Cinematographers arent idiots.
- Post
- #239575
- Topic
- Letterbox ---> Anamorphic?
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/239575/action/topic#239575
- Time
Originally posted by: Darth Editous
What's he meant to do if he does have progressive scan?
Ues it. If he bought a good progressive scan player it will resize non-anamorphic to anamorphic.What's he meant to do if he does have progressive scan?
- Post
- #239574
- Topic
- So, this is how the DVDs are going to look...
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/239574/action/topic#239574
- Time
Originally posted by: Vigo
Did you actually watch the 2004SE so far (on proper equipment)? In all scenes, you can see natural film grain. They did NOT remove it. Many faults in the film material, like flickering and colour shifting during the end of a scene have remained uncorrected. Maybe so, but they did their best to as much of the film grain as possible. Compare it to the grain from their 1993 master... the difference is glaring.
The only parts replaced were the ones which used new CGI footage. The original negatives, while faded and dirty, still retained all of their picture information. Again, you are spreading bullshit here. Even if they had to replace parts of the negative with other film stock, it would still be superior to HD and of course vastly superior to 720x480.....
Oooh, now who doesn't know what they're talking about? They did permanently remove parts of the master reel which were not special edition hangs. The film would be superior to SD, but not to HD. It'll be embarrassing if I can prove this to you once all SW films are released in HD. Did you actually watch the 2004SE so far (on proper equipment)? In all scenes, you can see natural film grain. They did NOT remove it. Many faults in the film material, like flickering and colour shifting during the end of a scene have remained uncorrected. Maybe so, but they did their best to as much of the film grain as possible. Compare it to the grain from their 1993 master... the difference is glaring.
Originally posted by: Vigo
As I said earlier, transfers taken directly from the negative have a lot less film grain that taken from 35mm n-generation copies. But again, you wouldn´t answer to this, right, because it would actually show your lack of knowledge. That supports my point, if there was more film grain in movie theatres in 1977 then on the master reel, then that's all the more reason not to remove all the grain.
But you imply clearly, that scaling and making a new anamorphic transfer is roughly the same:
You are taking what I said way out of context. I'm talking in the context of the digital master source being non-anamorphic.Originally posted by: VigoAs I said earlier, transfers taken directly from the negative have a lot less film grain that taken from 35mm n-generation copies. But again, you wouldn´t answer to this, right, because it would actually show your lack of knowledge. That supports my point, if there was more film grain in movie theatres in 1977 then on the master reel, then that's all the more reason not to remove all the grain.
Originally posted by: Vigo
You have already been corrected many times in the 35mm thread, by people who actually work in the industry Believe it or not, not everyone in the film industry agrees on it. What I said (which is the resolution of 35MM is roughly equal to HD, and 16MM to SD) is generally accepted mainstream in the film industry.
Yes, claerly all IDENTICAL film frames. *LOL* And it is of course, apart from the obvious, sooo hard to spot the superior image....
That one was a ploy, I deliberately chose a special edition shot. I was trying to set up expectations to be that the OOT frame would be on top. It is the same movie frame, though... and if you doubt this then I suggest you try to find the one that is.Originally posted by: VigoYou have already been corrected many times in the 35mm thread, by people who actually work in the industry Believe it or not, not everyone in the film industry agrees on it. What I said (which is the resolution of 35MM is roughly equal to HD, and 16MM to SD) is generally accepted mainstream in the film industry.
Originally posted by: VigoThis may be, but it is still the same blurry transfer, which is the main cause of the shitty picture quality. And besides being blurry, it is still non-anamorphic. My non-anamorphic spaceballs "laserdisc rip" dvd looks just fine.
Originally posted by: Vigo
What you said was this:
Originally posted by: Vigo
Again, an amusing proof on how you percieve picture information:
Originally posted by: boris
Originally posted by: bactaOT
Here is a comparison against a screen cap from the 2004 dvd release:
Can you guess which is which? Hmmmmm? Tough call I know.
Here's some more... All are identical film frames:What you said was this:
It's still considered industry standard to release non-anamorphic sourced material as non-anamorphic (many DVD's with extras feature a mix of anamorphic and non-anamorphic features). It's annoying, but it's standard.
And the source material of the OOT is NOT non-anamorphic. I was shot on 35mm. According to 2006 standards, THIS source has to be used. It is standard procedure. Few A-movies have been released on DVD using an old non-anamorphic video master. The last DVD´s from major studios which came out this way date back more than 5 years ago. The point I was making is that the digital master is non-anamorphic, and it's standard to keep in non-anamorphic rather then to resize it to anamorphic.Originally posted by: Vigo
Again, you are mixing. The LASERDISCS have apparently been mastered from PAL mastertapes. But since the OOT is supposed to be Bonus material on this DVD release, they are going to treat it as Bonus material on PAL discs, which is: up-scaling the NTSC material.
