Star Wars discussion from The Bits... - Page 12

Re: Star Wars discussion from The Bits...

I don't think they were alternate takes. Just the relocation of edit points as you said Jay. I just wanted to throw that into the mix because I hadn't seen it discussed yet. In fact I don't think I've seen any discussion on that since the original outcry 5 or 6 years ago.

Re: Star Wars discussion from The Bits...

To Mr. Steven Good

re: your post of May 19th

In know "me too's" and "atta boys" take up valuable thread space, but I felt compelled to post an "Amen Brother" after reading your email to Lucasfilm.

I too am an old school Star Wars fan (age 38) with an understanding wife, and have given Lucas more of my hard earned currency over the years than any other entertainment figure.

I have the OOT on VHS widescreen from the 1993 release, and will probably cave and buy these DVDs because they will be of higher quality than my VHS versions.

However, I could not agree more with your well written missive, which was devoid of the emotional ranting found in many other disgruntled fanboy posts.

Let us know if you receive any sort of response!

Re: Star Wars discussion from The Bits...

I often wondered why the idea of a seamless branching DVD was not used to provide both the 2004SE versions and restored/cleaned up originals.

Then again they wouldn't be considered originals, would they?

Re: Star Wars discussion from The Bits...

In the September 1993 issue of Widescreen Review, THX Technical Supervisor Dave Schnuelle describes the process of making the Definitive Collection Laserdiscs. Here are some comments from the interview:

"In this case, for all three films, we used interpositive elements that had been made directly from the camera negative. Other film transfers might be done from internegatives made from the interpositive, or from low-contrast prints, but we preferred the IP's for these transfers, because that's the earliest generation usable"

"One small difference from the original films is that in letterbox transfers we prefer to put any subtitles in the black border beneath the actual picture area. Thus we didn't use the same interpositive as the theatrical one, because that one contains subtitling already. In tracking down the elements, we found that the only ones in the vault were ones with subtitles- these clearly weren't the first generation off the camera neg because they had to have the subtitles burned in. So a massive search was undertaken and the first generation IP's were found in a special vault having only opticals in Los Angeles."

"A Mark IIIC with a 4:2:2 digital output [telecine] was used."

"[We used] a noise reduction and dirt concealment device made by Digital Vision, a company in Sweden. Their DVNR-1000 is a very powerful noise reducer for reducing film grain. Especially on the two earlier movies the film grain was very high."

Re: Star Wars discussion from The Bits...

And detail along with it, alas.

Re: Star Wars discussion from The Bits...

TO THE FOLKS AT LUCASFILM:
For a company that has constantly strived to be perceived as setting the standard is technology, be it through Lucas's films, games or other media, do you really want to go forward with a product you know is sub-standard?

Do you wanted to be associated with a lack of quality?

The funny thing is, I remember reading that the whole reason for the initial, and long delay in getting any version of Star Wars on DVD was that George wanted to do something "really special" exploiting the DVD format to its best. (This is a close approximation of what Rick McCallum stated.)

I am sure I am not alone (or just among other HTFers) when I say this:

1. Even if the original versions were released on DVD with the best image DVD can reproduce, I would still eagerly rebuy them on the next format released for home theater use and so on and so on.

2. I will not buy a rehash of the LD transfers that I already own simply ported over to DVD.

3. For film history's sake, these films should remain available in their original versions; the versions that worldwide audiences fell in love with, which also made Lucasfilm a TON of money.

4. I do watch the original versions. As much as I love the revised versions, I watch the original versions about once for every three times I watch the special editions. I love the films in BOTH versions, and greatly appreciate being able to enjoy what they were and what George has made them into.

5. Short-sightedness. What if the original 1933 King Kong had been constantly modified by Merian C. Cooper because he didn't like the "flaws" in the special effects?

Would we all have cheered at the WB release if it had only contained some radically "improved" version and not the 1933 original? No, we would want both versions.
Film history demands it.

I full respect George Lucas's rights to modify work he creates, but when myself and many others want to look back and smile with affection at the original versions, technical limitations and all, why is Lucas so unwilling to part me from my money?

As others have stated, in 2006 it is absurd for Lucasfilm to release a product that would, quality-wise, be more akin to a company like Madacy.

Release the original versions on DVD using the best that 2006 technology can offer.
The most widely respected film preservationist says it can be done,
so I guess the question is, does Lucasfilm care about quality or not?


IF NOT, It makes your company look disinterested in quality.

Bottom line: Yoda would release the original versions on DVD,
fully-restored, enhanced for widescreen home theater systems,
along with revised versions, and continue to do so as home theater formats improve.

Re: Star Wars discussion from The Bits...

Michael,

The Wikipedia article "List of changes in Star Wars re-releases" contains a link to the clip you are looking for.


Mr. Harris,

Please accept my apologies for the inappropriate link.

Re: Star Wars discussion from The Bits...

So, those Interpositives were "stripped for parts" in creating the 97 version? Was that only for Star Wars or all three?

Re: Star Wars discussion from The Bits...

Yep that's it Rob! I don't remember if there are others or not.

Re: Star Wars discussion from The Bits...

