zombie84

TheBoost said:

Mithrandir said:

One of the most interesting things I've read about piracy and copyright was strangely in the words of Liam Gallagher:

“I hate all these big, silly rock stars who moan – at least they’re fuckin’ downloading your music, you cunt, and paying attention, know what I mean? You should fuckin’ appreciate that – what are you moaning about? You’ve got fuckin’ five big houses, so shut up,”

 

"Interesting." Yeah, that's one word for it.

 At what point does someone not deserve to get compensated for their labor? What's the exact dollar ammount where it's now 'enough' and it's ok to steal from them?

Is it the same for civil engineers or financial planners as it is for musicians?

If I develope a cure for a disease and people steal if from me, should I just be happy people are enjoying my cure?

 I think a lot of people would put art in a different category than medicine or engineering or any other "job." But there is also a very good point Quackula made that most musicians that are semi-famous, have deals and fans, are on the radio, etc., don't make a whole lot of money and struggle to enjoy a middle-class lifestyle. The flipside, of course, is that downloading doesn't make much of a dent in their income because most of it comes from concerts and merchandising. If musicians had to rely only on CD sales they'd have to give up and get a real job.

twooffour said:

Just for the record, I don't think that taking *some* measures in order to avoid your kid bumping into giant spoilers in general is inherently "creepy" or anything, it's just this over-obsession with the "Star Wars experience" that should be "protected" from being "tainted" by the "exposure" to the "false and horrible prequels", that I find very odd, and very inviting for ruthless mockery.

 This is my POV as well. It's the sort of thing that if people not from OT.com were to come here and read would think that we are obsessive and crazy.

The Boost, no disrespect to you, but I don't believe you when you say you won't allow your kids to see "crap." This is the exact sort of thing I am talking about. You let your kids see crap every day, probably. If they watch kids films or kids TV shows, they will mostly see crap, because most of them are dumb. And that's okay. Almost all children's cartoons are dumb, and live action shows are usually unintelligent and juvenile. Other, more conservative parents, might also say they are unnecessarily violent, shorten children's attention spans, and overstimulate them with advertising and video media. If you are a good parent and pay close attention to what they watch, guess what? 90% of it is still likely to be as crappy than the prequels. There is nothing inherantly offensive in the prequels other than the fact that they disappointed us--they are fairly technically accomplished and well composed pieces of entertainment, way more than some movies your son sees. Children's programming even in the best examples is usually not very good by adult standards. That's because they aren't meant for adult standards but children's.

When I was a kid, I watched Power Rangers and Ninja Turtles. Bad acting, silly stories, dumb graphics, lots of violence, potty humour, whatever. They are in general dumb, shitty shows as far as adults are concerned. That is why they are for kids. They were dumb but also fun as hell, and formed a big part of my enjoyment of childhood, and the childhood of 100 million other kids in the early 1990s. Of course my dad would not have liked them. How many shows that kids watch are ones their parents would enjoy themselves, or even approve of in terms of dramatic quality? I can only think of two or three from my childhood. But it would have been infinitely silly and weird if he not only dissuaded me but prevented me from seeing them just because he didn't think they were well made. Every time you let your child select a show or movie they like or they would like to see, you are probably exposing them to a stupid, dumb program whose dramatic integrity you would question. Which is why it's self-serving to "hide" your kids from the "damage" of the "PT", totally unable to see the films beyond your own, adult-oriented experience from ten, twenty years earlier. Hell, the Droids cartoon show was fucking bad, bad acting, dated animation, and it doesn't really fit in with the OT storyline or world, but if your kid really, really, REALLY wanted to see Droids I am sure most people would say, "okay."

In fact, in a bizarre way, you are robbing them of the one thing everyone here wishes: a prequel trilogy that is good. Imagine having that? That's what kids have, and I am frankly jealous. I am also jealous that they have legitimately well-done SW cartoons like the Clone Wars. Well, when TPM came out I was 14 and I loved the film, thought it was awesome. I was young enough that I didn't see or care that it had elements questionable to adults. I laughed at Jar Jar a couple times. Lucasfilm sold the most toys this year out of any company without a movie--think about that. The PT-era is one designed for kids, and the one area where Lucas succeeded. When they are adults, they may realise the PT isn't as good as they thought, just like I realise now that Power Rangers is shitty, even though I watched Power Rangers ten times more than I watched Star Wars from 1993-1995.

