Home Theater Forum › Home Theater Forum › Blu-ray, DVD, Streaming Video and Digital Downloads › DVD › Star Wars discussion from The Bits...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Star Wars discussion from The Bits... - Page 14

post #391 of 3173
5/23/06 at 1:30pm

Re: Star Wars discussion from The Bits...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Harris
Apparently the writer of the article doesn't understand what is occurring.

She's confusing anamorphic cinematography with anamorphic widescreen, when it is stated: "This means that Episodes IV-V1 will bow in their original film composition, not in the more cinematic anamorphic widescreen transfer."

This only adds to the confusion for many readers.

RAH
That's pretty much what I got out of it too. If I knew nothing of this topic and just read that article, I would see "Star Wars fans continue to whine despite getting what they want... blah blah blah...". I know that's not what the author or magazine intended but they don't even accurately point what the biggest problem is.

As RAH said, this adds to the confusion. I generally try to remain somewhat positive in my posts but this article proves that all hope of getting this released anamorphic is lost (at least this time). If a magazine devoted to home video can't even understand the problem, then the majority of consumers sure won't either. And if they can't understand the problem then it won't get fixed.
Reply
post #392 of 3173
5/23/06 at 1:34pm

Re: Star Wars discussion from The Bits...

From VB article: "The late ’90s theatrical versions represent George’s vision for Star Wars. We hoped that by releasing the original movies as a bonus disc, it would be a way to give the fans something that is fun. We certainly didn’t want to be become a source of frustration for fans."

*****************

Did they honestly think we would be happy and have "fun" with a non-anamorphic laserdisc transfer? Assuming they're not actually that clueless they must surely have expected that it would be "a source of frustration". I think they just underestimated how much frastration and backlash there would be -- how naive. And it's only going to get worse for them because the only thing that's going to put this baby to bed is to have it all done right.
Reply
post #393 of 3173
5/23/06 at 1:37pm

Re: Star Wars discussion from The Bits...

I must say, it sounds like typical PR to me. I'm at the point where I will take anything LF says with a grain of salt. It wouldn't surprise me a bit if somewhere at Skywalker ranch there ARE perfect, unused prints of the OT
locked away.

By the way, NICE COMMENTS LEE-C! THEY ARE APPRECIATED!
MAY THE FORCE BE WITH YOU,
ERIC
Reply
post #394 of 3173
5/23/06 at 1:38pm

Re: Star Wars discussion from The Bits...

Quote:
Originally Posted by TravisR
That's pretty much what I got out of it too. If I knew nothing of this topic and just read that article, I would see "Star Wars fans continue to whine despite getting what they want... blah blah blah...". I know that's not what the author or magazine intended but they don't even accurately point what the biggest problem is.

As RAH said, this adds to the confusion. I generally try to remain somewhat positive in my posts but this article proves that all hope of getting this released anamorphic is lost (at least this time). If a magazine devoted to home video can't even understand the problem, then the majority of consumers sure won't either. And if they can't understand the problem then it won't get fixed.

If someone, who can explain it better than I, can email the author of the article with the proper facts I'm sure she'd make the necessary adjustments.
Reply
post #395 of 3173
5/23/06 at 1:39pm

Re: Star Wars discussion from The Bits...

Considering they are saying this release is a 'fun' release, it would be my understanding that the 'bonus' OT versions are a "We don't want to release these, but if you really want it, this is what you get because we don't want to put any effort into actually releasing it".

Meaning, instead of getting upset because they aren't releasing it the way we want, I'm trying to think of it as never being released in the first place.
Reply
post #396 of 3173
5/23/06 at 1:50pm

Re: Star Wars discussion from The Bits...

Yeah, someone please e-mail the author of that article and explain to her the technical facts so
she can immediately update the article with accurate information.
Reply
post #397 of 3173
5/23/06 at 1:51pm

Re: Star Wars discussion from The Bits...

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkHastings
Meaning, instead of getting upset because they aren't releasing it the way we want, I'm trying to think of it as never being released in the first place.
Yes, that will be my response. Heh.

I mean, a non-anamorphic LD port? You gotta be kidding me! Can it really be true that Lucas himself destroyed the original elements such that only a laserdisc transfer remains? Sounds awfully dubious to me, but the notion that Flannelboy may have personally destroyed the only worthwhile "Star Wars" properties in his efforts to, urm, improve them ... that's a double heh for poetic justice!

