Blu-ray Review Star Wars: The Complete Saga Blu-ray Review (1 Viewer)

[Kevin Collins]

Originally Posted by David Weicker /t/314865/star-wars-the-complete-saga-blu-ray-review#post_3851674
I haven't had the chance to watch the movies yet (they only arrived this afternoon), but as for some of the PQ issues, I wonder if the screen size does matter. Although I won't say whether Static Grain, DNR, or EE are present, maybe they are more noticeable/less noticeable depending on your setup. A 110 inch screen is four times bigger than a 55 inch screen and might reveal more issues.
It might be a case where one reviewer actually sees different things than another reviewer.
David

Yep, screen size can matter, but the distance of the viewer from the screen will also matter. However, having a properly calibrated monitor will be one of the biggest factors. For instance, having any of the "picture enhancements" that flat panel manurfacturers "turnn on" for us can play a huge role in increasing something that might not actually be that bad. Having the sharpness control not set properly can also make things worse than they really are.

I couldn't attend Adam's viewing last night as I had family activities that were already planed. I know Adam's PJ is calibrated properly, as I calibrated it myself... , so I wish I could have watched it at his house. Since I will be on vacation next week and part of the following week, I won't be able to see the film until then.

Look forward to reading others that have seen it though and I will beat it out of Adam next week...

 

[Kevin Collins]

Thanks for the review Matt! That's alot of stuff to watch and write about in a short period of time. Would you mind posting, specifically for this review, what your review configuration was? It would be really interesting to know that for this review.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

Thanks, Matt.


I wasn't planning on getting this set as I've grown kinda tired/apathetic of the franchise (and what Lucas does w/ it), but ended up placing a last minute impulse order from B&N early on Friday morning w/ what seems like a great deal for this set. My kid will probably love the set waaaaay more than me, which is probably just as well -- the quality time spent hanging out and sharing the set (along w/ various others, etc.) w/ him will probably be what matters most in my case...

_Man_

 

[Paul_Scott]

 
Thanks Paul!  What display unit do you have?  I haven't got my copy yet from Amazon.COM....
   

I have to confess that I spent some time tonight recalibrating my display and after doing so, I would now rate these a little higher than I initially did. Just prior to getting the set I switched out projectors going back to my previous one- a Sony VW50. It's 5 years old now, and with 1700 hrs on the bulb, it's a big step down from what I've been using exclusively the last couple years, which is a Pioneer Kuro FPJ1 (a JVC RS2 clone). While the two pjs are fairly comparable in most respects, the black levels (both intra-scene and on/off) on the Sony are quite anemic in comparison. And with the bulb hours on it, the image was very dim in eco mode with the original settings. Initially I had switched on Dynamic Black to compensate, but I see now that clearly exacerbated the black crush. After sitting down tonight and giving it a more thorough calibration, the crush isn't quite as excessive as I was seeing originally. I would probably rate them now at least a 3.5 out of 5- and would probably revise that again once I can see them again on the Pioneer. Let me put it this way, technical PQ issues are not what will be breaking the spell when I go to watch these start to finish.As far as viewing angle, I usually sit near a 1:1 distance.For the $30 I paid, I'm not disappointed- though I'm still very glad I didn't pay the extra $50 for the full set, especially as all the deleted scenes (which would have been my primary motivation for purchasing that) have already shown up online in the usual place.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

Originally Posted by Paul_Scott /t/314865/star-wars-the-complete-saga-blu-ray-review/30#post_3851795
For the $30 I paid, I'm not disappointed- though I'm still very glad I didn't pay the extra $50 for the full set, especially as all the deleted scenes (which would have been my primary motivation for purchasing that) have already shown up online in the usual place.

FWIW, you coulda gotten the full set for ~$62+tax from B&N, if you had waited til Friday early morning -- I seem to recall that you have B&N membership. Yeah, that's still ~2x as much as what you paid for just the OT. I'd just go for the OT at say ~$40 as well, if it came w/ all the extras, but w/out the extras, I'd be reminded more so that this is not the true OT that I'm spending $ on yet again -- and I've been reasonably happy w/ how the old DVD set still looks on my 61" DLP, which was why I wasn't planning to upgrade...

Anyhoo, I guess what's done is done now though...

For my part, I'm wondering about buyer's remorse and am thinking in the back of my mind that I might still consider returning the set unopened to B&N when it arrives next week...

_Man_

 

[Brendon]

Thanks for the review Matt. Along with so many other pro reviews out there on the net, more or less every reviewer is having to qualify themselves saying they're reviewing what is in the box, not what isn't. I'm still deciding whether to pick the set up or not, accepting the films as they are presented with changes and all. The decider for me is the colour timing of the original trilogy and whilst not wholly sorted relative to the prior 2004 SE DVDs, they do sound to be much more acceptable.
Please bear in mind that most people proffering a review of the set are likely going to get it in the neck both ways, for both not writing of the entire set for not containing the unaltered original trilogy and from those who will see this set as the pinnacle of AV presentation and faulting the reviewer for not seeing the same. A civil disagreement over the AV, content changes etc is one thing, ad homenim attacks over the slightest difference of opinion are something else. It pleasing to see that the majority of the discussion on HTF, including your review, fall into the former category.