I agree with not volunteering the PT on kids. You can show them much better things. And if they ask about it, I agree with offering the advice that they are better off without it. But if they are really into it and really show an interest, to actually go to any length to "shield" them from it, and in some cases reported here actually actively manipulate them into not seeing it despite their strong desire to--that strikes me as a super weird thing that most normal people might even say is selfish. Kids will love the prequels and the cartoons, the only real audience that will get the full enjoyment out of them is the one between the ages of five years old and fifteen. Just let them be kids and stop acting like weird adult-fanboys totally too wrapped up in an anti-PT crusade to stop and think that maybe your son or daughter might actually find enjoyment from it all.

I'm wearing one of those right now actually. :D Mine has x-wings.

Akwat, my comment wasn't in reference to you specifically but to xhonzi.

No, I think he wants this as a public thing.

Xhonzi, that's actually a good idea. I will definitely do a follow up just for nostalgia if there is enough photos of "star wars memories".

I'm not saying either of those things. I'm just saying, if kids want to watch something that will probably give them entertainment and fun times, it seems counter-intuitive to go to such lengths to manipulate them into not having that experience just because you didn't have it.

Akwat Kbrana said:

My rationale is probably the same as yours. It's not a matter of censoring the movies he watches (beyond what a responsible parent should do anyway) or trying to force my views down his throat; it's more a matter of wanting him to be able to appreciate the magic of Star Wars exactly how it was before the PT came along and ruined it. Personally, I wish to high heaven someone had prevented me from ever seeing the prequels, since it irreversibly alters the context within which the OT occurs. I know you can always say "Well just ignore the PT; problem solved!" but that's really easier said than done. Whereas pre-1999 there was a lot of mystery and intrigue involved whenever I watched Star Wars ("I wonder what the clone wars were like," etc.), I now have to make a conscious decision not to think about the official crappy backstory. So while it is possible to enjoy the OT while ignoring the PT, it's still not as interesting/exciting/magical as it was in the days of pre-1999 blissful ignorance. And that's the untainted Star Wars universe that I want my kids to experience. 

The problem though, is that they are in a situation exactly the same as yours then. You spent your adolescence watching the "pure" OT, then the PT came along and "ruined it" for you. Even if you hide the PT from your kids and show them just the OT, they will still eventually see it one day. So it will be the same as you, so how are you saving them the tragedy that befell you? The PT exists and you can never create a situation where Star Wars is "untarnished" by it. The idea that showing them all the films now will create less of an experience is based on the assumption that they will hate the PT and think the OT is lesser for it, which is far-fetched and unrealistic.

The alternative is that they see the PT and like it, because they are children and are entertained by movies like the PT. They may even grow to love the PT. If this makes them pay attention to the OT less it is only because the PT has provided a more worthwhile distraction for them, as one might not be all that surprised from kids. Then, when they are older, they realise that the original films were actually a lot better made than the prequels and are classics of cinema. The other alternative is that they see the PT and aren't crazy about it, so they keep watching those other ones they like.

The flaw in this whole thing is that you are projecting your own views of the films onto people that don't have them. The OT won't be "ruined" by them seeing the PT now, because in order to do that they have to have the same initial experience as you, and unless you have a time machine and a brain swapping device, that won't happen. They won't have the environment and context that we had in the 70s, 80s and 90s, because its not the 70s, 80s and 90s, and they won't be adults seeing the PT either. Instead, they will go to school and see Mace Windu action figures and hear about the movie where Anakin turns into Darth Vader and their friends will all be talking about new episodes of the Clone War series with Obi Wan and Ahsoka. This is the context for a kid in the year 2011. If your son finds a movie from 1977 interesting, he's not suddenly going to hate it if you show him the Clone Wars, although he might find Clone Wars more appealing and interesting. This isn't taking anything away from Star Wars, kids like what they like, it will just supplement it and give him entertainment and pleasure that he otherwise wouldn't have had. That's why it always seems like this is really not for the kids benefit but for the parents'. They don't care if they like the PT more than the OT, you do.

