People should really not bother replying to the 14 year olds that post here lol
I’m more wanted here than you. Or should I remind you?
Now kindly fuck off.
I’m not sure what you mean saying that the light beams move at different speeds. They don’t seem to to me! The light beam that is in a different position in the gif you posted is NOT moving in either clip. Yet it moves more in your gif than the hair does. We should get to the bottom of this.
They are different thicknesses and transparencies… I wonder if differences in the fidelity of the films and scans, the cropping, or post-processing effects like sharpening/DNR might have something to do with it? Maybe that could also explain why the hair seems to move a little! After all, the specific way it moves really reminds me of comparing the same frame from, say, Harmy’s Despecialized and 4k83. Seems less fucking insane than Lucasfilm editing in a pubic hair for no reason.
Oh my god…
I aligned the shot exactly before comparing. Oh well, It was just my theory, If you don’t want to belive me then that’s your pergotoive. What I do know is that the hair is, in fact, manipulated in the first shot, and no, DNR and Sharpening have nothing to do with it. Look at the top of the 0, it’s perfectly aligned and doesn’t move. So why does the hair?
Maybe it’s because you didn’t actually align the shot as well as you thought you did?
The original image was stretched and you did not account for the stretching exactly right. It’s most apparent in the clouds by the left edge of the frame, since the movement is more pronounced the further you get away from whatever you used as references when aligning the frames. But it’s also visible in how the 2 wobbles. The hair moves along with this stretching exactly. Compare it to the clouds nearby it on the right side of the frame.
It looks like it moves relative to the light cone, but looking at the whole frame it looks like the light cone just has a little difference in how the light cone’s glow drops off, changing where the “edge” appears. This is easily explained by differences in fidelity and post-processing. Much more easily than them editing in the hair. This is why I included that comparison from Return of the Jedi. The drop off in the glow of the lightsabers is significantly different, for similar reasons.
Yeah, I fixed that when I went back and did the GIF. Still doesn’t change my point…
What does differences in fidelity even mean? Film degradation isn’t gonna change the transparency of the in-frame element… no other version of this logo with the hair has this problem? There is clearly a unique shift to just the hair and nothing else…
I do have to admit that I’ve presented this rather soppily, and I should not have cropped the image GIF, as this clearly confused you. Sorry about that lol Hopefully you can see that the hair is in fact moving on its own…
I’m not sure what you mean saying that the light beams move at different speeds. They don’t seem to to me! The light beam that is in a different position in the gif you posted is NOT moving in either clip. Yet it moves more in your gif than the hair does. We should get to the bottom of this.
They are different thicknesses and transparencies… I wonder if differences in the fidelity of the films and scans, the cropping, or post-processing effects like sharpening/DNR might have something to do with it? Maybe that could also explain why the hair seems to move a little! After all, the specific way it moves really reminds me of comparing the same frame from, say, Harmy’s Despecialized and 4k83. Seems less fucking insane than Lucasfilm editing in a pubic hair for no reason.
Oh my god…
Those are two completely misaligned clips you’re showing… of course, they’re gonna look different! I aligned the shot exactly before comparing. Oh well, It was just my theory, If you don’t want to belive me then that’s your pergotoive. What I do know is that the hair is, in fact, manipulated in the first shot, and no, DNR and Sharpening have nothing to do with it. Look at the top of the 0, it’s perfectly aligned and doesn’t move. So why does the hair?
Yeah, guys, definitely just nonsense:
RM4747 is so clever! I wish I were more like him!
Looks just like a difference in sharpness/DNR with the color gradient there.
It’s also more cropped in, like I mentioned.
Almost like one of the images was anamorphic and one was flat, so the anamorphic is slightly distorted.
Editing in a hair (only to remove it) would make literally no sense at all.
Why would they do that?
The rest of the image is exactly the same proportion-wise.
It’s not though? The light cone clearly moves in the gif you posted lmfao
Did I not say previously that the light beams were different??
EDIT: Just checked again, that beam is in the same position in that frame… it’s just thinner and less transparent in the original. Again, these have to be different versions…
Yeah, guys, definitely just nonsense:
RM4747 is so clever! I wish I were more like him!
Looks just like a difference in sharpness/DNR with the color gradient there.
It’s also more cropped in, like I mentioned.
Almost like one of the images was anamorphic and one was flat, so the anamorphic is slightly distorted.
