Just wanted to add that the tatooine deleted scenes are in HD(even though the actual footage is in poor shape)---that is all I have checked out so far.
Fantastic to see it but also not difficult to see why a 32 year old Lucas binned it back in 76'.
adywan said:
danny_boy said:
Just picked up the Blu ray set today.
I watched a New Hope first.
And it's hands down by far and away the best it has ever looked on home video.
I also have Blu rays for Close Encounters, A Bridge Too Far, Saturday Night Fever,The Deep and Smoky and the Bandit which are other films from 77'.
And this transfer for A New Hope blows each and every one of those away.
There is no way that you can say that the OT transfers blow the Close Encounters transfer away. Close Encounters has natural grain that hasn't been digitally scrubbed away, while the OT transfers grain is almost scrubbed out of existence and Lowrey's algorithm has the typical static grain plaguing the trilogy. And Close Encounters doesn't have the digital smearing that the OT does either. Colours in Close encounters looks the same as it always has done, yet the OT no longer resembles how the films ever looked. The OT has also had some extra sharpening added to it which is quite noticeable in parts
EDIT, i see that you added "in your opinion" after i typed this.
To be fair the optical composites in CEOT3K have not been digitally recomposited as they have in Star Wars.
So whenever one of those optical scenes kick in(e.g when the alien ships pass through the highway toll at night) the increase in grain and dirt,aswell as the generation loss is immedietly apparent(even though they were composited using 65mm templates)----which is fine---that is the way the film always looked.
zombie84 said:
The SW set is likely sharper and cleaner, and I guess that's the main thing people expect out of Blu-ray. They said the same thing about the DVDs in 2004 too. The clarity is impressive, I have to admit, that's the one thing the transfer always had going for it.
But yeah, the Close Encounters set has way better picture, overall.
Well obviously the Close Encounter's Blu ray has better picture than the Star Wars DVD!
But the Star Wars DVD has way better picture than the Close Encounter's DVD(which was made in 2001 and is afflicted by the same "noise" problems as the Phantom Menace)!
Harmy said:
I happen to have seen the Close Encounters Blu-Ray and there is just no way this blows it away.
A lot of the climactic scenes involving the arrival and departure of the alien ships on the Close Encounters BD have noticable colour banding which can be quite distracting.
*I just edited my initial statement by adding "in my opinion" because this is going to be an entirely subjective argument.*
Just picked up the Blu ray set today.
I watched a New Hope first.
And it's hands down by far and away the best it has ever looked on home video(In my opinion of course).
I also have Blu rays for Close Encounters, A Bridge Too Far, Saturday Night Fever,The Deep and Smoky and the Bandit which are other films from 77'.
And this transfer for A New Hope blows each and every one of those away.
Baronlando said:
danny_boy said:
LOL!---Regarding RAH's restoration of the Godfather---------Francis Ford Coppola admitted he could not even remember how the film looked in it's original theatrical release.
Yet an anonymouse internet poster claims he can remember how "brilliant " Star Wars looked(over 25 years ago!).
I saw Star wars twice theatrically(1981 and 1983) and I cannot remember one way or the other in 2011 wether the prints I saw were vibrant or dull or dirty or clean.
I'll stick with that 1982 VHS for reference for the time being
Do you really think Coppola meant that in the same way at all?
Really?
Yeah I do:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqE9HZKGbMU&feature=related
Mavimao said:
[quote=danny_boy]
LOL!---Regarding RAH's restoration of the Godfather---------Francis Ford Coppola admitted he could not even remember how the film looked in it's original theatrical release.
Yet an anonymouse internet poster claims he can remember how "brilliant " Star Wars looked(over 25 years ago!).
I saw Star wars twice theatrically(1981 and 1983) and I cannot remember one way or the other in 2011 wether the prints I saw were vibrant or dull or dirty or clean.
I'll stick with that 1982 VHS for reference for the time being.
Ahem... regarding the restoration of the Godfather, they referenced a technicolor print. And in case you're not sure what a technicolor print is, it's basically a dye transfer process in which the colors never fade. So they knew exactly how the colors were supposed to look.
http://www.slate.com/id/2201240/pagenum/all/
It is thanks to this same technology that we all know what Star Wars is supposed to look like. Five technicolor prints were made of Star Wars, and one of which was shown in a public screening a couple years ago. People took photos and videos of the screening, which has helped us immensely in determining the exact colors of the original screenings.
http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Free-farewell-Screening-of-1977-Star-Wars-collectors-print-British-IB-Technicolor/topic/11733/
That is an excellent article--- thanks for posting it.
