boris

Originally posted by: Mielr
Boris, I understand what you're saying about the scaling, but that still doesn't change the fact that non-anamorphic DVDs still have like 33% less resolution than anamorphic ones, due to all of the space taken up by the black bars. 25% less resolution ... but then if they did release it in anamorphic they would have only been scaled, as the master tape isn't anamorphic. People would then instead complain that LFL is pretending that it's anamorphic...Originally posted by: StarWarsFan1976
Here's a few questions I do not think I have seen addressed or asked yet...if they have sorry:

1) Do we know if they used the 35mm or 70mm print to do this DVDs?
2) Is it a newly mixed audio or the 35mm or 70mm audio?
3) There gonna be a widescreen and Fullscreen set ?
4) They putting them out as a boxset ?


thank you for your time

Originally posted by: bactaOT
The bottom image is a screen cap from the 2004 dvd taken at 1920 pixels width (Same width as monitor settings), and then simply scaled down to 720 width to match
the top 'outnow' review image reported to be from the upcoming 9/12 release.

Originally posted by: darkhelmet
It is accessible. Click the very bottom link, then navigate back to the previous page to clear the ad that originally appeared (mine was for "Arrested Development Season 2").

Are you sure about France. If they mad an agreement with Lucas for the privilege of previewing the DVDs, why couldn't that be a contractual stipulation. The DVDs haven't been officially released, right? So, it's not like the French website could have goten their hands on copies without Lucas' help, right?

Originally posted by: bactaOT
Trying to ignore the blue glowy mess on the 2004 release for a moment, the quality between these two grabs, both at 720 width, doesn't actually look too different from each other to me, film grain aside of course. Very true. With the three I posted I saved the 2004 grab to about the same filesize as the "OUT" grab. I then cropped the OUT using a program called Jpegcrop which is freeware and can crop jpegs without re-encoding - um, recompressing them (it's lossless). The SW and Empire grabs have the OUT on top. The ROTJ grab has the 2004 grab on top, hopefully to help confuse people as to which is which.Also just trying to figure out why the lack of starfield to the left of the 'outnow' screen cap?

Originally posted by: Laserman
As for how it will compare withe the X0 release, who knows, I am expecting some stuff to be better in the OUT and some to be better in the X0 project. I expect the X0 project to have a more coherent look overall.

A lot will depend if Lucasfilm are using the master that would have been created *before* they did the shoddy dirt/noise removal algorithm that threw all the detail away on the THX LD releases. If it is the pressing master then unfortunately all the trails and smearing will be in there and I would expect to get a better experience on the X0 release.

Originally posted by: Vigo
So, you think that an old non-anamorphic soft and washed-out transfer made in 1993 with obsolete equipment represent the originals better than an all-new transfer directly made from the negatives, right? You should read what I've already said addressing that exact point before coming and claiming that as my point of view. What I said was that it's better they release it like this then to put it through the same process the 2004 version went through. A new transfer would look a little bit better, yes, but not by much.You're complaining about every little thing you possibly can. There is so much more I have to complain about the 2004 transfer (even if I'm not complaining about the changes) then you have to complain about this release.

This is a run-down of what I've said:

1. This release will look better then LD rips.
2. This release will look better then 16MM prints.
3. The colours will be better and more consistent then the 2004 version.
4. This release could have been much worse.
5. This release will be decent DVD quality (I expect video to be 7 or 8/10).

BTW, in the following screenshot to me the OOT one looks better... which do you think looks better?





Since you are the person, who claimed in the past that a DVD can truly represent the full resolution of a 35mm frame (LOL),

Originally posted by: Karyudo
Thanks, boris. The specs for R4 releases don't have any omissions or other annoying features (like higher compression or something stupid), do they? I've read in the past that often the R4 release of some films is compromised in some way, when compared to the R1 -- or even the R2? -- release (which is one of the reasons that antipodean consumers have a high rate of region-free DVD player adoption, presumably).

Originally posted by: Mike O
As these DVD transfers do not meet industry stards, I must repectfully disagree.

