danny_boy

I bought the latest copy of Review:

http://www.dvdreview.co.uk/category/...th-paying-for/

It has an interview with Mathew Wood and on page 33 it says:

"Each film,fully remastered in gleaming high definition and a new lossles 6.1 audio track"

I have posted it on blu ray.com too

Well we all knew going into the movie what was going to happen.

But I do wonder how a 10 year old kid watching the prequels(and possibly the clone wars too) for the first time without any idea of which direction the story is going to go in would /will react to Anakin's fall?

The funny thing is the Italians had dubbed the character's names in one way for the original trilogy:

C1-P8 (R2D2)

D3P0 (C3PO)

Dart Fener(Dart Vader)

But for the prequels they kept the "original/anglo-saxon names"!

Also (for the prequels)they had different actors dubb the likes of palpatine and Anakin from film to film so there is no continuity whatsoever.

But with regards to the original trilogy they used some of Italy's most distinguished stage actors.

The dubbing is spot on in all 3 films.

In italian

none said:

Yes similar colors, but what's confusing is the opening shot of this program's sequence (from the Japanese laserdisc version - Gonzo) [23:10] has a white saber.  (the three sided spinning version, I think) 

Then a later shot has a blue saber in a close up. [23:39]

Comparison of these two captures:

Dr. Gonzo

Your version:

 

*edit*

The idea that a version (you have suggested the Mono) had a different color is interesting.  But there is a bootleg which is considered to be from a Mono print and it looks like this:

Mono Bootleg

and a different source bootleg looks like:

Moth3r Widescreen SW:

Thanks for the confirmation and comparisons.

Yes my version also has a white then blue saber before the mild green one.

Wierd.

Hopefully this documentary will be in HD when it is released on Blu Ray---might help to clarify the situation.

Not sure if this has been covered yet.

Luke's saber appears to be green in this documentary(which aired on 9/16/77)

It probably coincided with the dissemination of the theatrical prints with the Mono optical track tacked on.

And it I think this documentary  used one of these mono prints as the source for it's clips.

Is it possible that the mono prints had a different colour grading(at least in some areas regarding the optical composites)?

From this angle , Lukes lightsaber was composited on without the comfort of an in camera blade:

The optical sample that was to be composited in was greenish in it's tint:

Look at the width of the glow in the following frame(this one without seeker ball composited in):

And now with seeker ball added in:

And here is the final composite:

The saber has a greenish tinge with a possible modicum of blue:

And as it appears in the 2004 DVD:

Does anyone else have this documentary and are the colours similar to what I have shown here?

Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:

danny_boy said:

The 1080/24p Attack Of The Clones was blown up to fill an IMAX screen which has  a bigger surface area than the conventional 70mm screens (that the 35mm Star Wars was blown up to**)----with no complaints.

My friends and I saw pixelization in the theater during AOTC on a normal sized movie screen.

12/03/02 10:15 PM
I just saw Attack of the Clones on IMAX and here is my question:
The movie was shot in digital (something like 1920 X 1080 pixels I'm told) and transfered to the 70mm Imax format. by my calculations (1080 lines divided by an 80ft. screen) each line should be roughly 1 inch high. But I looked and damned if I could find ANY pixelization, vertical or horizontal. How do they do this?
http://forums.howwhatwhy.com/showfla...-222100&fpart=.

zombie84 said:

The whole resolution debate is a bit of a smoke and mirrors thing, because film has no fixed resolution, and resolution is not what we should be measuring anyway. The measurement is resolving power, that is, how many lines of detail can be detected on the screen. You can have a "2K" image that looks like shit and won't be anymore detailed than a really high quality 16mm negative. And, you can have an "HD" image that blows away a 35mm original camera negative. I know, because I've seen both. So saying 4K>2K>HD doesn't even necessarily tell you anything, it's just a measurement of the fixed amount of pixels the image is composed of. That film is not a digital image drives this home, as their is nothing to count--instead you measure what the results are, and there is no standard result for each format. In the case of 35mm, it depends mainly on film stock and lenses (and to some small degree, the aperature, if there are filters used, etc.). And in the case of HD (or 4K, etc.) it depends on the camera sensor/electronics, and the lens (and again, to some degree aperature, filters, gain, other small things, maybe even settings like gamma preferences). So you just have to examine it on a case by case situation and judge by eye which one looks more detailed or has more picture information.