Editing in a hair (only to remove it) would make literally no sense at all.
Why would they do that?
It’s not. The hair is very clearly in a different position and is a different thickness. The rest of the image is exactly the same proportion-wise.
DNR and Sharpening can’t and doesn’t shift specific pixels or characters around…
That might be the case.
Honestly, you come across as a teenager in these comments.
“NO! YOU’RE WRONG!”
“Actually, I think this is true…”
“Oh… well, that might be the case…”
LMAO
Everyone here should just ignore you, child. Don’t you have homework to do?
I never said those words at all. He was wrong. John Williams didn’t compose the 20th Century Fox logo. I wasn’t sure about its usage, and I made that very clear. Keep bullshiting… You’ve been repeatedly proven a fool, yet you can’t seem to accept it.
I’ve always found it quite interesting how when the Fox logos were changed for the 97SE they kept their original themes, even on the soundtrack. ANH has always been the most obvious.
I know John Williams himself composed theme for all the films.
What? What themes?
The Fox logo theme music itself.
John Williams did not compose the music. That was composed by Alfred Newman. He did record a version but it wasn’t used in any of the Star Wars films. Instead they just used the original recording…
I thought they only used the original recording on SW77, but Williams’ recordings on ESB & ROTJ?
That might be the case.
I’ve always found it quite interesting how when the Fox logos were changed for the 97SE they kept their original themes, even on the soundtrack. ANH has always been the most obvious.
I know John Williams himself composed theme for all the films.
What? What themes?
The Fox logo theme music itself.
John Williams did not compose the music. That was composed by Alfred Newman. He did record a version but it wasn’t used in any of the Star Wars films. Instead they just used the original recording…
I’ve always found it quite interesting how when the Fox logos were changed for the 97SE they kept their original themes, even on the soundtrack. ANH has always been the most obvious.
I know John Williams himself composed theme for all the films.
What? What themes?
Yeah, guys, definitely just nonsense:
RM4747 is so clever! I wish I were more like him!
That guy with no name said:
they also probably put that hair in after the fact. When you line it up precisely in an editor, it is, in fact, slightly off.Lol, no. That’s completely ridiculous and nonsense.
It’s not. Stay ignorant & stubborn.
It’s not right. The second one is, in fact, the right one.
Look at 4K77 and the GOUT DVD logo.
The one with the little hair at the top of the screen is the correct logo.
Oh my god. The hair proves nothing; that could have been added in for all I know. It fades in and out at different times, and the light beams are different in terms of look & speed.
On the other hand, the second logo is almost identical to the Original, besides the hair, which was probably cleaned as per the restoration…
The position isn’t different. Look at where the hair is in the light beam. Exactly the same.
Looks like the first image just isn’t cropped in as much, whereas 4K77 and the new scan are cropped in slightly more, and they removed the hair lol
I’m sure some purists will be upset about the missing hair haha
That’s another thing: the orignal Fox logo element used for Star Wars was always cropped like that. In fact, all that extra information doesn’t exist in the Star Wars version of the logo. They most likely couldn’t find a high-quality version of the correct logo, so that was probably from a different film. Which explains why it’s different; they also probably put that hair in after the fact. When you line it up precisely in an editor, it is, in fact, slightly off. I guess they ended up finding the original and cleaning up the hair.
The second one is correct. Not the first.
It’s not right. The second one is, in fact, the right one.
Look at 4K77 and the GOUT DVD logo.
The one with the little hair at the top of the screen is the correct logo.
Oh my god. The hair proves nothing; that could have been added in for all I know. It fades in and out at different times, and the light beams are different in terms of look & speed.
On the other hand, the second logo is almost identical to the Original, besides the hair, which was probably cleaned as per the restoration…
Some Interested Observer said:
If I’m not mistaken, that 20th Century logo is the first example we have of two versions of the same scene being uploaded? Perhaps this is a very small insight into how they’re evaluating different sources?
Yeah. It seems that this second one is the correct one. The old one was slightly different…
The one with the hair is the correct one, the top one.
It’s possible the 2nd one is from an international release or something, since they’re scanning foreign languages too.
It’s not right. The second one is, in fact, the right one.
“old” ALI (adjusted to match 4K77):
4K77
“new” ALI
The light beams are different and move at different speeds; the overall proportions of the image are different, too. The hair might have been superimposed in because its position is also slightly different…
Some Interested Observer said:
If I’m not mistaken, that 20th Century logo is the first example we have of two versions of the same scene being uploaded? Perhaps this is a very small insight into how they’re evaluating different sources?