This is what I get for actually getting excited that something worthwhile might actually slink out of Skywalker Ranch. In a way, I'm relieved that such is not the case. I have my memories of a couple of good films that made a major impact in my youth, and that's certainly nothing to sneeze at. I'll keep those warm sentiments of good memories, and carry on as before... sans "Star Wars", save the occasional reminiscence of sneaking into 3-4 showings a day and doodling X-Wings on my school folders.

Re: Star Wars discussion from The Bits...

That's actually been posted over at DVDFile for quite a few years, well before the DVD's finally came out.

Page down to the "S" section, after Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan...

http://www.dvdfile.com/software/cut_list/index_2.html

Unless the idea that it's "ok" to posting a clip that is 30 second or less of something does not apply to video as it does with music...

Re: Star Wars discussion from The Bits...

I have to say I am shocked and dismayed that all the folks who jumped on the initial announcement, saying it would be non-anamorphic from the old LD transfers, were absolutely correct.

I can only figure the rationale is that the loss of sales from HT enthusiasts like us cannot justify the additional expense that would come from creating new, relatively clean transfers.

It is truly ashame that after all the money the fans have poured into Lucasfilm's pockets, a little more couldn't have been given back.

The irony is my iScan went kaput and I can't even scale non-anamorphic material properly on my setup anymore. Can't believe they won't even encode it anamorphically, even if the resolution would be low. I guess anyone who scales it for a widescreen set risks losing some of the subtitles, huh?

Re: Star Wars discussion from The Bits...

It looks like the edits are pretty intentional to me.

I never noticed it, but then again I never did a side by side comparison and I don't have a photographic memory.

I don't understand why they would edit out small insignificant things like this. Probably trying not to offend any toddlers.

Re: Star Wars discussion from The Bits...

While a D2 (composite) master tape most likely was the source for the Laserdisc mastering itself, the transfer master and the final master was actually (as far as I know) a component digital D1 tape. Another option would have been Ampex' DCT. Both are very much comparable to the Digital Betacam format. Because of its 4:2:2 component properties, D1 actually is able to capture detail and resolution that the 4:2:0 DVD format because of the way of compression can't even show. For one, the Datarate is with 148 Mbit/s far higher than the 10.88 Mbit/s of DVD. So its not the tape itself that one needs to worry about.

What is a much more a factor is the telecine that was used. Transfers made with the RANK MarkIII pale in comparison with the SPIRIT Datacine or the Millenium II, where the image is dramatically more detailed, allows for much finer texture to register naturally and color depth to be captured without bleeding, while keeping inaccuracies to a minimum. The RANK, while good for its time, had many problems, especially when it came to displaying the greyscale and density accurately. The DVNR 1000 by Digital Vision also added a lot of artifacts whenever there was movement in a shot, and (as Jim Vaccaro said already) it also robbed the image of detail along with the grain, that SW producers so desperately tried to get rid of (also a problem of the RANK telecine, by the way, because grain was often displayed as artifact).

The WSR article quoted by Marty Christion is exactly why this whole story coming from Fox' PR department doesn't quite add up. In this Robert is right: Even if the CNs were destroyed (Chaplin did destroy many of his scenes or even films he was dissatisfied with, so it is not totally impossible, I guess, that Lucas did the same - yet, it is rather unlikely) IPs, INs and even excellent condition 70mm elements containing (among their respective picture properties) the genuine multi-track soundtrack of the films should be/are still in existence. However, without actually locating, closely examing and cataloging the remaining elements first it is extremely difficult, if not unwise to make a determination what it would take, how much it would take, and how long it would take to complete the reconstruction and restoration of the original versions of the original SW Trilogy. That goes also for the level of perfection of the actual "end product". But with all these discussions going on, I am curious as to what Lucasfilm and Fox will do next, since I have the suspicion that they underestimated the potential of the original version. Why else would they include the S.E.s again ?

Re: Star Wars discussion from The Bits...

Believe me, the only thing more surprising than seeing the Original Unaltered Trilogy released on DVD in high-quality anamorphic widescreen....would be getting a written response of any kind from Lucasfilm to my letter.

Re: Star Wars discussion from The Bits...

To Robert Harris:

I believe you are very correct in assuming that these statements may have been chosen so carefully to keep all marketing options open. From the point of preservation everything that was said officially so far does, indeed, make no sense; it would be like building an airplane and asking the engineers to burn all original drawings and plans, making maintenance and repairs all but impossible.

The actions/the planning, however, also seem to suggest that distribution execs at Fox and LF may have been unsure as to what the potential of the originals really is. After all, it was the new, to-be-launched game that was supposed to be the main attraction at first; with the Original Versions on the 2nd Discs apparently being planned as merely the "supporting act". Today, nobody talks about the game anymore - and there is also the possibility that the Original Versions were not supposed to get that much attention precisely for that reason.
The fact is, as of right now, there is no movement at Fox' end to prep a restoration.

If one spins the wheel a bit further, the statements also could serve as a good fall back position should LF later decide to go full steam for a restoration for a Blu-ray/HD-DVD release sometime down the road this or next decade. That way the DVD market is used to the max, and the franchise can be milked one more time on the new market.