Nice speculation there.And the source material of the OOT is NOT non-anamorphic. I was shot on 35mm. According to 2006 standards, THIS source has to be used. It is standard procedure. Few A-movies have been released on DVD using an old non-anamorphic video master. The last DVD´s from major studios which came out this way date back more than 5 years ago. The point I was making is that the digital master is non-anamorphic, and it's standard to keep in non-anamorphic rather then to resize it to anamorphic.Originally posted by: Vigo
Again, you are mixing.
The LASERDISCS have apparently been mastered from PAL mastertapes. But since the OOT is supposed to be Bonus material on this DVD release, they are going to treat it as Bonus material on PAL discs, which is: up-scaling the NTSC material. Originally posted by: Vigo
Again, an amusing proof on how you percieve picture information:
Originally posted by: boris
Originally posted by: bactaOT
Here is a comparison against a screen cap from the 2004 dvd release:
Can you guess which is which? Hmmmmm? Tough call I know.
Yes, claerly all IDENTICAL film frames. *LOL* And it is of course, apart from the obvious, sooo hard to spot the superior image....
But you imply clearly, that scaling and making a new anamorphic transfer is roughly the same:
The only parts replaced were the ones which used new CGI footage. The original negatives, while faded and dirty, still retained all of their picture information. Again, you are spreading bullshit here. Even if they had to replace parts of the negative with other film stock, it would still be superior to HD and of course vastly superior to 720x480.....
- Post
- #239376
- Topic
- So, this is how the DVDs are going to look...
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/239376/action/topic#239376
- Time
Originally posted by: Gillean
I'd say the real reason for the high adoption of region-free players isn't because we all buy R1 releases (I don't know anyone that does, I don't even know many that have a clue what region-coding is), but because in New Zealand region coding was actually deemed illegal and all players HAVE to be sold region-free,
They have to be sold region free because region coding is a way of price fixing. The bottom line is if a cheaper legal copy can be sourced overseas, then retailers can pass on that saving. It should be the same with consoles too... their region coding is a way of price fixing as well.I'd say the real reason for the high adoption of region-free players isn't because we all buy R1 releases (I don't know anyone that does, I don't even know many that have a clue what region-coding is), but because in New Zealand region coding was actually deemed illegal and all players HAVE to be sold region-free,
But one of the great benefits of importing from foreign markets is the number of films available. The USA has I think 40-50x more DVDs released locally then we do - so for every DVD movie released by local distributors, the USA release 40-50 into their market. I also find it disturbing that not only does the USA still get fullscreen releases, but they also get DVD players that are NTSC-only. There has never been a DVD player made that can play PAL but not NTSC (from what I hear not all US TV’s are multistandard either, whereas all ours most certainly are).
And asian releases, etc you can't get without special order. And it's good to have a place like JB (the store Gillean mentioned) where you can walk in and ask them to source for you a DVD (or CD), even if it's not released in the local market, and they'll import it for you. It's no substitute for ordering online, of course - but with releases which you can't buy any other way (because it might be an Indain DVD or a German DVD and you can't order online from their stores because don't speak gobilygook) it's handy.
- Post
- #239301
- Topic
- Odd dream I need help with.
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/239301/action/topic#239301
- Time
- Post
- #239297
- Topic
- Star Wars DVD Covers
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/239297/action/topic#239297
- Time
Originally posted by: Falle
Thanks!
In an attempt to make an episode III look-a-like to John Alvins posters..
Ideas?
Looks good, my comment is it would be better to use the star-field background from the corresponding OT poster (ie you've used the anh one on sith, when it would be better to use the jedi one)... better still would be if you could recreate new ones digitally! Thanks!
In an attempt to make an episode III look-a-like to John Alvins posters..
Ideas?
- Post
- #239296
- Topic
- So, what would happen if he did release the OOT on DVD?
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/239296/action/topic#239296
- Time
Originally posted by: CO
For anyone who says we didn't state exactly what we wanted, this was from January, way before the O-OT was released.
There is nothing "original" about 5.1 ... For anyone who says we didn't state exactly what we wanted, this was from January, way before the O-OT was released.
- Post
- #239292
- Topic
- Final order - box set
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/239292/action/topic#239292
- Time
- Post
- #239289
- Topic
- So, this is how the DVDs are going to look...
