Great to see you're doing everything you can to improve on your previous work, Althor! Too late for the sample, care to reupload or have you all come to a decision already? Also nice to hear you are planning a THX-cap. Man, you're a machine! Keep up the good work! :)
Nice. Sample looks good. Thanks for posting csd79!
litemakr said:
This is a comparison I made to demonstrate exposure/gamma problems during the Ark opening sequence. That is by far the most botched scene on the blu-ray. It is kind of shocking how bad some of the shots are once you see how they are supposed to look and how much detail is lost. Wowow is better but still has problems. The DVD has the best exposure and matches the look of the laserdisc.
This also shows a digital tweak to the blu-ray I haven't seen discussed elsewhere.
Note that the descriptions refer to the screenshot below them, not above. I am curious to hear what people think.
Thanks for posting. Your comparisons aren't frame accurate though, in other cases where it's done to show a general timing it may not matter much but in these particular shots where there's a lot of things going on from one frame to the next, it's quite misleading. The contrast and brightness between DVD and Wowow aren't as different as your comparisons lead us to believe. Just an example...
Yours:
Frame accurate:
As you can see the Wowow isn't any brighter, the DVD in this shot is actually a bit warmer and more contrasty.
And this is fucking ridiculous. What about the light in the left corner of the frame, will that one be lit on the next release? It seems like the filmmaker's still can't decide on how they want their film presented, or is it just the computer nerds who call themselves "restoration artists" who simply cannot leave the fx-work alone?
litemakr said:
What did Spielberg tweak in the opening? The boulder shots?
Except for the altered boulder shots, the only concrete I've heard is the minor info we got from producer Frank Marshall in the radio interview the year before release...
"Frank Marshall, the producer of all 4 films, was on "Geek Time" and said the transfers for the blu-rays are done and approved by Spielberg with modifications. All he said was changed was the brightness during the jungle chase at the beginning of the film. Spielberg felt it was too dark. He gave no release date..." http://raven.theraider.net/showthread.php?t=21508
Unfortunately I can't find the broadcast any longer, we discussed some of this here: http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Re-mixed-audio-tracks-on-video-releases/post/579169/#TopicPost579169
litemakr said:
Btw, I noticed a new digital tweak that was made just for the blu ray: the first long shot of Indy and Marion against the night sky during the ark opening scene has been changed. They are tied to a light pole and the light has always been turned off in that shot. It's a mistake because it is on in the other shots. In the blu-ray it has been digitally altered to be turned on. Weird that it would be changed while the clipper shot is reinstated as the original.
I'll try to post screenshots later.
Interesting, have to check that out. Maybe an extensive comparison of all the matte shots in the film should be done.
For those who are putting the BD on a pedestal, there are more than just two ways to look at this, just because the BD is warm and the DVD/HD Broadcast is cold doesn't automatically make the BD a faithful representation of the original timing.
There's no question about it that Raiders was much warmer than what many are used to nowadays and what is seen in the Lowry transfer. But obviously there exists different types of warmth and the BD timing is not seen as a faithful representation by all viewers. I simply don't see the golden hues in the BD everyone speaks of, I see a dull orange tinge.
If you reduce the blue/cyan and increase the yellow on the transfers of the DVD/HD Broadcast you will end up with something much closer than the BD.
litemakr said:
Based on some googling it sounds like Laser Pacific did a Raiders restoration under Spielberg's supervision, which I assume is the Wowow version. Then Laser Pacific was bought by Technicolor, who then re-colored what I assume is the same scan for the blu ray. That makes sense to me, I don't think the blu is a different scan. And Technicolor is listed on the blu ray. The question is why did they change the color after creating an already excellent restoration? The only thing I can think of is to "modernize" the look to match Crystal Skull and somehow appeal to a modern audience. It must have been done late in the game because the trailer released to promote the blu-ray set has a restoration demo featuring the Laser Pacific color, not what was actually released on blu.
Check out what I posted earlier in the thread: http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Raiders-of-the-lost-ark-bluray-and-colour-timing-changes/post/633298/#TopicPost633298
As the link to the Pan American Clipper - matte shot isn't working any longer, here's a repost; http://caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergleiche/multi_comparison.php?disc1=1520&disc2=1519&cap1=14343&cap2=14327&art=full&image=2&hd_multiID=760&action=1&lossless=#vergleich (see removal of matte lines and tweaked water reflections in the Lowry DVD transfer). The same subtle digital tweaks seen in the 2003 DVD transfer are present in the Laser Pacific (Wowow HDTV-Broadcast) transfer.
Personally I vastly prefer the HDTV-Broadcast as well but there's clearly issues with both of them.
EDIT: Still, I guess a recycling of the same scan is a possibility despite the restored matte shot. Perhaps all the negativity surrounding the butchering of the Star Wars trilogy around the same time called for it. But then again, why restore that matte shot and keep the other tweaks? (A question that remains no matter how you look at it.)
dave88 said:
...and msychamore's Technidisc (upgrade still possible? :) ).