Generally speaking though, most typical 35mm negatives are about comparable to a typical 4K image, but this is a fast and loose rule. And, generally speaking, most typical 35mm positive release prints have about the same or slightly less than a medium-quality HD image. Especially since it was a popular film, the Star Wars negative and interpositives got dirty real quick, and a movie house played their copy over and over again, so by the time a lot of people saw it for the second or third time it probably would be beat by a 720p image in terms of clarity and detail.

thanks for the info

I guess SW is in a unique position because it has been transposed from one  evolving technological home video format to another for the best part of 35 years. And each time it is re-released it looks that much better(including the 2004 DVDs!).

Because of this we have a qualitative perception of the how the films look and sound because we are able to compare a current release to a previous one.

That can't be done with something like Inception or Avatar because their initial 2010 Blu Ray  releases are already of exceptional video quality(unlike Star War's humble VHS/Betamax/V2000/laserdisc 1982 debut!!!!).

Will Avatar(shot on digital) or Inception(shot on film but still encoded into a 2k digital master) look any better in 30 years time---maybe by a negligable amount.

Watch this 1979 CBS 60 minutes documentary which researched piracy in the then embrionic home video market:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZtfEDyTXiU

Watch out for this:

  It is what I am assuming to be the first bootleg of Star Wars which according to the FBI surfaced just 2 weeks after it debuted in the cinemas!.

This is how it looked to  the very first generation of home video enthusiasts(pirates!).In september we will see how it has evolved in terms of quality when it comes out on Blu Ray!

timdiggerm said:

LeeThorogood said:

 

zombie84 said:

Ah, remember when new Star Wars video releases were exciting?

Sadly Yes, sadly because its no longer the case! :(

 

And yet look how much we talk about it!

We will be doing the same in 8 years time when it comes out on Red Ray:-lol!-

http://nofilmschool.com/2011/04/red-demonstrates-red-ray-4k-playback-system/

And we will be watching it on one of these babes:

Harmy said:

Theprequelsrule said STAR WARS wasn't shot in high resolution and I said it was, I never said anything about theatrical prints (though even 700 lines is still HD) but that aside, there was also a 70mm release of all STAR WARS films, which would definitely resolve way above 1080 lines.

The 1080/24p Attack Of The Clones was blown up to fill an IMAX screen which has  a bigger surface area than the conventional 70mm screens (that the 35mm Star Wars was blown up to**)----with no complaints.

I saw ROTJ in 70mm in August 83' on a triple bill with SW and ESB(both of those were shown in 35mm) and the difference that my 9 year old mind comprehended when the curtains rolled back was the size!!!!

I obviously was not paying attention(or was aware of) concepts like  sharpness or dynamic range.

It would be interesting to compare The Imax version of AOTC to a 70mm version of one of the 1st 3 star wars films.

** 35mm frames being blown up to 70mm frames

Harmy said:

STAR WARS was filmed on 35mm film - 35mm film is higher than high definition.

Well we have to compare apples to apples.

You are refering to a 35mm camera NEGATIVE.

Comparing a camera negative to a high definition image is wrong because the negative is not what you see projected on a cinema screen.

If anything you would want to compare a camera negative to the  sensor(which captures the image) in a digital camera like the genesis(used for Superman Returns)------ which then down samples this 6K recorded information to output a 1080p signal:

John Galt:Panavision Senior Vice President of Advanced Digital Imaging

"The Genesis would be 6K. Because(it's sensor) has 5760 pixels on one line: 1920 red, 1920 green and 1920 blue."

http://magazine.creativecow.net/article/the-truth-about-2k-4k-the-future-of-pixels

So a 6k image captured on a digital camera's sensor  is easily above the supposed equivalent of a 4k image captured  on a 35mm camera negative frame.

So end to end digital is better than 35 mm film.

As it has been scientifically tested and proven that a 35mm interpositive theatrical release print shown in cinemas has/have  an average of 700 Line Pairs Per Picture Height(lpph)

Which is well below the resolution of  Blu Ray's 1080/24p.