That's why the idea of going to such lengths to manipulate your kids from not seeing the PT does seem a bit strange and obsessive about the PT's "badness", no offence intended. It just seems like treating the movies with way more seriousness than is merited. There is a whole video, posted here, that has people doing stuff like this, but as parody, or at least halfway parody. I get it that you want them to have the same experience you did, but it just seems like denying them an otherwise fun experience for this notion that they must and will necessarily have the same feelings as you. The idea of programming your kids to be "safe" from the PT just seems a bit...odd. I mean, I'm not trying to tell anyone how to raise their kids. What the hell do I know about parenting? It just seems counter-intuitive to me. It's not the idea, because I wouldn't want to volunteer much PT stuff on my kids either because I feel that there is better things for them to see, I guess it's just the level of involvement when there is a clear desire on their part to see them. The films are harmless and the worst they will do is give them entertainment IMO. I mean stuff like the Clone War series is fantastic fun for me, and I'm an adult, I wish I had this stuff as a kid.

Harmy, this is brilliant. :D

I agree with Quackula. Xhonzi, you are acting a bit ridiculous and obsessive. Your kids will see the prequels one day. The prequels are not so heinous that they will destroy your children's view of Star Wars. In fact, your kids could grow a bit older and realize the only reason they liked the OT was because it was forced on them and they didn't have as much choice. Big deal, right? Whatever makes them happy. I agree that, as a parent, you should decide what influences your kids get, and personally I wouldn't volunteer the prequels because I think there are other, better movies they could spend their finite amount of time watching. But if they actually wanted to watch them, why in the world would I withhold it? I would wait on ROTS because of its violence, but the honest truth is that they will probably like Phantom Menace, and they will fast forward through 50% of AOTC and really like the other 50%. They will probably love the Clone Wars too. If its something your kids like, why deny them? They don't have to like the same things you like. And, as has been said before by CO, they will likely grow up and realise, "well, TPM makes me nostalgic for my childhood, but it's not that great...but damn, how the hell did I find ESB boring??" Because the truth is that when we were young, all the kids thought ESB was dull and ROTJ was the shit. It was the shit because it had less talking and more fighting and better graphics and mothafuckin muppets and awesome dancing and cute Ewoks. They're kids--they like dumb stuff and it gives them pleasure, just like every cartoon and most other movies they watch, and they don't care if it changes the way they see ANH, probably they will never care. They will probably never care because that is something important to you, not to them. You gotta face it man, if we were all kids right now most of us would love The Clone Wars and not have much interest in ESB. It's just generational divide, and kids don't appreciate classic films as much, which is what the OT is. I say, let them be kids and have films to enjoy.

This topic is particularly relevant because just this morning Wired Magazine wrote to me about this very thing. I'll post my entire reply here because maybe people will find it interesting, or disagree with it.

> Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 13:53:12 -0500
> Subject: Wired Magazine Inquiry
>