Although I was refering to the actual special feature in the Godfather trilogy boxset where Coppola states that he could not remember what the film looked like during it's original theatrical run.
RATLSNAKE said:
zombie84 said:
I'm not quite sure what Danny_boy is saying, but it is quite absurd to say that the 1982 VHS is a faithful guage of the quality of seeing the film in theatre, in terms of resolution.
I'll translate...he hasn't got a single clue and is making uneducated guesses and incorrect assumptions upon assumptions. Let him try and sell that notion over at HTF and the likes of RAH will kindly ask him to be quiet while adults are speaking.
And I don't mean just Star Wars specifically...but any movie older than the last 20 years. Many of their initial prints looked more brilliant back then, than a lot of prints of movies I see these days.
LOL!---Regarding RAH's restoration of the Godfather---------Francis Ford Coppola admitted he could not even remember how the film looked in it's original theatrical release.
Yet an anonymouse internet poster claims he can remember how "brilliant " Star Wars looked(over 25 years ago!).
I saw Star wars twice theatrically(1981 and 1983) and I cannot remember one way or the other in 2011 wether the prints I saw were vibrant or dull or dirty or clean.
I'll stick with that 1982 VHS for reference for the time being.
zombie84 said:
I'm not quite sure what Danny_boy is saying, but it is quite absurd to say that the 1982 VHS is a faithful guage of the quality of seeing the film in theatre, in terms of resolution.
Film and video really have no fixed "resolution" in the sense of how much detail you see. What you really want to be measuring is resolving power. I can transfer a hi-8 home movie upscaled to Blu Ray and it will be 1920x1080, but that measurement doesn't tell me anything about how much detail I can see. In general, a good theatrical print in decent condition should yield the same amount of detail as a middle-of-the-road Blu-ray. The 1982 Star Wars VHS is a horrible guage of seeing a print, it's soft and mushy, there's no fine detail, the colour is washed out, there's tape noise and tape hiss, and the colour space is very narrow.
Also, the 1982 telecine probably just came from a regular print, possibly a low-con one made for video but at that point in time it wasn't unusual to just get a regular print and make a telecine, because VHS back then was so soft you didn't really need to. It may have even been from a 16mm print, as television movies were commonly printed on 16mm back then.
Finally, I'm not sure why you would assume no one would want to see the camera negative, as this is what most restorations are made from, including the 2004/11 version of Star Wars; unless you meant an un-colour-corrected version, as the camera negative is not meant to be seen "raw". But then no print is ever seen raw, IPs and positive release prints are always colour timed when they get transferred.
(Yeah--lol!---I was refering to the raw camera negative!)
I actually have both PAl and NTSC copies of the 1982 1st official release.
They are both panned and scanned from the same print but with slightly different decisions as to what area of the film frame is telecined.
The PAL version is much sharper and clearer.
So you guys stateside have always been slightly short changed in terms of picture quality.
And I never said that the VHS(be it PAL or NTSC) was an accurate representation of the average theatrical print---and I should know:
I actually had the priveledge of watching SW,ESB and ROTJ in a triple bill back in August 83'(aged 9)---but you can guess how me and my mates pumped ourselves up for that warm August evening----we watched that practically brand new(at that point) 1982 tape before heading off to the cinema!
And yeah----the distinction between what we could see at home and what we saw on the big screen that night was like night and day.
But a whole generation would grow up(I am one of them) watching these very tapes without the slightest concern for dulled lightsabers,matte lines ,choppy audio and tape hiss---it is a physical product of that time----and we were just psyched just to be able to watch the film in the comfort of our own homes.
And still to this day I can still derive more joy from watching this 30 year old tape than from a modern blu ray transfer-----purely for nostalgic, sentimental aswell as aesthetic reasons ( i love seeng that dirt and torn sprockets holes!--)------it has nothing to do with the picture and audio quality----I love the story and the chracters, the editing---the enviroments--- the special effects---all of these factors are exactly the same irrespective of whether you watch it on 70mm screen or a VHS tape.
And the dirt and torn sprockets holes and mono sound is what most fans would have experienced when they saw the films theatrically in that era.
