jero32

So this was a projection? (stil watching so won't comment on it just yet)

edit: I just said this out loud: "Holy shit look at the detail" (particuarly the underside of that star destroyer)

Previews would definitely be a good idea to see how the colors "respond" to different types of monitors etc. People could also give their input on various things etc.

I've been wanting to buy a projector for awhile now, but I lack funding.

I did discuss renting a theather with some friends, but I have to go over my options a little more before I know if it's feasible.

Dat moment you realise that the cover you've been looking at your whole life used part of Pierce Brosnan's face to make the gun :D

Well the dvds are particuarly blue tinted. Blue is the opposite of orange...maybe they were compensating the orange tint...

It would be kind of hilarious if it turns out that this really is as close to the original timing as it gets, and that raiders of the lost ark invented the whole "yellow" thing.

That of course is most likely not the case, but it is interesting that some people are saying that this IS closer to the original timing. (even if I dont think human memory can properly remember such things over long stretches of time)

Well ya I suppose. What are the chances on there being an official print that has a different mix we didn't know about yet?

New mix, doesn't that kinda prove that this was an officially made print then? I mean it can't be bootleg if they have a new mix in there.

I have the bluray for 2001. Its one of the best looking films I've ever seen (it helped that I got to test a 46" 1080p tv at the time I bought it). I did notice the occasional spec here and there though. Near the end of the film there is a little bit of wobble.

That being said, easily one of the best looking films I've ever seen.
Kind of wish I could see it in 70mm, but we only have like 3 theathers in my country that are even equipped for 70mm. (or IMAX, not sure if there's many non imax 70mm places)

I think it's the same reason we stil use 24fps for movies. The brain has to "fill in" the missing information and thus you are more involved in the movie.

16mm star wars prints actually, projectors are indeed not that hard to find.

ya figures star wars movies wouldn't be cheap. Just wondering if someone had a rough estimate.

How would one go about obtaining a 16mm anyway? Like what are the going prices?

So I'm looking at this, and the quality amazes me.
Puggo grande looked ok, but this is alot better imo. Did you improve the technical aspects or anything? Or was the print in a much better condition?

Ya, there's alot of extra detail. And I think the color timing boils down to personal opinion at the end of the day. Especially since we don't know exactly how it looked back then. (and people's memory isn't a good indicator)

Ya I'm guessing that if you don't want kotcs you don't have to buy this set and can probably buy all 3 original movies seperate. Shouldn't be a big deal.
(you might have to wait a little longer, or go on ebay though)

I didn't even think kotcs was that terrible, just not anywhere near as good as the original 3 movies. (look at it as a seperate movie, it's ok)

Negative1: personally I think some shots look better, some look worse. Overall I don't think it "looks like crap" or anything along those lines. And I probably won't be bothered by it too much. (But I have pretty low standards on these things I admit)

I do think that one shot of the submarine is much worse, it's overexposed and the rust on the side of the thing becomes way too prominent for example.
The shot outside of the burning building however looks much more overexposed on the dvd.

Just to clear up any future confusion:

resize

I think the reason people want it that way is that
a.) lucasfilm can probably make a cleaner looking product in the end (if done well you can really make films look clean AND stil retain details and stuff)
Especially since they have the o-negs, depending on your definition of "original". (e.g. matte lines etc)

b.) a lucasfilm release is less likely to get lost over the years than a pirate copy fanscan is. Even if it's distributed widely.

Ah I should've paid more attention to the thread. I apologize. Ignore what I said.

As mentioned before, keep any technical faults you find confined to pm's to Harmy. You're ruining it for other people.

Ah I didn't realise you were talking about the cropping directly. As I have read the whole cropping thread, and it didn't strike me as "news" so it didn't occur to me that's what you wanted me to notice :P

Ya definitely alot more image info

The edges...well I checked and occasionally it seems you could see the edge of the other frames. Didn't notice anything too odd. But then again i'm not nearly as familair with these films as some of you guys are.

edit: wait, seems the edges arent entirely 100% straight. They have these little "hills" sticking out on top of them a little bit. Very subtle.

Keep in mind, those are test clips. The non red faded reel should look much better if I"m to believe what has been said so far (and what I've seen in pictures and such)

Bingowings said:

I do apologise not owning a blu-ray player I assumed the indigo version was the the new bad one and not the new vibrant one.

I like to think I'm big enough to own up when I talk bollocks.

Ah that explains. Ya if that were the case I might've agreed with you.

edit: another thing I'll say is that every time a movie is retimed (and sometimes this is neccesairy because they want to do the best possible scan they can from the o-negs). They have to take SOME artistic liberty. I think it this case the timing falls WELL in "acceptable" range as far as not going overboard with weird color choices go.

I see plenty of colors in these shots http://www.caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergleiche/comparison.php?art=part&x=434&y=286&action=1&image=0&cID=1273&cap1=14341&cap2=14325&lossless=#vergleich

edit: hell in the shot bkev posted the blu ray's on the left, definitely more color there.