Thanks for the interest. I can try to send you a copy if you shoot me a PM. (Still issues with my internet connection for an potential upload in the near future)
Didn't someone around here upload an improved version recently?
Mielr said:
I don't see the extra vertical detail on the LDs (even on the X0 screenshots from way back when--IIRC they were pretty fuzzy compared with the Gout). I think the LDs lost a lot of picture detail when they went through the extra analog pressing step, that the DVDs were able to skip. To each his own, though. I'm not a proponent of the blu-rays, either. ;-)
If you don't see it don't worry about it. The GOUT has obviously much better clarity and horizontal detail. In the end it doesn't really matter as both look like crap. I was just trying to point out some of the differences between the formats you asked about. Remember that we tend to be quite anal retentive around these parts.
Erik Pancakes said:
I have no issue with the burned-in subs, but I wish the TPM subs looked more like the AOTC ones. The AOTC subs look like I remember them looking in the theater, while the TPM ones look like Blu-Ray player-generated ones.
You've got a crude reference picture here: http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Greedo-Jabba-subtitles-theatrical-placement-and-fonts/post/413411/#TopicPost413411
team_negative1 said:
1,2,3 of ?
...Reel 5 or end of reel 4 perhaps.
_
What you are doing is greatly appreciated Althor! Thank you! Before you're ready with your JSC, I hope to send you a problematic sample to look at. Stay tuned...
dclarkg said:
I'm planning a new SW marathon (all 6 episodes) and I wanted to hear your opinions on the preferred order to do so. So far I like the so-called machete order (IV,V,I,II,III,VI). I've seen other order suggestions but the don't seem appealing including the regular 1 to 6 order. Also I feel that most of the people here hate (or at least dislike) the prequels but that aside I would like to know your input. Also there is the possibility to skip the episode I completely since plot-wise you won't be losing to much, I have the Phantom Edit/Attack of the phantom Cuts as well so should I skip episode I, watch the edit or watch the full original movie? I won't be skipping episode II but I should go for the full version or the edit version? I've never seen the edits of episodes I and II so I don't know if they are good enough or if I should stick with the originals.
I know how you feel, I'm planning a new Die Hard marathon, and there's so many of them I don't know which one I'm gonna see first. Any suggestion what's the best order? So far I like the so-called machine gun order (3, 1, 4, 2 ,5). I've also seen the Nakatomi-order but I'm leaning towards the Yippie-ki-yay, motherfucker! - order. Any suggestions?
Easterhay said:
Another reason to buy the Blu-rays is that each film comes with an additional archive commentary track. I sat down and watched The Empire Strikes Back whilst listening to the exclusive commentary last night and it was well worth it. Very nice to hear some comments from Alec Guinness, too.
Man, I wish I could hear what Alec Guiness had to say about that 2011 production...
Erik Pancakes said:
To be pedantic, it wasn't A New Hope until April 1981. So no one would have known to refer to it as A New Hope in 1980. ;)
The new title actually appeared in the published version of the script included in the art of Star Wars in 1979.
Personally I have no problem with the re-releases being referred to as A New Hope because that's what those versions are known as. I actually thought it was more disturbing having a re-release version being officially labeled by Fox as the original '77 film up to '95 as if nothing never happened.
SilverWook said:
If that's from the EU, all bets are off. It's bad enough people call me Itchy behind my back. And I don't even own one of those holographic hair dryers. ;)
I was only trying to be funny but I'm not good at it in text form. ;)
SilverWook said:
Wookiee years and dog years are different? ;)
No, his comparison is completely relevant as most Wookiees have their pigmentation intact when they are up to 200 years old (started off) but once they reach their 230th birthday (13 years) they should mostly be grey/white haired.
Mielr said:
althor1138 said:
It is not present in the DC. I can't say for sure about the faces. I only own esb(faces).Isn't it the general consensus that the DC and Faces discs are the same, except that one is CAV and one is CLV? They are from the same masters, I believe (as is the GOUT).
Not that this answer of mine has any bearing on althor1138's original question. But it depends on what pressing of the DC you own. At least one shot utilizes another source on early pressings of the DC (lightsaber shot in Ben's Hut). While the replacement seen on the Faces LD and the Bonus Feature DVD fixed a quite severe case of DVNR, it introduced another flaw here which is incorrect aspect ratio. But on the other hand those early DC pressings lacked the "Leia welding scene" in ESB among other things, so it's more of an early production flaw than a "true difference."
Ridiculously enough, the tranfers on the LD's overall displays slightly more vertical detail compared to the Bonus Feature DVD's and if we're going to be even more picky, different amounts of complete frames. And the LD's of course contains the 1981 re-release crawl on the first film. The latter might be enough to some collectors.