And then Star Wars. We were one of the only people that had a pirated copy of Stars Wars on U-matic tapes. We had Stars Wars on three U-matic tapes. I was kind of king of the cool kids amongst the geeks, because they would all come to my house to watch on this giant “U-matic” player.
http://www.chron.com/entertainment/movies/article/Moon-is-part-of-Duncan-Jones-grand-plan-1602319.php
Mavimao said:
Film does not have a set resolution. It is a piece of transparent plastic coated in a layer ( or layers) of light sensitive, silver hallide crystals. The more sensitive the film, the bigger the crystals, and hence the more grain that is apparent.
The fact that no one crystal is in one given spot at any one frame of the film at any given time is what gives film it's "organic" look. With digital, every pixel is side by side, and this gives digital video an image with sharp edges.
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make danny boy, but the only thing that the old 82 laserdisc was faithful to was a damaged IP print that had gone sour after years of making theatrical release prints.
Yes there will be grain on the original negative, but nothing like that horrid ip print. Just look back at the 97SE.
I agree with you although as I said earlier the IP print that was used for the 1982 VHS was just one year old at that point in time ---as it was used in the limited theatrical run engagements of April 1981 when Star Wars and Empire were shown back to back.
So in my view it is about as fresh a transfer of an original print (when I say original--I mean without any digital tinkering) as there is out there.
*Although this is not strictly original either as it was a new print with the then new "A New Hope" crawl spliced into the opening reel*
Considering that this 1982 VHS transfer was of superior quality to the 1977 U matic/Beta/VHS bootleg then I think it has considerable reference value(even though it is still only a VHS/laserdisc) .
Even the 1991 1st issue VHS widescreen and subsequent 1993/95 THX releases were digitally mastered in some capacity---let alone the 1997 special editions.
TK-949 said:
So 35mm is supposed to be watched on VHS only? Oh crap, I have to sell almost all of my DVDs and Blu-Rays.
No you just have to sell your VHS's( and some DVD's)---not your Blu Ray's
I have said it before and I wil say it again.
35mm release prints as seen in your average theater(at least at the time Star wars was theatrically released) are /were no better than 720p to 1K(far less than blu ray).
Notice I said release print.
The actual camera negative (which believe me---no one is interested in seeing) has the potential equivalent of 4K of information----but most of that resolution is lost as it is duplicated to form the release prints that get distributed to the cinemas.
And people tent to forget that 1080p/24 digital cameras like the genesis(that was used for Superman Returns,2012 and Alice In Wonderland) actually has a sensor that records 5K of data and downconverts it to 2K)----much like a 35mm 4K camera negative ultimately produces only a 1K positive release print through the photochemical process.
And 4K restorations on the likes of Taxi Driver and The Godfather Trilogy have produced aesthetically beautiful transfers-----but that does not bely the fact that they are incredibly grainy(as they always have been ).
A 4K restoration of the original camera negative of Star Wars(theatrical version) would yield similar results----probably far worse as Star wars contained a lot of optical composites which were already several generations removed from the original.
It's kind of funny----but that Star Wars 1982 VHS cassette/Laserdisc in someways is faithful to the original print in the sense that there was no digital manipulation in the transfer.It was just a straight forward telecine from film to video.
Sure the resolution and dynamic range of the VHS/laserdisc are not accurate----but even at this supposed low resolution---some of the flaws in the film print were exposed!
Here are screen caps taken from my own 1982 PAL VHS tape---you can see overflowing splice joins, dirt,grain and other imperfections----how do you think this would look in Blu ray?
Also to note---at the time this was telecined(1981-82)--this print was only a year old---due to the fact it was a transfer of the 1981 "A New Hope" release print(as opposed to a 1977 print-without the " a New Hope" tacked onto the opening crawl.
Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:
Hostmaster said:
The Star Wars Saga will never have a perfect edition.
If Lucas does it, for him will be like killing the chicken of the golden eggs.
What's he gonna sell in the future if he gives to us now a reference edition with our beloved OT?
There would always be the next better format, or the next better transfer technology. Do you really believe that blu ray is the final format? The future will also bring features that don't exist now, such as the ability to mark sections or build your own version out of alternate takes. Or install it on a network or integrate it with your smart phone. If he gives us something great, we'll be in it for the next version too. We bought the VHS, then the LD, then the DVD, then the blu ray. It won't stop there. Plus, *I* would buy his next special edition if he also released the OUT. Now, I'm not buying anything.
Speak of the devil!