> To: webmaster@secrethistoryofstarwars.com
>
> Mr. Kaminski,
>
> My name is Brendan I. Koerner and I am a contributing editor at Wired
> magazine (http://www.wired.com/magazine/). I write a monthly column in which
> I answer readers' questions regarding the legal, moral, and ethical
> complexities of life in the Digital Age.
>
> For an upcoming issue, I'm addressing a reader's inquiry regarding a topic I
> believe near and dear to your heart--not philosophy, but "Star Wars." He
> asks the following (reprinted nearly verbatim): "I have two boys, ages 4 and
> 6, who I obviously love very dearly. But when I recently showed them the
> original Star Wars, they said it was dull and asked to turn it off before
> the Millennium Falcon reached the Death Star. How do I make them recognize
> this movie¹s genius?"
>
> I was wondering whether you might be willing to share a few thoughts with my
> reader, to help him through his quandary. I guess the larger issue here is
> whether we can change how people perceive art by supplying them with new
> information. But on a more practical level, is there anything that this
> father can do to enhance his sons' enjoyment of the movie? And if not, how
> might he be able to accept that his sons' rejection of the film isn't a
> character flaw?
>
> Any wisdom you could provide would be greatly appreciated. And I would, of
> course, be happy to credit you and mention "The Secret History of Star Wars"
> (as well as its website) in the column.
>
> Thank you in advance for your gracious assistance. All of my contact
> information is listed below. My deadline is this coming Monday, February
> 7th, at 5 p.m. Eastern time.
>
> All best,
> Brendan I. Koerner
>
> --
> Brendan I. Koerner
> Contributing Editor
> WIRED

Hi Brendan,
 
I would be pleased to impart some advice to your readers for this issue. My take on it is for the guy to basically accept that they don't like the films and move on, if that's what the case is. At 4 and 6 they might be TOO young actually, because to a 4-year old in 1977 Star Wars was the cinematic equivalent to pinball, but in 2011 it's been left in the dust and won't grab them immediately so it might require more patience. I would recommend trying again a couple times, maybe in a few more years, but in truth they might not warm up. But it's interesting how generational divide like this makes parents feel like they are in crisis.
 
Of course, the honest truth is that one's kids might not like the original Star Wars films and that is not abnormal if you think about it. Even more painful: if they are like the other hundred million kids in the country, they will probably dig the prequel stuff. Oh god! Right? Well, the simple truth is that kids don't like some things their parents like and parents don't like thing some things their kids like. And kids sure don't like a lot of stuff that was meaningful to their parents when they were young, because they live in a different era. If you play Deep Purple or The Doors for your kids, they aren't likely to think it's very cool music; but they probably will like the stuff that's on the radio now. Star Wars impressed us when we were young because it was contemporary to us, if not in literal years then at least in style: even in the 1990s, the style of sci-fi and fantasy movies hadn't changed very much, so the cinematography, the overall stylization and the visual effects still impressed people, and there still really wasn't anything comparable to Star Wars anyway so it's not like you had a whole lot of choice if you were into those genres. Let's face it, movies are superficial, and one of the main reasons any of us paid attention to the original Star Wars is because it was spectacular. Movies have changed a lot since the 1990s, and the original Star Wars films have become dated. Like anything else you liked when you were young. The fact that there are a ton of really good sci-fi/fantasy films in the last 15 years will only make this generational divide more apparent. Star Wars doesn't look, sound or feel the same as stuff like Iron Man or Lord of the Rings or the new Star Trek, it looks, sounds and feels like a movie made decades ago. It will not impress kids who have seen Spiderman and Harry Potter. Star Wars endured as a relevant film for so long because that style of movie didn't change much, but some time in the early 2000s we reached a point where the films no longer looked or felt very contemporary. The Special Editions tried to spruce up a few special effects and managed to get by in 1997, but the films' aging is deeper than that, it's apparent in everything from haircuts to editorial pace to shot design, which is why it no longer works. Even though some things are "classics", some children will be able to enjoy them and good for them for having wider tastes, but some won't, a lot won't. Many kids still watch Wizard of Oz, but I can also imagine that a lot would be put off by the black and white intro, old-fashioned acting, dated visual effects and the 1930s dance numbers. Just because you liked Harry Potter or Chronicles of Narnia doesn't mean you will find Wizard of Oz very meaningful or interesting the way kids of generations past did. And so it is with Star Wars.
 
