Stargate UE - Version Quality Difference?

Discussion in 'Archived Threads 2001-2004' started by Eric Huffstutler, Feb 25, 2003.

  1. Eric Huffstutler

    Eric Huffstutler Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 1999
    Messages:
    1,310
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Richmond, VA
    Real Name:
    Eric Huffstutler
    Is it my imagination or is the Director's Cut of this movie inferior in quality than the Theatrical Version? The overall look is somewhat murky, soft, lots of noise in dark scenes, and even has noticeable dust, dirt, and even damage in some places. Why aren't both version treated (restored) equal in quality?
     
  2. Grant H

    Grant H Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2002
    Messages:
    2,844
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Funny, I didn't watch much of the "director's cut" (I put that in quotes because it used to just be a "special edition version"), but in the opening credits sequence I thought the director's cut actually looked better. Mostly because I noticed shimmering on the titles of the theatrical cut that I didn't think were present on the director's cut. I'll have to watch more of the DC. Maybe it was just my imagination, but I thought maybe the DC had less Edge enhancement which to me would rank it above the Theatrical Cut in terms of picture quality. Or maybe when they re-edited for the theatrical version they editied on video and that's why the titles shimmer a little on my player.
    About all I liked in the additions of the DC was the extended getaway in the sandstorm, but looking at it again that too is pretty worthless, and makes the heroes look bad galloping off as fast as they can while the chick stays behind looking to see if they'll get away ok. Not very heroic.
    I was surprised in the reviews I read that nobody compared the two versions.
    Good question.
     
  3. MikeFR

    MikeFR Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    May 16, 2002
    Messages:
    595
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
     
  4. Rob T

    Rob T Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2001
    Messages:
    1,987
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I found the video on the theatrical version to be choppy in some spots (mainly in the beginning).
    I haven't watched the directors cut yet though.
     
  5. Lyle_JP

    Lyle_JP Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2000
    Messages:
    1,009
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
  6. Jeff Kleist

    Jeff Kleist Executive Producer

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 1999
    Messages:
    11,267
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It's because the DC parts are sourced from video rather than film
     
  7. Lyle_JP

    Lyle_JP Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2000
    Messages:
    1,009
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Jeff,

    My post in the other thread linked above doesn't refer to scenes exclusive to the Director's Cut. The haloing around the title card "Giza, Egypt 1928" is rather obvious on the DC, and totally absent on the TC. It's a shot that exists in both cuts.

    -Lyle J.P.
     
  8. Jeff Kleist

    Jeff Kleist Executive Producer

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 1999
    Messages:
    11,267
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Lyle, they probably have transferred whole scenes for consistancy in quality, rather than just the DC bits so that at least the quality jumps with a scene instead of shot to shot
     
  9. David Coleman

    David Coleman Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2000
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I agree! The theatrical version definitely looks all around better film print quality wise. Definitely looks like the print used for the theatrical is better!
     
  10. Jeff Kleist

    Jeff Kleist Executive Producer

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 1999
    Messages:
    11,267
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You're not getting what I[m saying

    The base movie is the same print, they just spliced in the scenes with added footage into that
     
  11. Eric Huffstutler

    Eric Huffstutler Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 1999
    Messages:
    1,310
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Richmond, VA
    Real Name:
    Eric Huffstutler
    I guess someone needs to do a scene to scene comparison to be able to bring the differences to light?

    To me the DC is most likely similar to if not the original release with spliced in extra footage... and none was digitally restored or cleaned up.

    I guess what many, including myself, are trying to get at is why didn't they use the new 2002 version print, cleaned up the added footage to match, and then spliced it in so that both versions were identical in quality? The confusion lies in the fact that this is an "Ultimate" set and those who bought it for the new DC will be disappointed!

    To me the DC looks softer, less saturated, has lots of noise and dirt on the print (overall, not just one scene), and the new footage looks horrible - all not noticeably present in the Theatrical version which looks sharp, saturated, and lacks dirt and noise overall.

    Ron... you gave such a rave review for this disc but wonder which version you screened? Can you tell us and if it wasn't the DC, could you give it a look and report back your findings? Thanks!
     
  12. MarkHastings

    MarkHastings Executive Producer

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2003
    Messages:
    12,013
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I just received my version yesterday so I haven't seen it yet, but this thread brings up a thought I had when I opened the DVD...why are both versions on different discs? I was thinking "why couldn't they have used seamless branching to incorporate a DC into the original?", but I wonder if the DC (even though it may seem worse than the theatrical) is different because that's what the director wanted. Maybe the director didn't want a 'cleaned up' version for the directors cut? Maybe it's supposed to be a down and dirty copy?

    Just a possible thought.
     
  13. Jeff Kleist

    Jeff Kleist Executive Producer

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 1999
    Messages:
    11,267
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
     
  14. Eric Huffstutler

    Eric Huffstutler Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 1999
    Messages:
    1,310
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Richmond, VA
    Real Name:
    Eric Huffstutler
    Mark,

    I too would have preferred seamless branching but not all people can play them flawlessly as some players go crazy with it. I never had any problems myself and can see that this could save an extra disc or space in general.

    I guess some people still don't get it. Yes, if the new footage in the DC was from video, that's all fine and good. But why didn't they try to at least restore it or remove blemishes with all of the technology available today? Even so, the "new" footage is NOT the overall problem. The complete movie has problems from what I can see using a standard TV setup (no line doublers, no advance scanning, etc...) Optically, the two versions look like "different" versions.
     
  15. Ed St. Clair

    Ed St. Clair Producer

    Joined:
    May 7, 2001
    Messages:
    3,320
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
     
  16. Rachael B

    Rachael B Producer

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2000
    Messages:
    4,705
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    1,610
    Location:
    Knocksville, TN
    Real Name:
    Rachael Bellomy
    I watched the DC so far. My 9000ES wouldn't scan forward or backwards on it. I wasn't impressed at all with the picture quality either. I have the Muse LD and it has more detail and way less noise than the DC. When I bother watching the theatrical cut I certainly hope it looks better and that my player wil navigate it correctly. Ultimate Edition, so far it doesn't seem like it to me. If the TC isn't way better, I'll have wasted my money and go back to watching the Muse...
     
  17. Michael Reuben

    Michael Reuben Studio Mogul

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 1998
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
     
  18. Mark_TS

    Mark_TS Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2000
    Messages:
    1,704
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No doubt ARTISAN are setting us up for a (digitally) RESTORED EDITION 2-3 years down the road, ala NxNW...

    With lots of video 'noise', transparent, weak blacks, and "dirty" looking reds and oranges (much of the shadows on the pyramid structure, and in the city, this film looks to be aging badly.
    Part of the problem is that they transfered it a bit too brightly.
    This film deserves better treament than this, and with todays digital clean up technologies, even the DC could look first rate, the TR stupendous...

    ARTISAN could have doen this right the first time.
     
  19. Jay Sylvester

    Jay Sylvester Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2002
    Messages:
    521
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Maybe it's the same kind of "Ultimate Edition" that T2 was, and we'll see another splendiferous super happy joy joy turbo version in a couple years.
     
  20. Rachael B

    Rachael B Producer

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2000
    Messages:
    4,705
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    1,610
    Location:
    Knocksville, TN
    Real Name:
    Rachael Bellomy
    Michael, anamorphic transfers have existed for about 10 years. In Japan STARGATE was released as a squeez LD and Muse LD both of which are anamorphic, of course. Artisan is looking worse all the time as a DVD source.[​IMG]
     

Share This Page