Originally posted by: Karyudo
I want the highest quality OUT DVDs, so I'm thinking of getting the PAL versions. So I'm going to have to buy from someplace overseas. I'm an English speaker, so I may as well buy from the UK, Australia, or NZ. And of those, I imagine that the UK market is by far the largest, and therefore the selection and prices will probably be best.

So, for those of you in the UK (Moth3r, for example?), which online retailer would you recommend?

I'm in Canada, so I could also work out something if somebody wants a Best Buy metal case. (Please don't PM me; send e-mail to the address below).

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.

Originally posted by: Vigo
Of course they do. Those movies were in perfect shape when freshly unloaded from the camera... The only tinkering done to it was ridiculously boosting up the colours and of course the SE changes. You're wrong:On September 21, when Star Wars fans insert A New Hope, The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi on DVD for the first time, they are going to see picture quality no Star Wars audience has ever seen... including those at the first screening of the first day back in May 1977.

...

At the Lowry Digital Images facility, over 600 Macintosh dual-processor G5 computers utilizing over 2400 gigabytes of RAM and 478 terabytes (over 478 million megabytes) of hard drive space processed each of the classic Star Wars films for over 30 break-neck days to create the stunning new versions fans will see in the Star Wars Trilogy DVD set.

"There are three key contributing factors to the degradation of film," Lowry explains. "Dirt, time and chemical damage due to conventional restoration processes."

...

But the greatest challenge on the Star Wars trilogy was dirt damage. The more a film is used, the more dirt it accumulates. The unexpected success of A New Hope took a particular toll because each copy of the film ended up being played far more often than is usual, to the point where even Fox Studio's master originals began to wear out keeping up with demand.

"We have never seen anything quite this bad from a dirt perspective," says Lowry. "At some point the dirt becomes part of the picture and very, very hard to get rid of."

Over the years, Lowry Digital's computer algorithms have evolved from automating the removal of hundreds of pieces of dirt in a scene, to handling the 100,000 pieces of dirt in the Indiana Jones trilogy, to taking on the Star Wars trilogy which required automated and manual removal of up to a million pieces of dirt in scenes like R2-D2 and C-3PO's arrival on Tatooine in A New Hope.

The Star Wars restoration process began with a 10-bit RGB high-definition scan of the original negatives. This data was then used by a team at Lucasfilm and Industrial Light & Magic to work with George Lucas to do some significant color correction to the movies. This color-timed data was then transferred to Lowry Digital hard drives, to begin the massive clean-up effort.

Link

Originally posted by: Vigo
By the way, the way the 2004 SE looks is closest to what the negatives look like (except the boosting of the colours).

Originally posted by: Nem0
Hi
well my Favorite ? hmm thats hard to say because here are so much GREAT Covers so i have to say i dont really have a Favo
some Covers are cool because of the "old style" with the font and the Pics from the first release ect. (i mean the Pics that looks like painted).
And some other Covers are great with the complete fresh and new Design.

Originally posted by: vbangle
This looks good to you? OMG....that's really strange...
Actually, I knew no matter how shitty the offical OOT looked you were going to say that....thanks for not letting me down..... You deliberately posted the most blurry pic. So? Yes they look good, they've been downsized and saved as JPEGS... as other have said I'm sure the quality of the DVD will be a little better then what you seen in the screen caps. They look much better then the LD's already. Someone I know has the SW LD's and a movie projector at his home (an excellent one, I think it's his 3rd now) - and I do think they look better then the LD's. I've said it so many times that it's getting really really old - but so many DVD's were mastered from the old master tapes used for LD's that I don't see what the problem is here. It's not like they're promising more then they're delivering - and the quality will be good. Again, I'm glad they didn't grind it through the process the 2004 version went through that resulted in a picture that is good quality yes, but does not look like the star wars film.No it isn't. The ghosting and dot crawl is gone - and it looks clear and sharp (from what can be made out of the detail the JPEGS provide).

I'm very happy with those screenshots the quality is on par with my expectations.Originally posted by: half full
I joined this stie because I want the originals as they were made. I assumed that was what everyone else here wanted as well. Now that we are getting them on DVD all I am hearing is "not good enough". To all of you that are bitching please please please shut the fuck up.