That is the reason why Lucas went digital and chose to shoot the prequels and  Red Tails on 1080/24p digital cameras

theprequelsrule said:

Some of these old, classic images are bringing tears to my eyes. No joke. Star Wars was so beautiful and meaningful once.

When I was a kid back in the early 80s we did not have cable TV or a VCR. My father could sometimes bring home one from his school over the Christmas Holidays. I remember the joy of being able to rent one of the OOT. I remember the excitement when my parents told me that Star Wars was going to be on TV (they would let me stay up late to watch the entire movie). I also have fond memories of visiting my best friends house and we could watch his versions, which were taped TV versions.

I still remember, in the the mid 90s, only having a taped, edited-for-time,  TV version of Star Wars. I also didn't have the movies memorized yet, so I would forget how wonderful some of the scenes were.

My first purchase was the 95 THX versions (the "faces" one). I remember the clarity of the sound being what was most noticable. Once I purchased them I watched them all the time for two years straight, which unfortunately does diminish the excitement of the films somewhat.

I only watch the films occasionally now, but am still passionate about getting the OOT the respect and proper preservation they deserve.

 

Agreed mate and I can relate to you completely.

It is sometimes forgotten that there once a period when there were no VCR's which made going to the cinema a much more "elusive" experience---in the sense that you really had to remember that film in your mind because you were never going to see it again(unless you went back to watch it!--and you can only do it so many times) ) until it premiered on TV or video(which at that point was a very niche and expensive market)----either way it would be a case of years----which is kinda funny watching some of the members on bluray.com ALREADY salivating over the upcoming bluray releases of Pirates 4 or transformers 3 whilst the films are still in the cinemas!!

SW was broadcast on TV here in the UK for the first time in October 82'(I think).

We did not have a VCR at that point in time either ,so I remember that sunday evening when it premiered----- when I  watched it, I truly did try to "own every moment"---which of course is the new  slogan for the upcoming Blurays!

Harmy said:

Now, I'm not asking what is the best currently available release, but rather what release was the best when it came out - to give you an example I think the Executor set is awesome, although it's VHS only, so it definitely isn't the best currently available picture and sound quality, it was simply an awesome release in the VHS age.

Another example could be the 97SE VHS and LD release - I don't really like the version of the film presented but as movie releases go, it was great - top notch picture and sound quality for the formats they were released in, beautiful cover art and even the VHS release had bonus features, which was something I greatly appreciated at the time, as it was quite unusual.

That is an interesting question!

Probably every release as it occured was the best release!

But I would personally  go for the  original 1982 home video release.

Not because of the picture or sound quality but for the context.

The anticipation for the  as yet un-released Return Of The Jedi (or Revenge Of The Jedi!) was reaching fever pitch and SW and ESB really only existed as cinematic memories(which when you are a kid are both exotic and vague).

Being able to see SW at home for the first time was truly exhilarating.

This foto(which is not mine) captures the moment perfectly:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/35301335@N07/3789266874/

And here is some of the 1982 promotion---the blu ray could have done with some of this art work:

"Vibrant Stereo on VHS(mono compatible) and the highest standards of technology,materials and workmanship in assembly will ensure full enjoyment".

Classic.

Zombie wrote:

-Jabbas palace takes up something like 45 minutes of the film. Too much. I like this sequence, actually, but it goes on for too long.

In the context of 1983, it was electrifying to see Luke display the kind of powers(for the 1st time on the sail barge) that had been implied about  Jedi knights in the previous 2 movies(but never seen)
At the time no one had seen a  Jedi deflect laser blast shots with a lightsaber and summersault off a plank!.

This was also the completion of the arc---from the Luke that gets beaten and bundled around  by the sandpeople and the monsters in the cantina in Ep IV to the Luke who struggles to make a combative  impression on Vader in ESB  to this Luke in ROTJ who almost single handedly beats Jabba's entourage. It is this evolution in Luke's fighting skills that provides the contrast with the earlier films

 -Too many puppets and masks throughout the film. I like the uber-exotic style Lucas wanted for the film--but show some restraint. The film goes just a bit too far into Peewees Playhouse territory. When the dance scene comes on, even in 1983, the film stopped dead.