Re: rights issues: As far as I know, only the first (Eps IV) SW film was fully owned by Fox, with Lucas retaining full ownership of copyright regarding all merchandise. The others are copyright Lucasfilm, with Fox being only distributor. I do not know whether Lucas ever tried to buy the film rights for STAR WARS Eps IV.

Re: Star Wars discussion from The Bits...

Wow, quintuple post!

Re: Star Wars discussion from The Bits...

I'm probably opening myself up to a reply or two of:

"Geesh, don't you know anything about the basics of anamorphic transfers vs. non-anamorphic ones, David?" --

but I have a desire to ask the following question anyway.......

Does a 2.35:1 film (like all of the Star Wars movies) suffer considerably more from a non-anamorphic letterbox DVD transfer than does a film which has an OAR in a not-as-wide screen shape (like 1.85 or 1.66)?

I.E.: Since much thicker black bars need to be created for a non-anamorphic letterboxed 2.35:1-shaped film, doesn't this mean that more of the film's original resolution (scan lines) must be utilized to create those thick black bars around the image area?

Whereas, a 1.85:1 or a 1.66:1 non-anamorphic widescreen DVD transfer would only require much-thinner black bars in order to maintain the movie's OAR on screen. And doesn't that equate to fewer overall scan lines of image resolution being removed (or lost) from the "image area" of movies with an OAR of 1.85 or 1.78 or 1.66 via such letterboxing of widescreen material?

Or -- Is it all (somehow) "proportional" (percentage-wise), regardless of the actual image area?

It's always seemed to me, commonsense-wise, that a super-wide 2.35:1 movie would certainly look worse via a non-enhanced WS DVD transfer than would a film which already has an OAR of pretty close to 4x3-shaped in the first place -- such as "12 Angry Men" @ 1.66:1 to name but one example...which is a film that looks quite good on DVD, IMO, despite no "anamorphic enhancement" at all. But would that film still look that good via a letterbox-only transfer if the OAR had been 2.35 .... I ponder?

~stroking chin~

Anyway, as this might equate to "Star Wars" specifically (and the all-2.35 OARs that all three films in the OOT possess), I'm just wondering how a "letterbox, non-enhanced" type of DVD transfer will affect these super-wide scope films vs. if they had all been 1.85 in ratio?

Or am I just crazy in thinking that letterboxed 2.35 looks any worse at all than letterboxed 1.85?

Thanks.....and Godspeed.

Re: Star Wars discussion from The Bits...

Uh....OK.

Re: Star Wars discussion from The Bits...

Has there been any update from Video Business or Home Media Retailing
Magazine about running stories about this? I think that is our best bet to get changes made.

Re: Star Wars discussion from The Bits...

Simple answer > Yes.

Re: Star Wars discussion from The Bits...

The real dilemma with this non-anamorphic release is not knowing what Lucas' long-range intent is; if this is to be the last word on--and final release of--the originals, state-of-the-art or not, their value as an "archival" edition is greatly increased. I imagine most posters to this thread would snap 'em up, save those that own the lasers.




--Jack

Re: Star Wars discussion from The Bits...

My God man! Are you insane? Do you know how many people are employed by law firms, marketing firms, studio firms and a few more "firms" not mentioned? If everyone switched over to Plain-Speak, the world economy would collapse overnight!

Re: Star Wars discussion from The Bits...

Simple answer: No.

Comparison of 2.35:1 and 1.85:1:










As you can see, both (and anything at least 16 x 9 wide) lose the same exact amount to needless additional black space. Scope films simply seem like they're losing more because there was more black space to begin with.

Re: Star Wars discussion from The Bits...

While it could be construed as slightly off-topic, I am compelled to point something out after reading this.

I checked my 2004 DVDs to make sure before I posted this. They feature AUDIO in Dolby Digital 5.1 EX in English, and Dolby 2.0 in English, French and Spanish. Only English subtitles are available.

Amazons' listing for this release states that the films will have English-only audio in 5.1 and 2.0, and English, French and Spanish subs.

Now, I realize Amazon frequently gets pre-release details like this wrong. But IF they are correct (and I realize that's a big IF), then that would mean that the "enhanced trilogy" discs have indeed been re-authored, however slightly. Which in turn opens a floodgate of possibilites regarding corrections/changes.

How many would break down and buy these sets if the Special Editions featured corrected surrounds, beautiful lightsabers, cleaned-up dialouge, improved color-correction, and the music at proper levels as the Rebels make their attack run on the Death Star? No one can say for sure if it would happen, but that'd be a nice surprise.

Re: Star Wars discussion from The Bits...

My recollection is that whilst SW4 was indeed owned by Fox, as would have been "the norm" at the time Lucas made it (SW4 being financed by Fox after all), all subsequent ones were owned outright by Lucas from day one since he financed them all himself, with Fox only as distributor. Whilst negotiating distribution of the PT, as a sweetener Fox agreed to assign the copyright in SW4 back to Lucas, so now Lucas does indeed own all 6 SW movies outright.