The silver lining is that eventually kids mature, and they learn to appreciate material that was made before they were born. They also develop better tastes in things--think of all the crap you thought was cool when you were a kid. When you re-watch stuff when you get older you realise that most of the movies and shows you thought were so entertaining really weren't very well done at all. And you also realise that a lot of stuff that bored you as a kid is pretty awesome. When I was yonger, all my friends thought that Rocky III was way better; the original was so talky, had no fights, looked really rough around the edges, very 70s. Flash forward fifteen years and holy crap, Rocky III is mildly entertaining but that original film is a real classic with a lot of heart and soul. How could I have been so dumb? Well, that's what being a kid is about. You like dumb stuff, because you're just a kid. You especially like flashy, shiny, explody stuff that looks like a video game, and Star Wars doesn't cut it any more. If you're a kid now, you will probably find The Clone Wars entertaining but Empire Strikes Back not so much. But probably most when they grow up will discover Empire Strikes Back is a rich and entertaining film and The Clone Wars mildly amusing and nostalgic but not a real classic of cinema.
 
But the obvious bottom line is that you can't make kids like the original Star Wars, and just because you think it's the greatest thing in the world doesn't mean everyone else will. And honestly: even when the kids grow up, they might still think the films aren't very good. A lot of people just aren't into Star Wars. You shouldn't be like one of the parents trying to convince their kid that they must love sports just because you do. You might, but you might not. I think "Star Wars Parents" nowadays have misled themselves of their expectations because the films were watched as contemporary cinema even into the 1997 re-release, which was and I believe still is the biggest January opener of all time, quite astounding. But the films are becoming like everything else from eras past, which is to say they had a specific context and their relevance is not the same anymore. Just because you are a Beatle Maniac I don't think you would expect your kids to be, and if you thought Clint Eastwood was the coolest man alive in 1975 I wouldn't expect your ten year old son to think so either. If you think about it, this is really a confrontation parents have to face with themselves: they've become old! Really, baby boomers discovering that their ten-year-old son isn't blown away by Sgt. Pepper and instead wants to listen to Nirvana must have been a seminal moment for parents of the 1990s, who finally realised that they weren't so young any more. Parents can still enjoy the original Star Wars and Kids today will have their own Star Wars equivalent, just like my dad kept listening to the Beatles and I cranked up Nirvana. When I was ten I remember complaining to my dad to turn down Aqualung because it sucked so much. But my dad got vindicated in the end--a few years ago I inherited his very own vinyl LP of Aqualung and it gets pretty heavy rotation on my turntable, it's a great rock album. So you never know.
 
Star Wars is a classic film, just like Casablanca, Singing in the Rain, Rocky or Back to the Future. Kids today might not be into them, but they have a place in history and maybe in adulthood people will discover and appreciate them. I think you should try to expose your kids to the classics, in all mediums of art, because you never know, sometimes kids will latch on to them, and timing is important too, because older films aren't as spectacular or faced pace, so I think the kids have to be in a more patient mood. But I also think if a kid isn't in to something then let him or her be and hope that maybe one day they will learn to like it. Star Wars was ours, but kids today have their own things.
 
Sorry this was so terribly long winded, haha, it's a very interesting subject actually because it's something so personal to people. I didn't expect to write four paragraphs. Hope this helps add some perspective though!

The technicolor star-shaped cue marks are identified in Usenet posts from 1997 where multiple people say they noticed these.

On Puggo's version there are only three reels and reel 3 begins in the trash compactor and goes all the way until the end of the film. I assume that all 16mm prints must have had the same reel numbers and lengths, right? I haven't seen the Swedish version yet. Is it confirmed that this a reel change, or is it just damage? If it is not a new reel, then the ones on Starkiller wouldn't be 16mm changeover marks. In fact, they almost look like holes punched through the film the way they are white like that. Are they in the exact same spot for multiple frames? Changover marks are printed in and will remain fixed, if that just appears for a single frame each it's more likely print damage (the shape of the "hole" is even different in those two screenshots, and it looks very organically shaped, rather than the more deliberate cue marks you usually see).

There is a JSC transfer that has been around for a long time now, of decent quality from what I can tell. I kind of wish I had it myself as well. People here have it, you'll just have to wait until someone sees this thread I suppose...