I saw the film twice in 83 and it most certainly did not stop dead(for me!)---The dance provided the superficial entertainment before the drama(Introduction of Busch and the Rancor scene).It also racked up the anticipation of seeing the Frozen Solo  being released.
Sometimes you need balance---- a film of this nature( the optomistic/climactic conclusion to a series of entertaining films THAT DO  NOT TAKE THEMSELVES SERIOUSLY-yes even Empire!) cannot be pulled down by consistent dramatic tension.Dramatic tension must oscillate throughout this type of film---not remain constant.

  -Recycled plot. This is maybe the most uninteresting thing about the film. More cantina aliens, another Death Star battle. The original script which was set on Coruscant was much more interesting.

Well people tend to forget that the Falcon was chased by Stardestroyers and Tie fighters in ESB---just like it was in EPIV(Ok not for very long)
The difference being that the methods in ESB were more elaborate.
In the same manner ROTJ enhances the methodology of the Death star battle(compared to EPIV).

ESB also has "another Lightsaber battle" and more cantina aliens(in the form of the bounty hunters!)

-The actors have no real drama. Carrie Fisher sleep-walks through the film: and Harrison Ford looks like he is doing a parody of Han Solo--and did someone chop his balls off or what? The character has none of the passion or wit of the other films.

On my 2nd viewing  of ROTJ  back in 83' I distinctly remember the audience laughing at Solo's sarcastic retort  to Luke's "I am taking care of everything" :
"Ohhhh....... great!"

---what about the:
"I am out of it for a little while and everybody suffers/gets delusions of grandeur!"--classic Solo in my book.

In response to being digested by the sarllac for a 1000 years:
"Does not sound so bad"


------ which brings me onto your next point:

But more than that, the character relationships have no tension.

But the dynamics had changed.
This was the difference.
We did not need another film of Solo saving (and talking down or dismisively to) Luke.
Now Luke was an equal (or even a superior) who was saving Solo whilst doing it with some style and therefore bringing the relationship  full circle.

Lando and Han are best buds again, for some reason.  

Lando and Han being buds was never a big deal or even noticable--- both characters were going to be separated in the upcoming pivotal battle scenes.
Having them being antagonistic to each other served no purpose from a story telling point of view(unlike ESB).
Although the "come on Han don't let me down" was a clever implied/reference to past frictions(at least for those who had seen ESB)

Luke somehow is in love with his father now, when the last time we saw him he was babbling to himself in a bloody, teary mess "Ben, why didn't you tell me..." Obi Wan just shrugs off Luke's accusation that he lied to him and was using him for his own personal battles.

Again this was the evolution of Luke's character---his emotional restraint(which is interpreted as being subdued) is what allows the contrast to be so striking when he lashes out at Vader----"Never!"

It is the one moment in the entire film where he almost loses his cool and control--im my opinion powerful and dramatic stuff.

 Luke shows up just in time for Yoda to announce he is about to die, and then does.

And in terms of approaching the subject of death--- this is as an accurate and touching a depiction as you get in any of the original 3 films.
Not bad for a kid friendly film(e.g nothing regarding death in the final Harry Potter or LOTR film comes close in terms of subtelty to this scene!).

And it is funny how Kurtz keeps babbling on about how Solo not being killed sucks---whilst forgeting how  Lucas took a risk in "killing" off  the much loved Yoda.

And somehow, Luke was busy for like 4 months and couldn't be bothered to finish his training--which he is conveniently told he no longer needs anyway. And then Sister Leia is introduced and the whole storyline implodes on itself in a hideous wreckage that the film could never save,

It is this kind of 1990's/2000's perception that somehow Leia being Luke's sister is somehow anticlimactic  or wrong----at the time of the theatrical release ---for us kids---the brother/sister link was an unexpected and cool revelation!
None of us saw it coming(Just like Vader's "I am your father").

You have to remember, at the time(1983) ESB had not been seen by audiences for 2-3 years.
In 1983, ESB was not on video/laserdisc.

It is probably half the reason why we did not remember Leia quickly kissing Luke on hoth!

2-3 yrs is a long time(for kids it is effectively a lifetime).