Yeah. It seems that this second one is the correct one. The old one was slightly different…
I hope I am not not overstepping here, but the preview just posted by the editor is best watched after downloading it. There is noticeable compression when streaming video on Google Drive.
The downloaded file has the clip with proper color and 4k quality.
This is news to you?
i still can imagine if lucus arts and lucus films releases a undone pre special edition uncut unrated and uncensored super extended verison along with a 1997 special edition style uncut unrated and uncensored super extended verison for the 50th anniversary
Eh?
what if for the 50th anniversary lucus arts and lucus films releases
a non 1997 special edition uncut unrated and uncensored super extended verison
a 1997 special edition style uncut unrated uncensored super extrended verison
LucasArts was dissolved on April 3, 2013. It hasn’t existed for 13 years. Have you been drinking?
NEW SCREENSHOT COMPARISON & NEW VIDEO CLIP - FROM Star Wars…
ALI…
This shot looks great, but Han’s looks kind of weird.
hhhhh… Again, The Midtones and highlights are suppressed here so as not to blow out the Subtitles… this will most likely change when this is tonemapped…
“This time, instead of taking PM requests, I’ll have an email system where you’ll email a copied sentence and automatically receive a reply with a link. All the information will be in a published Google Doc to separate it from this site.”
I’ve seen faneditors do this but I’m wondering how you’ll do this on OT.com without breaking a rule.
This is not a direct link and thus does not break any rules. All information and instructions will be in a separate Google Doc, which is the only link on this site. This is no different than asking people to email me for the link; the only difference is that it’s automated.
UPDATE:
A new version is in progress because I was never truly happy with how the colors turned out, and I now have better references for the colors as I’ve acquired an extensive original stills package, which will help me get more accurate colors…
I’ll also be using the 2025 Steelbook master this time, as it has a slightly better encode. There will be two audio tracks: the 4K 7.1 downmixed to 5.1 and the 2013 3D 5.1 Remix.
This time, instead of taking PM requests, I’ll have an email system where you’ll email a copied sentence and automatically receive a reply with a link. All the information will be in a published Google Doc to separate it from this site.
Once complete, I’ll upload some screenshots and post the Google doc with instructions on how to download…
Until then here’s a little preview:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/167naEShFe5FCsEx1wHXqD-gawVp0X3KD/view?usp=sharing
Some Interested Observer said:
Seems like we’ll be getting these new exports for a bit. Apart from the new format obviously, they seem to be lacking the temporary audio and have fewer technical details. Could they possibly be less finished than what we’ve been seeing so far, given some seemingly low contrast on the last one? (or have they just changed the way they’ve gone about showing these).
The last one does not have low contrast… the highlights are a bit flat because they’re trying not to blow out the highlights of the subtitles…
The DOUT isn’t going to be in cinemas for a whole year. Nobody knows about home releases yet. I think waiting for that isn’t practical or desirable, especially as lots of work has already been done.
Why are we calling it DOUT again? There is no other version called “OUT”, why do we have to specify it’s Disney???
Honestly, after the “4K” LOTR trilogy hype with everyone parroting “it will be scanned from ogrinal negatives” which in the end it clearly wasn’t and PJ said as much, I am very much in DOUT it will be everything everyone is saying it will be.
This time we have literal visual evidence…
The DOUT isn’t going to be in cinemas for a whole year. Nobody knows about home releases yet. I think waiting for that isn’t practical or desirable, especially as lots of work has already been done.
Why are we calling it DOUT again? There is no other version called “OUT”, why do we have to specify it’s Disney???
tbf, the new release is not actually unaltered, as they’re re-doing some of the foley
For an alternative audio track, the film with its original stereo mix will remain intact…
The DOUT isn’t going to be in cinemas for a whole year. Nobody knows about home releases yet. I think waiting for that isn’t practical or desirable, especially as lots of work has already been done.
Why are we calling it DOUT again? There is no other version called “OUT”, why do we have to specify it’s Disney???
one key reason to why I have a grudge against you is your attitude, whatever I do “trolling, trolling, trolling,” etc. I believe you should be the one who is reported.
Because what you do and say is so over the top ridiculous no one believes it’s serious…