 

[Brian Sallot]

I appreciate all reviews as they are just giving their opinion and not everyone will agree with it and that is part of the process. That being said I have watched 4-6 and they are definitely the best I have seen these films. I did notice frozen grain although it is minor and the black crush I think they did to hide some of the garbage mats rather than doing individual scene alterations they just did the movies as a whole. As for a higher scan of the films? I think the new effects were all done at the resolution these films were scanned at and they would have to redo all the effects work from scratch that is why I believe no new scans were made. That being said they could rescan the original versions at any resolution as all the work was done on film assuming the sources are good enough.(I do not buy the originals no longer exist Lucas has spoken over the years.) I really enjoyed my viewings of the original trilogy so far the picture is the best it has been and the sound considering the age of the films is great.

Later everyone

 

[Cory S.]

I've read conflicting reports but I was hoping someone here had the answer...what was the resolution of the HD camera used for Episode II?

 

[Paul_Scott]

 
FWIW, you coulda gotten the full set for ~$62+tax from B&N, if you had waited til Friday early morning -- I seem to recall that you have B&N membership.  Yeah, that's still ~2x as much as what you paid for just the OT.  I'd just go for the OT at say ~$40 as well, if it came w/ all the extras, but w/out the extras, I'd be reminded more so that this is not the true OT that I'm spending $ on yet again -- and I've been reasonably happy w/ how the old DVD set still looks on my 61" DLP, which was why I wasn't planning to upgrade...

Hey Man, actually I haven't re-upped my B&N membership since it lapsed back in Feb. I was planning to get a new one in Nov for the Criterion sale (Hopefully at least one of the brick and mortars in my area will still be carrying DVDs by then as many will be removing their media sections in the coming weeks- and most of the coupons are useless on line for that sale). I saw your post in the bargain section on the set deal Friday, but $60 was still a bridge too far for me in regards to this material-knowing what is and isn't on the set. For the last 7 years I've considered the images on the first DVD set to be fairly state of the art for that format. Even now with years of 1080p viewing under my belt, they still hold up well- although it's much easier now to see where there is room for improvement. And the Bds do indeed improve on the image. I wouldn't however consider them state of the art for this format like I did that previous release.That said, the crush was very evident on the DVDs but I let it slide since so many other characteristics of the image were so well resolved at the time. That aspect may actually be improved as well on the Bds. Can't say for sure until I can watch this on my regular gear where I have a better baseline to compare and contrast it to.I hadn't brought this up in any of the threads cause there just didn't seem any point- but the original 'official' word about these sets that came down last spring was that the two trilogy sets would each contain their respective bonus disc with the complete set getting the single extra exclusive disc. I remember this because I made a rare post somewhere publicly congratulating Lucas for being magnanimous enough to let fans who have no interest or affection for the PT still get the meat of the bonus material without having to buy the PT with it. It wasn't until several months later, that suddenly the 'final' specs were released and of course, Lucas realized the folly of his ways made sure people were forced to own the PT if they wanted any OT treats. Lucas has been disappoiting me since 1983 so the bait and switch didn't come as a big shock here.one last thing- while most people who are boycotting this release are doing so because of the absence of the unmolested OT, and are taking some solace in the fact that most reviewers are not rating this set as highly as say the Alien set from last year- I'm one of the few people still greatly disappointed in that set for one simple reason. just like SW, the only Alien films I care about are the first two. And just like SW on Bd, I still can not see the Alien films in a way that is consistent with their original theatrical presentations. I hold the first Alien film as dear as any of the SW movies, so this is a huge deal to me. While, unlike the SW movies, the cut of the film hasn't been tampered with, the revisionist teal/orange color changes Scott imposed for the Bd set lord over every single shot in the film. And I find this emulation of a cliched Michael Bay aesthetic to be extremely off putting. It's a subtle but major change that consistently breaks the spell of re-watching the film for me now, just as much as the discordant SE content does in SW. In some ways, far more of SW on Bd comes across as natural to me than any scene on Alien now. And just like the SEs, unless you grew up infused with this material over the years, you're not likely to have any problems.

 

[ijthompson]

I hold the first Alien film as dear as any of the SW movies, so this is a huge deal to me. While, unlike the SW movies, the cut of the film hasn't been tampered with, the revisionist teal/orange color changes Scott imposed for the Bd set lord over every single shot in the film.