So Yoda's ESB's  "there is another" was pretty much forgotten by 1983!!(ok --personally for me-----maybe the storybook/novel included it--which I did not read or have)

But hopefully you get my point.

 no matter how it was tackled--oh well, just enjoy the fireworks. At least the final quarter with Luke and Vader was well done though. Those scenes are as good as anything in ESB, but they are sadly inconsistent with the rest of film.

Well the Vader/Luke confrontation was the climax----everything else that preceded it was the crescendo leading to this climax----and this film builds that crescendo up superbly by intertwining and synchronizing 3 climactic battles(which was practically unheard of in 83' for a fantasy film).
The emperor was the component that helped create that crescendo.

-Ewoks. As was said, the film revolves around midgets in Disneyland bear costumes who do comedy for thirty minutes and then throw some rocks at stormtroopers, all the while taking only a single casualty that gets his own violin solo to tug at our heart strings.

These films imply death(in battle) without showing it or in the case of EPIV show death(i.e the rebels being killed in the death star battle) whilst concealing it---hence why the rebels are inside ships so you can't see their bodies being ripped limb from limb when Vader shoots them down in the trenches.
Interesting if you think about it ----the stuff in EPIV(rebels being killed in DS trench battle)  is more grim than anything that happens in ESB.
But the spectacular image of exploding X/Y-wings obscures this grimness----which is why everyone sees EPIV as an uplifting film.
SW is about restraint and converting grim realities(i.e war) into  theatrical spectacle whilst still conveying a strong political message.This is Lucas's true genius!

Regarding  ROTJ.
From a story telling POV, the Ewoks were not inside vehicles or ships.
Seeing them killed en masse on screen with exploding body parts(from Stormtrooper laser blasts or whatnot) is not what SW is about.

 -Bad dialogue. Despite a couple good quips, the characters don't really have the wit or dimension of even the first film

You are right
They don't have the same dimensions.
They have different and in especially Luke's case---broader and much more mature dimensions in ROTJ for the reasons already explained above.
The quality/style of the dialogue reflects this.

 And sometimes they say too much. One moment in the SpenceEdit that added a lot of dimension to Han was removing the line about the Falcon, "I have a funny feeling like I'm not going to see her again." Instead of saying that we simply see Han looking at the Falcon worried, and we know what he is feeling, we get a private moment with him that no one else sees, and it says a lot about who he is.

Ok---that is a nice touch and an interesting alternative but nothing more.

    -The Emperor. Even though he has become a classic in a sort of cheesy way, if you consider the trajectory of ESB this seems a let down. This is the guy Vader is so scared of? Freaking Gargamel from the Smurfs? All he does is sit there and goad Luke to turn to the darkside, as though the mere suggestion of it is enough to turn him. If I were Luke I'd kill him just to shut him up, which is what I take it Luke was doing when he brought his lightsaber down on his cackling face.

Lucas did the same thing with the Emperor that he did with Yoda.
Yoda was small but powerful.
The Emperor was also relatively small and old------and powerful!
This is another of Lucas's traits----he does not do the obvious thing and make  (some of)his character's conform to physical stereotypes.

The ending moment is good though, but even then if that's how easy it was to kill him I wonder why Vader just didn't push him down the stairs twenty years earlier

That is the same as saying why Vader didn't force choke Luke from his tie fighter in the DS trench in EPIV!
Or why Luke is ecstatic after having just blown up the DS with potentially many innocent prisoners still trapped in cell block 1138!!!!
It is like a pointless parlour game.
These films were never meant to be over analysed or taken (too)seriously.
If you do--you can't enjoy them!

 -Bad locations. This one is being a bit nit picky. But Endor is nothing too interesting. It's clearly California, and the few sand-dunes we see on Tatooine are kinda dull too. The Red wood forests offered some interesting photography possibilities but no such luck.

What about the speeder bike chase!---which is a great example of how cinematography can be manipulated  to create an otherworldly, exciting  scene(in the pre-CGI era)

 -Bad cinematography. After the beautiful, gorgeous ESB maybe we got spoiled. But films like this that rely on design have to be lit and framed a certain way, and what we got looked like it was intended for a made-for-TV movie. The first Star Wars had that simple style of cinematography too, but it is infinitely more interesting, and with far smaller a budget. Part of the reason I find ROTJ dull is because its so damn boring to look at. If the writing and directing are going to be mediocre, at least give me something visually interesting--this at least the prequels could do.