Oh, there is definitely a difference. These are high quality prints, very expensive to make but you can see the quality, and the paper is probably very nice as well. And the wooden box is very nice too, and especially with the extremely limited quality it's not suprise that it's expensive. But instead of the $500 you might expect for a super-premium thing like this it's the price of a used car. Ultimately the Blu Ray will give you better resolution than the prints here anyway, so it's not like this is the best way to see these frames the way it would have been any other time up until five years ago. This is more for the novelty and collectibility, but who in their mind would spend 3 grand unless you were very rich? I guess there are so many millions of Star Wars fans that there are 1138 rich ones. I rather like the idea behind this project, but the pricetag is kind of offensive.

Also, that smear mark looks like it's a gluestain, but not from a splice. It appears to be a torn frame that was patched back together. Normally you just cut these out, but I guess this one was small enough to be repairable.

Finally, as to disqualification of the (apparently) 16mm Catnap print, while obviously this isn't a "theatrical performance" (i.e. live from a theatre), this seems a bit harsh. Number one, none of the SW video bootlegs are from an actual theatrical performance as far as I am aware (unlike the audio recordings), they are just film prints photographed or telecined. You could argue that these prints represent what people would have been seeing on the screen, even though this doesn't actually capture that process live, but by the same token the 16mm is just a copy of these anyway, so it is virtually the same in a preservationist sense (at least when dealing with VHS quality). I realise there is a technical difference, but in a practical sense it is an "original 1977 film source", and I think that is the ultimate point of this collection, so if it does not qualify technically then it ought to qualify as a supplement.

Wouldn't this giant ass book of prints confirm that Lucas isn't changing the colours? I mean he went through the original trilogy FRAME BY FRAME. For years. They started doing this in like 2005 or something, with Lucas personally taking the time over three or four years to view the films in a frame by frame way and make selections. It's not like he can have the excuse some people attribute --"oh, well who actually watches their own films?" Not only does he watch them, he combed through them frame by frame, which took him years to do, and then spent another few years going over the selects and narrowing the total down.

none said:

zombie84 wrote:

I couldn't say whether its the detail level or the softness on the edges, but something about this just looks like a 16mm print to me.

The softness/details level could be a factor of the digitization. The Moth3r source is ~9gb while Catnap is ~3.5.

It's not the softness of the transfer. The transfer itself looks quite good. Its the print itself. It's hard to define in a tangible way, but when you've seen enough 16mm you start to notice the 16mm "look." Also, the hairs on the cap of the 3P0 desert shot are obscenely large, so it would make sense if the frame was 16mm in size.

As to "why do bars, professional telecine, etc."...why not? The guy had access to a professional telecine machine. Maybe he worked at a television station or a lab, or knew someone there. It wasn't really feasible to do your own telecine without having access to the legit equipment. It is also standard practice to roll colour bars at the head of every tape, whether it is shooting to video or transfering to video. In commercial versions this gets edited out of course, but pretty much every professional video tape has colour bars at the head.

The blue shift, who knows, its pretty mild and its the sort of thing that can happen when copying different generations of tapes. Just look at the Starkiller tape, which is about 20 generations higher than this one, flesh tones have become yellow and all sorts of weird colour shifts are appearing. It could also have originated in the telecine, maybe it wasn't colour timed perfectly or there was some fading that they tried to counteract, and then the video copying exaggerated it a bit. Even though the tape quality is very good, this clearly isn't the original master, it's been copied from another VHS at least once. You should also check the reels individually and see if it is a reel-by-reel problem: if you pay attention to films, you will notice that each reel prints differently, with different qualities. One reel might be more yellow-shifted, the next more green-shifted, the next might have less contrast or more brightness. It's a subtle thing, but no two reels will ever print exactly the same.

If you want the DC just transferred to DVD then pretty much any video transfer from before 2006 will give you what you want. TR47 and Cowclops were the most common titles of the DC transfers, but Editdroid and Mothr were the best transfers. These tend to be hard to find now, because the 2006 official DVD linked from Amazon more or less has better picture quality so there's not much point in them existing. The 2006 DVD is not the Laserdisc itself but the master that was used for the Laserdisc, so it's basically the exact same thing. None of these are anamorphic because the 1993 DC wasn't anamorphic. So if you just want to watch the DC but not have to pull your Laserdisc player out, just buy the official discs. They don't have the interviews that were on the DC though; most of the earlier fan transfers didn't either, but there is a bonus disc out there that someone made with the interviews collected on it, but it's probably hard to find. Frankly, the bonus material was equally parts weak and short so you aren't really missing much, just pull out your Laserdisc if you want to watch them.