Just a week after Toshiba announced the UK's first TV with a 4K (3840 x 2160) pixel resolution, Sony has taken the wraps of a home cinema projector that offers the same thrills but on a much larger scale.
The VW1000ES, which made its debut at CEDIA, uses a new 4K SXRD (Silicon X-tal Reflective Display) and Sony's Iris3 technology to deliver 12.5m pixel images at sizes up to 200in.
And, while we wait for actual 4K video content to arrive, this next-gen projector is naturally au fait with Full HD and 3D, using an active shutter system and a built-in transmitter for the latter.
Interesting inteview with Phil on scifinow.com:
Here is an exerpt:
Was there anything you worked on that didn’t turn out quite as you hoped it would?
Phil Tippett:
“Everything, you know. You’re so anatomically focused on everything you can see how it would be a mistake. George is really good about that, with the walkers or just about anything, if you allowed him to he could find an editorial fix and just cut a scene where it was weak. Because the strength of the idea for the scenes of the walkers was so strong, that turned out good and successful, the Tautaun was more ‘hmmmmm’… it was a first stab because we were inventing something that later worked, but I don’t think those shots were as good as the walkers. The Tauntaun too was just a throwaway thing, it was like a horse so it didn’t really play, those were just shots, but if you have a strong theme you can get away with mediocre work [laughs] and the thing still works.”
http://www.scifinow.co.uk/interviews/star-wars-interview-phil-tippett/2/
LexX said:
I'm pretty sure that the easter egg is the Holiday Special cartoon.
The mother(aswell as the biggest) of all easter eggs:
A hidef 1080/24p transfer of the 77' edit of Star wars!
Well I can dream on ya know!
http://www.themarysue.com/cgi-yoda-blu-ray-star-wars/
Baronlando said:
The audio for all the films was tweaked. It was readily apparent that it was a labor of love for Matthew Wood who worked with Ben Burtt. Episode 4 got the most attention since originally it was a mono mix with no separation.
Anybody else very confused by this?
It might have it's genesis here:
Burtt says. "On Star Wars, everything--music, dialogue, effects--was combined into one master recording. You had to undo it and make changes with surgical precision. But on Jedi, we had separated stems: Music was separately recorded from dialogue and from effects, so if we wanted to change something independency of one of the other elements, we could do it."
http://lavender.fortunecity.com/hawkslane/575/starwars-advanced.htm
On page 32 of the latest edition of DVD review there is an interview with Matthew Wood:
Regarding the sound mix he says:
We have everything here that I could go through and all we have is a 4 track master that we used in 1997 to create the special editions; music,sound effects and dialogue all layered on top of each other with no separation.
So starting in 2004 we began the meticulouse job of going throughall the original elements of sound effects that were in Ben Burtts library.
Finding the original music masters and putting those back in synchronisation with the picture , and then pulling the dialogue from the original 1/4 inch master tapes and all the ADR masters to create a 5.1 or 6.1 master.It was a meticulouse labour of love to make sure every single sound effect,piece of dialogue and music that you heard was from the original..
It was'nt going to be a new piece of dialogue or a new take that you were not familiar with.It all had to have the emotional impact of the original, we just had to update it for the modern soundstage.
We would play the 4 track master that was used in the 70's then carried through the 80's VHS period,through the laserdisc period in the 90's then up until the special editions, then play back all the elements that we had put together from miles and miles of magnetic tape that we transfered into pro tools,rebuilding it in 30 second increments, listening for the right laser, the right darth vader breath,the right foot step.
Luckily we are both huge star wars fans(Wood and Dave Accord--clone wars sound designer) so it was not hard to do because if things were not right you just felt it.
We used our huge fandom as well as our professional prowess to make it work.
georgec said:
I'll take a laserdisc with grain and less sharpness but correct colors over a color-botched, DNR'ed high def release any day
Thats fair enough---as I said earlier--I enjoy watching my 1982 VHS tape on the odd occasion----it has the worst looking transfer----but has the highest nostalgic value(for me personally).
Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:
There's quite a bit of people talking past each other here. A transfer is a digitized file taken from a film. A release is a digitized file found on a DVD. A lot apparently happened between the transfer and the release in terms of added CGI, color "correction" (lol), soundtrack, etc. I have little doubt that the transfer done for the 2004 discs was probabaly excellent, judging by the detail. But that doesn't mean the release is good, or true to the originals.