I don't want to derail the thread, but this really interests me, as Alien is my favourite film (well, and Blade Runner - I go back and forth). I know that Cameron's Aliens on blu-ray has SFX tweaks that were included also in the 'Theatrical Cut' as well, but I didn't notice anything awry with Alien (I've been watching since '83 - VHS, laserdisc, widescreen VHS, Legacy dvd, Quad dvd, Anthology blu). Could you provide some examples of the colour changes? I know that the 'Brett in the garage' scene was insanely orange on the Quad, but the blu-ray is back to normal, no?

 

[FoxyMulder]

Originally Posted by Kevin Collins /t/314865/star-wars-the-complete-saga-blu-ray-review/30#post_3851768
Yep, screen size can matter, but the distance of the viewer from the screen will also matter. However, having a properly calibrated monitor will be one of the biggest factors. For instance, having any of the "picture enhancements" that flat panel manurfacturers "turnn on" for us can play a huge role in increasing something that might not actually be that bad. Having the sharpness control not set properly can also make things worse than they really are.

I absolutely agree with your comments regarding screen size to viewing distance, many probably sit too far away from their screens and have "enhancements" turned on, i personally painstakingly calibrated my projector and i check it out every couple of hundred hours since bulbs do dim and you need to re-calibrate for this.

Some projectors out there have a 0 setting which actually has sharpening applied and introduces edge enhancement to an image, so you need to go to a minus setting or you can end up thinking there is edge enhancement on the film when in fact its your display, i think far too many people turn the sharpness up instead of down.

The resolution of the HD camera used for Attack Of The Clones was 1920x1080, i believe they also recorded the footage at that resolution and used one of the softer settings within the camera but heres some more technical information.

http://www.broadcaststore.com/store/model_detail.cfm?id=20640

You can buy the latest version of the camera for around $80,000 direct from Sony.

 

[Virgoan]

 You obviously haven't read my review where i state they are MINOR issues, the point is they exist, any review should mention them, therefore to reply to me and try and say i am calling them really bad is wrong. What is trivial to you may be a big deal to someone else, thats why reviews should point things out and let the viewer decide for themselves.

The point of a review is to present an overview of what works and doesn't work...in GENERAL terms. I fully realize that there are a few among you who want to have a recorded document noting every single flaw in a product. There are already threads upon threads in the forums here and at other sites documenting every little nitpick about this set that can be documented. Why, then, must the designated reviewer be expected to do the same thing? That's not reviewing, by the way...it's called crucifixion.That you say you wrote thousands of words per film in your review seems more like a presumptuous attempt to demean and belittle Matt's concise, detailed overview of what to expect in these films. It is not his job to annotate every little picky annoyance that plagues you. It is also not his function in life to be bothered by the things that bother you.It's an excellent review. Anything more, from anyone, would have bored me to tears.

 

[FoxyMulder]

Originally Posted by Virgoan /t/314865/star-wars-the-complete-saga-blu-ray-review/30#post_3851884
The point of a review is to present an overview of what works and doesn't work...in GENERAL terms. I fully realize that there are a few among you who want to have a recorded document noting every single flaw in a product. There are already threads upon threads in the forums here and at other sites documenting every little nitpick about this set that can be documented. Why, then, must the designated reviewer be expected to do the same thing? That's not reviewing, by the way...it's called crucifixion.
That you say you wrote thousands of words per film in your review seems more like a presumptuous attempt to demean and belittle Matt's concise, detailed overview of what to expect in these films. It is not his job to annotate every little picky annoyance that plagues you. It is also not his function in life to be bothered by the things that bother you.
It's an excellent review. Anything more, from anyone, would have bored me to tears.

Whatever, i find you very boring too and i will just disagree with you and then look for the ignore button.

 

[TravisR]

It's an excellent review. Anything more, from anyone, would have bored me to tears.

From what I've seen of the set, I agree with Matt's reviews of AV quality. I don't want to come off like I am taking a shot at him but his synopses of movies that every reader has seen and already has a very definite opinion on are much longer than what he wrote about the video and audio quality of the Blu-ray. I know most people probably only look at the number rating and don't even take the time to read the paragraph that he did write but I do wish he had elaborated more on the AV quality. That's not say that he needs to get in there and write a 2,000 word document on each disc but only writing a few lines left me wanting more.

 

[Paul_Scott]

I don't want to derail the thread, but this really interests me, as Alien is my favourite film (well, and Blade Runner - I go back and forth). I know that Cameron's Aliens on blu-ray has SFX tweaks that were included also in the 'Theatrical Cut' as well, but I didn't notice anything awry with Alien (I've been watching since '83 - VHS, laserdisc, widescreen VHS, Legacy dvd, Quad dvd, Anthology blu). Could you provide some examples of the colour changes? I know that the 'Brett in the garage' scene was insanely orange on the Quad, but the blu-ray is back to normal, no?