Well watching a faded to pink print ain't gonna help mate!
Back in 83' it looked vibrant and the Sunny Endor provided a subliminal warmth and optimism to a story that was supposed to end with a happy ending.

Finally...there's just something missing. I don't know what. Maybe its just the sum of the total list of complaints above. But there's just a feeling that isn't there. When the Rebel pilots are rushing to their ships in the Yavin hanger, or when the snowspeeders are rushing out and everyone is trying to leave the Hoth base--somehow, when a giant fish walks into a sparkling clean rebel briefing room and a CG hologram of Endor materialises in the centre, it's just not the same. It's not exciting, even if the advanced graphics and exotic design should make it more interesting. But it's not really.

Come on man----these scenes are not meant to be exciting-----these are scenes providing exposition, pure and simple.
Exposition scenes in a war film can usually be quite boring .
1977's A Bridge Too Far is a classic case.

At least  Lucas tried to make them cool to look at!

 You add up all these things: story, character, dialogue, mis-en-scene, entire sequences, cinematography, casting and locations...that's pretty much the whole movie. You can't re-edit that, you have to re-write and re-film from the ground up.

Well thankfully it wont have to be.It is fine as is!---opinion is a wonderful thing!

-cut boring scene Some scenes, like on Endor, are not nearly quick enough. But taking a boring scene and cutting it fast doesn't solve anything--you just have a fast.

I know what you mean although maybe it was meant to provide a slow down of adrenaline for the audience between the speeder bike chase and the final battle.

If I were to do ROTJ, I wouldn't include a single scene from the actual film, except maybe the conversation between Luke and Vader on the Endor base and the "I am a Jedi" moment. I would throw away the entire film and start over. You probably wouldn't see Tatooine, you wouldn't see Endor, and you wouldn't see a Death Star, and none of the character arcs would be the same either. And with that, you wouldn't have Return of the Jedi, you'd have something totally else, a Sequel to Empire Strikes Back.

That is fair enough mate.

I probably can't change your opinion but I hope I have made you understand my opinions as to why ROTJ is fine as is!

Respect.

Danny_Boy

Bingowings said:

Nope, still not getting why this is relevant.

That cell rip was a defect in the original optical composite.

The compression glitch is an anomaly associated with the 2004 master.

If you are going to bash Lucas for not eliminating this compression glitch/using a new master----then why do you not bash him for having allowed that cell rip to pass the QC check way back in 77'?

Harmy said:

What's that cell rip got to do with anything?

Everything!

The original version(which I love by the way) was hardly perfect either.

Tell me, if Lucas were one day to release the 77' theatrical version on bluray, would you want that cell rip left in?(personally--I would!)

For the record, it seems to be in the  optical  composite and hence be part of that segment which makes(made up) the original negative.

Here is a better close up from another video taken at Comic Con:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p99urAvak88

It is all ying and yang stuff anyways.

I am sure we all remember the ugly cell rip that was present when Wedge flew through the tie fighter in the original version.

Harmy said:

 

Finally, a clear and indisputable proof that the 2004 masters are being used for the Blu-Ray. 

Now, the quality of the video  that Ady posted isn't very good, so you can't judge from the colours or crushed blacks and other indicators of the 2004 transfer. At best, you can make an educated guess based on stuff like the blue haze around the explosion, like Ady did. But if you know the facts around SW transfers well enough, the definite proof is there. 

A little story first: Not so long ago, an encoding error in my Despecialized Edition was pointed out to me, so I went and checked if it's also in the source file I used (a 720p encode of a German HDTV broadcast capture) and it was. So I went on and checked Adywan's AVCHD and it was there too. But both Adywan and I were using the German HDTV broadcasts for our edits, so I assumed the error must have been in the German broadcast capture but just to be sure, I went, dug up a DVD9 on which I had a UK HDTV broadcast capture burned and checked it there and it was there too. Suspicious, huh?

So I went to the OFFICIAL 2004 DVD and checked there and couldn't believe my eyes!!!