And Videobusinessmagazine? It seems to be one of those rags geared to marketing and sales people - certainly not cinephiles - so no huge surprise that the author doesn't get the difference between an anamorphic lens for 'scope photography and anamorphic enhancement of a digital transfer. But she sure states it as though she has a clue.

The rare tripple heh!
Reply
post #398 of 3173
5/23/06 at 1:53pm
Thread Starter 

Re: Star Wars discussion from The Bits...

I believe Ms. Ault is reporting what she has been told.

RAH
Reply
post #399 of 3173
5/23/06 at 1:54pm

Re: Star Wars discussion from The Bits...

Don't these two statements contradict each other:

1) "Lucasfilm acknowledges that some imperfections are embedded in the prints, but director of publicity John Singh said the company felt there was little need to invest resources into sprucing up films that have already been restored to pristine form."

2) "Although the prints aren’t in the best of shape, the masters used for the laserdiscs “do look good,” Singh assured."

How on Earth can they be "pristine" while they "aren't in the best of shape"?
Reply
post #400 of 3173
5/23/06 at 1:54pm

Re: Star Wars discussion from The Bits...

Quote:
I believe Ms. Ault is reporting what she has been told.

Being told by who is the question...
Reply
post #401 of 3173
5/23/06 at 1:54pm

Re: Star Wars discussion from The Bits...

To Lee-c:

The 1993 transfer of the Original SW Trilogy was by no means shoddy. The issue of the use of the DVNR-1000 is certainly debatable; but the transfer was at the very top of its class back in '93, and I know a lot of transfers made in the last 2 years that make these SW transfers look like the holy grail; not to speak of certain DVD releases based on newly made masters. But, it is clearly not what many expected from the man who aimed to set the standard in quality for both cinema and home cinema.


To Jay Pennington:

In general these 2K files would be interesting. However, it would depend largely on how they were stored (tape/external HDD), what format was used (dpx, targa, Tiff; if dpx: linear or logarithmic), what scanner utilized (telecine or genuine scanner such as ARRI), and whether any de-graining or noise reduction was employed. Because, if these files would be used (leaving aside the 4K vs 2K question) they most likely would have very different grading compared to a newly made scan. Matching the sequences may prove to be a harder job than reconstructing the sequence all anew. Putting it back to the 2004 edition would mean to alter the original SW versions.
Reply
post #402 of 3173
5/23/06 at 1:59pm

Re: Star Wars discussion from The Bits...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave - A
Don't these two statements contradict each other:

1) "Lucasfilm acknowledges that some imperfections are embedded in the prints, but director of publicity John Singh said the company felt there was little need to invest resources into sprucing up films that have already been restored to pristine form."

2) "Although the prints aren’t in the best of shape, the masters used for the laserdiscs “do look good,” Singh assured."

How on Earth can they be "pristine" while they "aren't in the best of shape"?

I think what he means is that they dont want to use money to fix up the OOT when they allready fixed up the 2004 versions. As in they dont want to fix a second pair of prints
Reply
post #403 of 3173
5/23/06 at 2:03pm

Re: Star Wars discussion from The Bits...

This whole casually dismissive "something fun as a bonus" thing seems completely at odds with the original announcement. "The original trilogy!" "A red letter day for fans!" "We've scoured the archives..." Which is it? A little truth would make all the difference to me.
Reply
post #404 of 3173
5/23/06 at 2:03pm

Re: Star Wars discussion from The Bits...

Basically, it sounds like the latest blurb from LF in that article is this...

"We hear ya', but we just don't care"

If they thought what they planned for this release would just be "fun" then they just don't get it, and seemingly never will.
Reply
post #405 of 3173
5/23/06 at 2:05pm

Re: Star Wars discussion from The Bits...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave - A
Don't these two statements contradict each other:

1) "Lucasfilm acknowledges that some imperfections are embedded in the prints, but director of publicity John Singh said the company felt there was little need to invest resources into sprucing up films that have already been restored to pristine form."

2) "Although the prints aren’t in the best of shape, the masters used for the laserdiscs “do look good,” Singh assured."

How on Earth can they be "pristine" while they "aren't in the best of shape"?



"Pristine" is referring to the Special Edition Trilogy. "Aren't in the best of shape" is, of course, referring to the Original.