It certainly makes sense to use the release with the best clarity to try and reproduce a decent facsimile of the OT. That is because colors are largely correctable, but sharpness is not. Content is also not correctable (obviously), except that people like Harmy and Adywan have managed to take great pains to try and restore those scenes that have been damaged.
We don't have access to the original transfers - nobody does except Lucas. And there doesn't exist a decent modern release. It should be obvious to danny_boy or any other SW fan that just because one would use the 2004 discs on which to base a transfer doesn't mean we think they are accurate, or that they are watchable. To wit, what do you think would turn out better, a 2004-based project that has been color-corrected and despecialized, or a 1993-based project that has been sharpened? The answer should be obvious (2004-based), but that doesn't mean that it has better colors, or is better watching out of the box. Because it clearly has terrible colors, especially ESB, and is full of inane distracting crap. Every indication is that the blu-ray will have even better detail, but it will still be unwatchable because of the crap done to it for release, and will therefore need to be fixed by somebody here in order to make it a reasonably watchable facsimile of the OT.
This is the only movie in the world in which this discussion is taking place. That isn't our fault, it's Lucas' fault.
I agree with your points.
But there is also a certain degree of subjectivity with regards to how one percieves the quality of a video transfer like the 2004 DVD.
The Godfather also came in for some critisism because fans were surprised how vibrant some of the colours were(in what is generally considered to be a dark film) in the Blu Ray transfer----- even though there was no reference because Francis Ford Coppola conceded that he could not even remember how it originally looked!
But he nonetheless approved the restoration performed by Robert Harris.
I, like many here, want a 4k/1080/2k transfer of the OUT in the best quality possible, but it does not mean that I(or any of you) cannot appreciate or enjoy the 2004 DVD exactly for what it is ---- by far and away the best the film has ever looked in an official home video presentation.
Sorry but those 1997 laserdiscs do not hold a candle to it(this does not apply to the audio)----But that is my opinion which of course any one is entitled to disagree with.
georgec said:
JohnStewart said:
I would take anything that Hunt or anyone over at the digital bits has said with a grain of salt.....these are the same guys that thought the Patton release was wonderful and when i called them on it the review just seemed to dissappear from the site.
Yea, Hunt is a joke. His site found nothing wrong with the FOTR green tint, either. He's a studio sycophant.
None of these guys are going to speak up against the SW blu-ray color errors because it would cost them advance review discs and other perks in the future. Just be ready for across-the-board raving, just like there was for the 2004 dvds. I remember waiting to buy the set until I read reviews at places like dvdtown, ign, etc. I don't think they mentioned Luke's green lightsaber or other myriad problems. I could be wrong, though.
This was my response to seeing danny_boy troll on this forum also.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_O1hM-k3aUY
Is there no respite from these blind Lucas worshippers? Are they so insecure they have to attack anybody who doesn't suckle the flannel teet like they do?
Mate---I have been a member here for 2 years!
And with regards to my stance on the original unaltered trilogy---read my sig.
adywan said:
danny_boy said:
But they simply pale in comparison to the 2004 DVD.
That is why most reviewers reacted positively at the time of it's release:
The films look nothing short of fantastic: vastly better than you can have ever seen them before
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/film/3680820.stm
Why do you think they wrote that---because resolution and sharpness also count.
Quality control also encompasses those factors too.
I guess you left out the next line of that review out for a reason
Now we all know just how screwed up the 2004 mix for ANH was so this reviewer hasn't got a clue what he is talking about. John williams soundtrack is almost buried underneath the damn sound effects, reversed in the surround channels and missing during the death star dive.
At least as much as the visuals, it's the sound that grabs you: from the opening boom of John Williams's score to all the background detail, the soundtrack is alive.
Now we all know just how screwed up the 2004 mix for ANH was so this reviewer hasn't got a clue what he is talking about. John Williams' soundtrack is almost buried underneath the damn sound effects, reversed in the surround channels and missing during the death star dive.
Well the audio is another ball game---I am pretty sure some fans may have argued as far back as 77' with regards to the differences in the Audio track(depending on which one they were exposed to-Mono or 35mm matrixed stereo).
I am no fan of the 2004 mix either( I prefer the 1984 dolby surround).