When it comes to SW don't underestimate to what lenght some people are willing to go to get these minor differences in sound and picture. Personally I have to say that I have more understanding of people buying these old LD releases, despite the easy availability of that Bonus Feature and Fan Edits, than I can ever get for those who buy the 2011 BD release.
althor1138 said:
Can anybody explain the crazy amount of grain present in the tantive hallway shootout scenes on the gout? It's not present on any other release afaik.
Those scenes are grainy on original prints as well but it doesn't look like it does on the GOUT. I guess the reason it stands out and looks so coarse on the GOUT is probably because of the contrasty and sharpened picture quality. And the reason you don't see it on the '93/'95 LD's is the overall soft image. Less detail and analog video noise obscures it. That's my take on it.
I agree it's a bit odd due to the severe detail loss of the crude DVNR, but it seems like the grain and noise survived somehow in some of those scenes.
What's funny is that those scenes were partly recomposited in 1997 and still noise reduced to hell in 2004. But we're talking about the same company who let the 1997SE Home Video release go through an equally as bad DVNR process as the THX release had gone through four years prior despite its "completely restored" moniker.
SilverWook said:
Could this be a deleted scene?
Yes, while used on the lobby cards it never made it into the film as we know it.
captainsolo said:
The WOWOW certainly seems to be the source element for the re-timed Raiders and corrects many of the issues I saw in the new 35mm print and feels much more natural to my eyes.
With re-timed Raiders do you mean the blu-ray?
Sorry for the late answer, thxita. Somehow didn't notice your PM until now. Besides a new color timing I know they digitally recomposited some effect scenes back when they created the "Director's Cut."
An easy way to tell what version you got should be:
Original
DC
Save and switch between the screenshots for easier comparison.
TV's Frink said:
This thread survived the migration? Too bad.
I think it's still nice that he has come to a "final" conclusion after thirty pages.
imperialscum said:
He doesn't blast any myths. He himself creates more of them. His statements are as (un)trustworthy as those of Lucas. He states that they "natural parted" because of the story, yet as it seems that he was in fact removed by Lucas in the middle of ESB and replaced by Kazanjian.
Do we actually know the details of what really happened? He was there after all...
The only thing we know for sure is that he submitted his resignation during the production of ESB. We know he didn't leave before the completion of the film and that he was actively involved from post production through its release in theatres in the US, UK and Japan. Even when ROTJ was in production he was still around from time to time. It seems to me their parting was mutual as he says. It's not like they became these bitter enemies that some articles like to portray it.
Ah, okay. Sorry, PDB. I mistakenly thought those '99 DVD samples of yours were final.
Synnöve said:
Honestly, in the above images the blu-ray (top image?) shows better shadow detail as well as gamma... in the bottom image it almost looks like detail in the cloud is being blown out.
The top images of what he last posted are the '99 DVD.
PDB said:
Actually the color grading is based on the 1995 laserdisc and not the 1999 DVD, that accounts for the weird hues you are seeing. On first page I presented those two possible regrades. Initially, everyone seemed to like the 1995 LD better for a variety of reasons, like warmer skin tones, more 70s era look, etc.
Yeah, I understand that. I was only referring to those '99 regrades on the first page. They don't match my '99 DVD that well, hence my question. Not trying to be critical to your project in any way, quite the opposite, just being curious of why I see these differences in hues.
moviefreakedmind said:
Sure, I agree that at that time Lucas was still hung up on his "true vision" and that's why the GOUT was so poor. He wanted it to be released in a subpar quality so that his , and it was very petty. Remember though, this was in 2006, and by the time we got to the blu rays he didn't even mention his "vision" he just mentioned it being expensive and time consuming. He didn't even say it'd never happen, probably because he was already working on the Disney sale. I've always noticed George softening on his whole, "one version only" idea. In 1997 he wanted to let all copies of the trilogy deteriorate, and in 2006 he released the laserdisc on DVD which effectively "preserves" the films digitally (I know it sucked, but he did release), and then by 2011 he's just saying that he isn't interested. Not opposed to releasing them, just not interested, and he completely admitted that he was perfectly capable of doing so, while in '06 he was claiming that it was impossible to restore them.
That "softening" some speak of, did we ever see anything being materialized...?
I can assure you he never changed his mind on this, I put together a greatest hits of his comments to the media regarding this last year: http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Lets-all-say-something-nice-about-George-Lucas-No-insults-allowed/post/617831/#TopicPost617831
I only see a hypocritical man burping the same shit over and over again, when he spoke to the media, he couldn't behave himself either due to being too personally invested in the things being criticized or he acted like a politician.
The only thing he gave the old fans who made him during his last twenty years at the helm of Lucasfilm was a 15 year old LD master as a bonus feature and in the process destroyed a bit of American Cinema history. Btw, where is his THX 1138 he was so proud of back in the day? Oh, right you can watch it on laserdisc, I forgot... The irony, the true cut of his film Coppola and him fought so passionately to save from the studio back in the day is just another series of patches in his software program.