You can go here and click on the full screen comparisons and mouse over to see the changes from the Quad set to the Bd. Also there is a thread on this forum where one of the members was kind enough to post caps from a bunch of sources including the '99 DVD and laserdisc. Ridley Scott went on record with the '99 DVD release as saying the color timing done for that represented the closest approximation of the original theatrical look. When the Quad set was released, the timing went much cooler. With the Bd release, the colors have swung even further away from what was naturally presented before, and many shots now look to my eyes as completely 2010 era digitally graded unnatural. The uptick in resolution is great but nearly every shot now is bathed in the typical hyper cartoon coloring you see in nearly every f'ing movie these days.
Unfortunately a lot of the almighty 15-35 year old demographic considers the natural warm look of films circa 70's and 80's to be dull and boring, so we're getting a lot of this kind of stuff now
BTW, Blade Runner, along with Thelma And Louise was also a recipient of Scott going back and grading to emphasize more teal and orange. I guess he wants to have his stuff mistaken for Michael Bay's now.

 

[Kevin Collins]

I would now rate these a little higher than I initially did. Just prior to getting the set I switched out projectors going back to my previous one- a Sony VW50. It's 5 years old now, and with 1700 hrs on the bulb, it's a big step down from what I've been using exclusively the last couple years, which is a Pioneer Kuro FPJ1 (a JVC RS2 clone). While the two pjs are fairly comparable in most respects, the black levels (both intra-scene and on/off) on the Sony are quite anemic in comparison. And with the bulb hours on it, the image was very dim in eco mode with the original settings. Initially I had switched on Dynamic Black to compensate, but I see now that clearly exacerbated the black crush. After sitting down tonight and giving it a more thorough calibration, the crush isn't quite as excessive as I was seeing originally. I would probably rate them now at least a 3.5 out of 5- and would probably revise that again once I can see them again on the Pioneer. Let me put it this way, technical PQ issues are not what will be breaking the spell when I go to watch these start to finish.
As far as viewing angle, I usually sit near a 1:1 distance.

I have the RS2 also, but don't use it anymore, just the Samsung 900. I hope to be getting the RS-65 in for review. What movie and time code were you specifically noticing the artifacts?

 

[Ethan Riley]

Are you guys seriously ragging on the review because it didn't hate the same things you did? Give me a break, already.

Hear hear. I didn't hate the set a tenth as much as I thought I was going to. AND I thought I was going to hate it more simply because of all the negative "reviews" that came out weeks before the blu-ray did. It's not that bad, folks--really!!

 

[Phoenix2000]

I think Matt hit it on the bulls eye with his very first paragraph. Yes the movies may not stand up to today's blockbusters,but they stand up a lot better than many other movies from the same time frame. For those of us who first saw Star Wars in 1977 on the big screen, especially as a youngster, they hold a special place in your heart. None of us will ever forget the feeling during the opening scene with the Star Destroyer flying in over head. Add to that, as an adult, I was able to introduce my son to the Star Wars saga starting with Phantom Menace when he was about the same age as I was. Yes as times they are a little quirky. Yes I was a little disappointed with 1-3, but I believe that was only because I was expecting that same rush as when I was 7. Truth be told, these days, I watch 1-3 more than 4-6.
While I appreciate all of your aspirations to acquire the holy grail AV system, as I also have the bug, I can't help but think when I read your conversations, you may be failing to see the forest through the trees. A good movie is still a good movie in DTS 5.1 vs.DTS HD MA. Do you ever find yourself spending more time listening to the sound and or watching for artifacting vs. actually just sitting back with a bag 'o butter popcorn and just enjoying the movie? More recently, as I have been upgrading my system to 7.1 HDMI 1.4, I have caught myself doing this and have had to stop myself.
I define a great movie as one you can watch over and over and still enjoy, regardless of the quality, within reason. Come on, who here does not watch one of the Back to the Future installments as least once a year.
Sorry if I have offended, but I am just saying...

 

[Virgoan]

Whatever, i find you very boring too and i will just disagree with you and then look for the ignore button. 

Ahh...and now the picture is complete.Next...

 

[SamT]

I hadn't brought this up in any of the threads cause there just didn't seem any point- but the original 'official' word about these sets that came down last spring was that the two trilogy sets would each contain their respective bonus disc with the complete set getting the single extra exclusive disc. I remember this because I made a rare post somewhere publicly congratulating Lucas for being magnanimous enough to let fans who have no interest or affection for the PT still get the meat of the bonus material without having to buy the PT with it. It wasn't until several months later, that suddenly the 'final' specs were released and of course, Lucas realized the folly of his ways made sure people were forced to own the PT if they wanted any OT treats. Lucas has been disappoiting me since 1983 so the bait and switch didn't come as a big shock here.

Isn't it sad that even if you buy both sets, original and the prequels, you still don't get the extras! ...Why?