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/239289/action/topic#239289
- Time
Originally posted by: THX
The fullscreen DVDs do actually have improved resolution in the selected 4:3 area. The same picture area in the anamorphic widescreen DVD uses less pixels horizontally. So, for Blackjack's purposes, the fullscreen versions will be better, as the OUT discs are indeed letterboxed with both versions. Yes, the video was scaled down from HD in 2004. The reason they're not doing a fullscreen OOT (for Nth America) is because they would have to scale it up to fullscreen as their digital master is standard definition.Originally posted by: bactaOT
Just to clarify, do you mean that the whole opening sequence, including crawl/pan down/opening star destroyer shot, has been recomposited for this new dvd release and they haven't used the opening sequence from the 1993 laserdisc masters at all?
We don't know for certain that it's not on the 1993 master... but it's not the shot they used on home video in 1993/5. It appears that it's from another source, one which includes the original crawl. This is not a reason to get upset and say "well why didn't do this for the entire film", because it's only speculation and the costs and resources involved would be a lot more if they were doing the entire film compared to just one shot. Besides they probably restored that shot before this year. The fullscreen DVDs do actually have improved resolution in the selected 4:3 area. The same picture area in the anamorphic widescreen DVD uses less pixels horizontally. So, for Blackjack's purposes, the fullscreen versions will be better, as the OUT discs are indeed letterboxed with both versions. Yes, the video was scaled down from HD in 2004. The reason they're not doing a fullscreen OOT (for Nth America) is because they would have to scale it up to fullscreen as their digital master is standard definition.Originally posted by: bactaOT
Just to clarify, do you mean that the whole opening sequence, including crawl/pan down/opening star destroyer shot, has been recomposited for this new dvd release and they haven't used the opening sequence from the 1993 laserdisc masters at all?
- Post
- #239079
- Topic
- So, this is how the DVDs are going to look...
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/239079/action/topic#239079
- Time
Originally posted by: Mielr
wouldn't they do it 'faithfully'?
Watch the 2004 DVD. wouldn't they do it 'faithfully'?
- Post
- #239029
- Topic
- 2006 OT DVD: Poll: So What are You Going to Do?
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/239029/action/topic#239029
- Time
It's been a long wait, but finally the Original Star Wars Trilogy will be released on DVD.
- Post
- #239027
- Topic
- O-OT Star Wars "Bonus Disc" menus (www.starwars.com)
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/239027/action/topic#239027
- Time
Originally posted by: darkhelmet
who's to say Lucasfilm can't have them sign a contract on what will and will not be allowed with the review?
Because that would censor news, you see. who's to say Lucasfilm can't have them sign a contract on what will and will not be allowed with the review?
- Post
- #239025
- Topic
- Slideshow of ANH changes since 1977
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/239025/action/topic#239025
- Time
Originally posted by: InfoDroid
Wow, there's a lot of stuff in there you'd never catch unless they told you.
there are still things they left out. Wow, there's a lot of stuff in there you'd never catch unless they told you.
- Post
- #239008
- Topic
- So, this is how the DVDs are going to look...
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/239008/action/topic#239008
- Time
Originally posted by: Mielr
Nobody is asking them to use the 1993 master tapes to make fake anamorphic DVDs (if you want the letterboxed image to fill your widescreen TV, you just have to hit the 'zoom' button).
I'm talking about letterboxed DVDs VS. doing a proper anamorphic transfer from film (or from all of the raw footage that was already scanned prior to the release of the 1997 SEs). Well that would be nice, but the improvement in quality would be minimal, and there's no guarantee they'd do it faithfully.Originally posted by: tellan
they're working with raw uncompressed images? really. yeah uncompressed from an analogue capture which in its own turn can introduce artifacting of its own depending on the equipment used. they're using the XO machine which is top notch to eliminate this issue but it won't be completely gone.
Yeah I was going to say that. There's less colour information on Laserdisc too.Nobody is asking them to use the 1993 master tapes to make fake anamorphic DVDs (if you want the letterboxed image to fill your widescreen TV, you just have to hit the 'zoom' button).
I'm talking about letterboxed DVDs VS. doing a proper anamorphic transfer from film (or from all of the raw footage that was already scanned prior to the release of the 1997 SEs). Well that would be nice, but the improvement in quality would be minimal, and there's no guarantee they'd do it faithfully.Originally posted by: tellan
they're working with raw uncompressed images? really. yeah uncompressed from an analogue capture which in its own turn can introduce artifacting of its own depending on the equipment used. they're using the XO machine which is top notch to eliminate this issue but it won't be completely gone.
Besides they claim I'd be happy with this set "no matter what", but they're disappointed "no matter what".