To Robert Harris:

Susanne Ault is a good writer when it comes to the DVD/studio business in general, but she does not have the necessary technical background with regard to film or the mastering process. In her defence, few do. She may indeed only quote what others have told her; but the result is unfortunately "muddying the waters".
Reply
post #406 of 3173
5/23/06 at 2:05pm

Re: Star Wars discussion from The Bits...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Qualen
I think what he means is that they dont want to use money to fix up the OOT when they allready fixed up the 2004 versions. As in they dont want to fix a second pair of prints

Quote:
Originally Posted by Torsten Kaiser
"Pristine" is referring to the Special Edition Trilogy. "Aren't in the best of shape" is, of course, referring to the Original.

Gotcha. Thanks.
Reply
post #407 of 3173
5/23/06 at 2:07pm

Re: Star Wars discussion from The Bits...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Harris
Apparently the writer of the article doesn't understand what is occurring.

She's confusing anamorphic cinematography with anamorphic widescreen, when it is stated: "This means that Episodes IV-V1 will bow in their original film composition, not in the more cinematic anamorphic widescreen transfer."

This only adds to the confusion for many readers.

RAH
Maybe she should read this article. It states very clearly what an anamorphic transfer is and why we all want it. It should clear up any confusion anyone may have with this issue.
Reply
post #408 of 3173
5/23/06 at 2:09pm

Re: Star Wars discussion from The Bits...

Great quote in the article Ron!

It breaks our frustrations down into simple terms I think most people can understand. I even think it helps somewhat to counteract the confusion the 2nd paragraph of the article creates. Somewhat

Let me also just say that the Lucasfilm PR in the article was disturbing. Despite receiving my Kingdom of Heaven 4 Disc in the mail today... and despite taking a study break this afternoon to check out 'Akeelah and the Bee' (a great movie!)... the Video Business article has brought me down and sobered me. We are up against a great fight here. As others have already mentioned, it's around end game now regarding getting these September 12th babies anamorphic.

But I just want to say that we are being heard and to stay positive. Keep the conversations going. Keep sending those letters/ emails/ faxes. Keep supporting Robert Harris, and Ron, and the folks over at the Bits, Aint It Cool, and everyone else. We're on the side of film and technological excellence to preserving art. Keep heart and let's keep our voices being heard!!
Reply
post #409 of 3173
5/23/06 at 2:12pm
Thread Starter 

Re: Star Wars discussion from The Bits...

Deleted by

RAH
Reply
post #410 of 3173
5/23/06 at 2:21pm

Re: Star Wars discussion from The Bits...

Torsten Kaiser: I don't mean to say the laserdisc is bad looking, I have it and it looks good overall. But
there are several scenes where characters' faces are so dark it's hard to even see their faces (it's like
there's a dark shadow placed over their faces) when that should not be the case. This no doubt is
due to the fact that this transfer was done just before the full restoration of the film prints. But there
is now no such excuse to not do a new anamorphic transfer directly from the those restored master
prints, which will make for a gorgeous transfer with none of those sorts of problems, plus much better
resolution.
Reply
post #411 of 3173
5/23/06 at 2:27pm

Re: Star Wars discussion from The Bits...

To Robert Harris:

Precisely. The article reads like any other in an overworked business or news outlet. I know the structure and the workflow very well. There are other deadlines to keep, other things to be researched, other people to be talked to. Considering the huge amount of errors, inconsistencies, poor research, downright carelessness and, not to forget, the steadily growing amount of commenting rather than reporting in the field of news it is amazing that at least some people understand what is going on.
Reply
post #412 of 3173
5/23/06 at 2:33pm

Re: Star Wars discussion from The Bits...

To LEE-C,

I remember that the 1993 transfers had no dirt and scratches removed. I know some of the dirt was from the "old school special effects layering" (I know that's not the right terminology), but most of all I remember that they looked terrible, because it looked like the someone just put a smoke screen over the print to hide the imperfections. I think they were made from the 1989 initial widescreen transfer of the film on laserdisc, but no imperfections were removed, just "masked over". You could still see them.
Reply
post #413 of 3173
5/23/06 at 2:36pm

Re: Star Wars discussion from The Bits...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee-c
Torsten Kaiser: I don't mean to say the laserdisc is bad looking, I have it and it looks good overall. But
there are several scenes where characters' faces are so dark it's hard to even see their faces (it's like
there's a dark shadow placed over their faces) when that should not be the case. This no doubt is
due to the fact that this transfer was done just before the full restoration of the film prints. But there
is now no such excuse to not do a new anamorphic transfer directly from the those restored master
prints, which will make for a gorgeous transfer with none of those sorts of problems, plus much better
resolution.