Here's the frame from the !!!OFFICIAL!!! retail 2004 DVD (check out the bottom of the frame):

So, it is quite clear, that this error is a part of the 2004 master, as it seems to appear in it's every incarnation, including the official DVD releases...

... and now, that very same frame from the Blu-Ray preview video:

It's relatively hard to make out due to the bad quality but when you know what you're looking for, it's quite clearly there.

 

Even though they have used the 2004 master there maybe evidence that they have altered/enhanced the colour pallete.

Even on the low resolution youtube clip the blu ray version looks more vibrant than either the 2004 DVD or the GOUT.

Anchorhead said:

danny_boy said:

But in doing so our ability just to enjoy a film for a film's sake has diminished.

Not all of us. 

Story is the only thing that's ever mattered to me.  That's what made the switch to the NPR version so effortless for me.  It was story only. No versions, no bullshit.

Honestly, as much as I rail on Lucas for all his lying and his OV bullshit, the film version of Star Wars is very nearly a thing of the past for me now.  I last watched it in 2006.    It holds almost no interest for me anymore. My problem with Lucas is his ego and his lying, not the poor quality of the 06 DVD.

I want the 1977 version to be properly restored because it absolutely should be, not because I'll switch back to it as my go-to.  That's just not going to happen. I will definitely buy it and watch it though.

Regarding film grain & dirt;  It doesn't bother me in the least.  In fact, I never give it any thought.

 

As prequelsrule mentioned above; If the 1977 film is ever properly released, I'll feel a sense of relief -  but not happiness. Lucas ruined his version of Star Wars for me a long time ago.  Star Wars, to me, is something entirely different than it was 34 years ago.

Thats fair enough mate--and I completely agree with you.

Thought i would post a few screen shots of my VHS tape from 82'.

The print used for this  transfer was not digitally remastered or tampered with(be it image or sound) prior to being telecined(unlike all the other transfers from 1984-2011!)

Now whether this was a theatrical  or a 1st or 2nd generation inter positive print is unknown.

But after 4 short years it had already aquired a fair amount of dirt and scratches.

If it was a theatrical print then those very same dirt and scratches would most likely have been part of many cinema goer's SW experience from that era(yours and mine included!).But in 1977 or 1981 this was par for the course.This dates the film and accentuates it's moment in time and history which is something to be celebrated.

In 2011 everybody(as in the fans on Bluray.com) will expect the Star Wars:ANH blu ray transfer to look as clean as Tranformers 3 or Avatar!

But as you can see---it never looked clean even back in it's hey day.

Anchorhead said:

danny_boy said:

Lucas could have released this footage on the home video market at any point from 1982 onwards.

I am just grateful to see it.

The dirt and scratches actually give it character.

Dirt ,scratches,weave,occasional soft focus(intentional or otherwise) are synonimous with film.....

I would hazard a guess that the print you saw of SW in 77' was scratched up as well.

Correct on all points and I agree.  Not the point I was trying to make.

Regarding who cares;  I do.  Character of film vs digital is wonderful - and I'm all for it.  However,  does it really have to be left in as bad a condition as possible?  For the record, I don't know what it takes to clean old film, so maybe it does have to be left that way.  My point was - I'm suspect.

Yeah!, sorry I care too.

I think context is important.

In the digital age of razor sharp 1080p/2k and 4K theatrical presentations and home cinemas(bluRay and DVD) where the audience/fan base is very attuned to the slightest bit of  pixelization or granularity in video transfers---any anomalies(such as dirt/scratches ect) in picture quality are immedietetly identified and frowned upon.

I just chucked in my trusty ol' 1982 Star Wars VHS tape and checked out a few scenes and found that the telecined transfer contains a lot of scratches/dirt.

And the print at the point that this telecine was done (1981/82) would have been  merely 4 years old!

Now I have watched this tape a 1000 times over the last 29 years!

But when it first came out in 82/83' I did not care about the quality of the transfer(which is quite good in my humble opinion--even by today's VHS standards).

At the time I just enjoyed the story and the film. Now I may have only been 9 years old at that point but I am pretty sure that "mature" videofiles of the early 80's would have been quite happy with the relative quality of the tape(or laserdisc).

It is our own standards and expectations which have skyrocketed.