Of course, there are fan-created versions that improve on the DE by giving anamorphic conversion, slightly enhanced picture quality, and more audio options to the official DVDs from 2006. The most commonly found one is called "Dark Jedi" or sometimes DJ; v3.0 of this version of the trilogy will be out soon and is especially noteable for having many audio options. V2.0 can be found places, though it has less audio options and not nearly as good picture.

The 2004 shots were sought by the editors because the 1993 shots looked so shitty. I mean if you are a layout designer for a big visual-oriented coffee-table book, when you are used to high resolution scans and photographs this sort of thing, someone handing you a standard-def cap of the GOUT would probably make you think they made a mistake.

Just chiming in here. Catnap looks like someone did their own professional telecine of a 16mm print, which is basically confirmed by the colour bars that precede the film. I couldn't say whether its the detail level or the softness on the edges, but something about this just looks like a 16mm print to me. It would also explain a lot of the extra dirt and hairs. Sometimes television stations and airlines were provided with their own 16mm prints for showing. Maybe the print came from there originally but that's probably not the source of the telecine itself (widescreen being a major factor), my personal feeling is that this telecine came from someone doing their own transfer of their own print. I would agree that the black bars are electronically generated during telecine.

I've never seen this particular telecine before, and I think the reason this wasn't very widespread was because it's not from the commercial black market (i.e. street sellers), but done by a guy for his own viewing. The VHS copy itself looks like it is only two generations from the master, so probably he made a copy of the master for his buddy and this is how it circulated outside of his collection and online, otherwise no one but he and his friends would have ever seen it. That's my explanation anyway. My feeling is that this dates to the late 80s judging by the quality level and level of preservation of the video itself; it probably precludes the first widescreen VHS. That was probably the reason this guy did the transfer in the first place, number one it wasn't possible to buy the film at all without spending a hundred dollars or more, but number two it simply wasn't possible to see the film in widescreen on videotape, so some collector decided to use his 16mm print to make his own personal widescreen transfer.

I remember the whole "SE will be in theatres only." I believed it back then too, which was one reason why I saw the first film like 6 or 7 times that January. But it doesn't make sense if I had actually thought about it, but I was like 12 years old anyway.

It's not the video transfer creating them, they're on the film itself. They should be there, but if you have transfer/display levels set correctly they are mostly not very visible. Pre-SE video transfers have very bright levels and are on older standard-def technologies which tended to make them more obvious, but post-SE transfers got rid of a lot of them digitally or crushed the blacks down to the point where they are no longer there. I am pretty sure that even in theatres there were times when garbage mattes were visible.

Careful about trusting GOUT hologram scanlines as definitive visual representation of the original films. I still haven't wrapped my head around the whole debacle that last like five pages the other month. Just some advice; would be worth to double check against another transfer for each instance.

The physical ability to do it isn't the problem. As Robert Harris said, the films are pretty well protected in that there are sep masters for at least two and probably all three. The problem is that no one can get at them right now due to certain business conditions, the main one being that George Lucas has the legal right to block people from getting at them. This may or may not change in the near future but it will change in the distant future, and because of that it might come out in between those extremes (i.e. in 15-20 years, after Lucas dies, but maybe even less). The situation is bad but not hopeless.

Definitely looks too cyan, the highlights are slighly green, and the colours could use a big boost too. I would say split the difference in terms of the colour-shift and it should be pretty good. If you can program a saturation increase of a few points that would help a lot, that was basically the main point I was trying to emphasize with this thread.

If anything, if the 2011 set bombs financially, it will be incentive that the only way to make money off of SW is to release the originals.