That is precisely the point: In the Special Edition so many changes were made that the job of matching the scenes with the other, original materials, would be a nightmare. Using the SE as basis also would mean accepting alterations in many other ways, too. Color correction/grading for one.

Re: 1993 master:
The portions that are too dark do not necessarily result from the transfer. It is likely that the RANK MarkIII could not handle the density and contrast of the then new IP.
Reply
post #414 of 3173
5/23/06 at 2:41pm

Re: Star Wars discussion from The Bits...

Torsten,
Thanks for the info on the 1993 master. I just was never blown away by it, even back then. In general, I would like the OT to look just as good as the 2004 editions, at least print and resolution quality wise. Considering the advances in technology since then, it should be done.
Reply
post #415 of 3173
5/23/06 at 2:48pm

Re: Star Wars discussion from The Bits...

Torsten Kaiser: I'm not referring to using the 1997 SE as the starting point, as you say that would
require matching up different sources so they look right. I'm talking about the restored original prints
themselves. Obviously they had to restore the original trilogy before they could decide where to make
changes, add in the altered scenes, stuff like that. Just use the restored master prints that the
SE's were made from, before there were any SE changes, to make the new transfer from.
Reply
post #416 of 3173
5/23/06 at 2:49pm
Thread Starter 

Re: Star Wars discussion from The Bits...

Since, based upon the Video Business article, that it appears that LF wants the fans to be pleased with the quality of the OT release, and that they also seemingly want to do right by the fans, and since it appears that the addition of the OT was in some way an afterthought...

And making the assumption that original film elements survive at Fox, which is not confirmed...

I must believe that if LF requested new high quality transfers of Fox, which has a superior home video division, that said transfers could be produced in time to meet the release date, or thereabouts.

RAH
Reply
post #417 of 3173
5/23/06 at 2:57pm

Re: Star Wars discussion from The Bits...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Harris
I must believe that if LF requested new high quality transfers of Fox, which has a superior home video division, that said transfers could be produced in time to meet the release date, or thereabouts.
If not, perhaps Fox could sell us an empty Star Wars DVD box with a mail in card enclosed, promising us the DVDs once they are released if we return the card.

It's been done before.
Reply
post #418 of 3173
5/23/06 at 3:01pm

Re: Star Wars discussion from The Bits...

To Robert Harris,

I must admit it has crossed my mind that this VB article and all of LF's contradicting statements are MEANT to confuse us and hide that LF intends to at some eventual daterelease the OT exactly in the quality that we want. I hope so,

ERICKA
Reply
post #419 of 3173
5/23/06 at 3:09pm
Thread Starter 

Re: Star Wars discussion from The Bits...

The last thing that I wish to do here is to complicate things for Fox, as they merely do as requested by LF. The record for quality product coming out of Fox has been superb. I highly doubt that this would be something that they would release of their own accord.

RAH
Reply
post #420 of 3173
5/23/06 at 3:16pm

Re: Star Wars discussion from The Bits...

Has the Video Business article been revised? I don't see this in there:
Quote:
This means that Episodes IV-V1 will bow in their original film composition, not in the more cinematic anamorphic widescreen transfer."

I hope Lucasfilm PR is not trying to muddy the waters here.

Quote:
“The late ’90s theatrical versions represent George’s vision for Star Wars. We hoped that by releasing the original movies as a bonus disc, it would be a way to give the fans something that is fun. We certainly didn’t want to be become a source of frustration for fans.”

Well, we are frustrated because they are getting shoddy treatment. I don't want them digitally touched in any way. Just transferred in a decent manner onto DVD. I don't feel like I am being done any favors, as the Lucasfilm PR guy implies they are doing.

Come on, Lucasfilm. Do this right. Everyone knows it can be done. As it is, I have no desire to purchase what amount to laserdisc ports. No thank you. Give me a decent transfer to an anamorphic DVD though and I will be in line on release day.

Please reconsider this decision. These films deserve much better.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: DVD
Home Theater Forum › Home Theater Forum › Blu-ray, DVD, Streaming Video and Digital Downloads › DVD › Star Wars discussion from The Bits...