But in doing so our ability just to enjoy a film for a film's sake has diminished.

Anchorhead said:

Call me completely untrusting of anything Officially Released By Lucas, but I wouldn't be remotely surprised if the damage & dirt were added for effect, or at least intentionally left for that same reason. It would certainly work perfectly for continuing the "I can't restore the 1977 version, it's too far gone" lies.
[/cynical]

Lucas could have released this footage on the home video market at any point from 1982 onwards.

I am just grateful to see it.

The dirt and scratches actually give it character.

Dirt ,scratches,weave,occasional soft focus(intentional or otherwise) are synonimous with film.

I remember watching the Two Towers at a theater in febuary 2003(2 months after it's release) and the print was full of scratches.

I am pretty sure when I saw SW and ESB back to back in 81' those prints were full of scratches too.

But quite frankly, who cares.

I would hazard a guess that the print you saw of SW in 77' was scratched up as well.

Bobby Jay said:

danny_boy

A blu ray forum poster linked up to this:

There was a massive HD monitor set up over the top of a rebel briefing pedestal, much like the one tracking the movements of the Death Star in A New Hope. We were then treated to an abridged presentation of the Battle of Yavin in full 1080 resolution and I have to say it looked absolutely stunning. There were some Special Edition shots included and they seemed to match even more flawlessly than before in high definition. It was really something you just need to see to believe. It’s going to be a stunning looking set. In fact, I was able to handle the box and the concerns over the art, both inside and out, are pretty unfounded. It looks much more well designed and good looking in person than the screen captures could ever lead us to believe.

http://www.bigshinyrobot.com/reviews/archives/30405

Pardon my French but with regards to the writer of that article:

Fuck Swank!

The guys an idiot who just doesn't get it. Read about our run in with him here

http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/CNN-writer-blasts-Star-Wars-in-3D-and-other-stuff-Georges-changed/topic/12020/page/1/

http://www.bigshinyrobot.com/reviews/archives/17765

http://www.bigshinyrobot.com/reviews/archives/17816

I agree, we shouldn't comment on the blu-rays quality until we've actually seen them ourselves but lets be honest, If you over look the changes and the messed up colours, the films are inevitably going to look good presented at 1080p. That's why everyone is saying they look stunning. A messed up HD transfer is going to look good when compared to a messed up SD transfer.

I retain a little hope that the colours will be sorted but why should we expect them to give us a decent quality transfer?

They messed up the 2006 DVD's, they messed up the 2004 DVD's, they messed up the 1993 Laserdiscs and they messed up the 1989 Widescreen Laserdisc.

Thanks for the info---i was not aware of that.

However he did say one thing I would agree with:

There are different kinds of Star Wars fans and since so many different versions have been released, there are no right answers to what the best and the favorite should be. It’s all a matter of personal taste.

@boost

All we can do is speculate until we see for ourselves:

adywan said:

danny_boy said:

 

Some close up screen shots of the Blu ray demo:

http://www.zonadvd.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=30596

They're totally fake. They supposed to have been taken at the London preview on 14th July. Now for one the TV is fixed to the wall, whereas the TV at the preview was on a stand which was well away from any wall. Then there is the fact that no one at the preview were allowed to get close to the TV to take any pictures. They're Just pictures someone has taken while playing either the 2004 DVDs or the HDTV broadcast. And the text just seems to be a reworded copy from another site. here it is translated:

 

 

 

Thanks for correction and clarification-I fell for that hook, line and sinker!

A blu ray forum poster linked up to this:

There was a massive HD monitor set up over the top of a rebel briefing pedestal, much like the one tracking the movements of the Death Star in A New Hope. We were then treated to an abridged presentation of the Battle of Yavin in full 1080 resolution and I have to say it looked absolutely stunning. There were some Special Edition shots included and they seemed to match even more flawlessly than before in high definition. It was really something you just need to see to believe. It’s going to be a stunning looking set. In fact, I was able to handle the box and the concerns over the art, both inside and out, are pretty unfounded. It looks much more well designed and good looking in person than the screen captures could ever lead us to believe.

http://www.bigshinyrobot.com/reviews/archives/30405

Some close up screen shots of the Blu ray demo:

http://www.zonadvd.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=30596