But just focusing on the picture why do you think Bill Hunt wrote the following:
Because the transfers were done from the original negatives, you're going to see detail in these films that you've never seen before. You'll notice this right from the opening shot of A New Hope, when the Star Destroyer chases its quarry over the surface of Tatooine. Just look at the subtle swirl of cloud patterns on the planet below - astonishing. Best of all, not a lick of added edge enhancement was required to bring out this detail. What else is good? The color palette here is more lush and accurate than ever before. You're going to be blown away by everything from subtle flesh tones to the vibrant gold plating on C-3PO's chest to the bright orange flightsuits of the Rebel pilots. Contrast is also spectacular, with deep detailed blacks and clear, accurate whites. All three films in this set are just going to absolutely blow you away, and the bigger your screen the better it gets. The Star Wars Trilogy on DVD is the best excuse you're ever going to have to go out and buy yourself a good anamorphic widescreen display. Until true high-definition arrives, it just doesn't get better than this.
http://www.thedigitalbits.com/reviews3/starwarstrilogy02.html
@Adywan
If the core of vader's saber was white as you say, it would match the vertical white slits behind the two combatants.
I took a screen cap from the original 77 ' launch trailer that is on the 2004 DVD bonus disc.
As you know the trailer was presented in 16:9 standard def(i.e better quality than either VHS or laserdisc).
It is also fairly representative of how the film looked(unlike the teaser trailer)
here it is:
Now if I zoom in just to focus on an area of interest you can clearly see the distinction between white (of those slits in the wall)and the mild pinkish/mild red tint of the saber:
And here is the trailer shot side by side with the equivalent frame from the 2004 DVD:
Are they different--yes.
But it's not like the 2004 DVD made vader's saber green!
Harmy said:
Man, the older transfers are inferior in some technical things, because they're older transfers done in lower resolution but the 2004 transfer is inferior in terms of quality control - wrong colours, crushed blacks and so on. That's why Ady had to do extensive colour correction for his edit. The thing is that the 2004 transfer is now also an old transfer and an all new transfer should be made.
I think I stated in another thread that I personally prefer watching my original VHS tape from 82' for purely aesthetic and nostalgic reasons---but I am not going to deny that the 2004 DVD tears it to shreds in every sense from color to clarity.
I do have very good DVD rips of the 1993 laserdiscs and the general consensus seems to be that these are as close to the original theatrical prints as it has ever got for home video releases in terms of colour reproduction.
But they simply pale in comparison to the 2004 DVD.
That is why most reviewers reacted positively at the time of it's release:
The films look nothing short of fantastic: vastly better than you can have ever seen them before
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/film/3680820.stm
Why do you think they wrote that---because resolution and sharpness also count.
Quality control also encompasses those factors too.
adywan said:
well danny_boy is spouting his shit again, but he isn't goading me into getting suspended. Funny how he hasn't got the bottle to come back in here, where we can actually have a discussion about these problems without being suspended or banned, to post the same crap he's been posting over there with his camera shot/ vcd proof. But that's because people here don't just blindly follow all the crap excuses for all the errors and here they know the errors with the 2004 transfers and can prove him wrong. Bloody pink lightsabres...
originally posted by fanny_boy:
LOL!
I guess it's just a coincidence that only the scenes in that techniclor print that contain vader's saber are the one's where the white balance of the camera that took these fotos was thrown out(convenient huh?)
Seriously ---when are you going to understand/concede that the original versions never had any consistency(which is something to be acknowledged and quite frankly celebrated).
And your very subjective bias that the 2004 DVD(and the hidef master from which it is derived) is an inferior product is laughable.
In terms of clarity,dynamic range and resolution,it is light years ahead of any previous laserdisc/VHS transfer.
That is why you used it as the basis for your own fan edit?
Just thought I would highlight that contradiction.
For the record I really like your edits.
But that is all they are and ever will be-- an exceptionally well executed fan edit---nothing more or less.
I hope you understand that.How come these mindless followers feel the need to bring my edits into the argument, when they have nothing to do with the subject? And the other thing they bring up is clarity and resolution. You can present a turd in HD but it will still be a turd. Don't these people even care about quality any more?
They do seem to be like a little cult (or something that sounds quite similar. lol). The way they all gang up on anyone who has their own opinions about the movies.
Well I guess provoking me by distorting my username is one way to bring me over here---lol!
If the 2004 DVD is a turd---then why use it's template as the basis for your own edit?
Why not use the 1997 or 1993 laserdiscs?
Oh wait---it is because they are inferior to the 2004 DVD.