i dont remember exactly what he said. anyway, i dont hate the guy. he made my favorite movie of all time (sw iv). just thought it was funny that he couldnt say anything except a promotion.

they gave out an award for best vilain ever - to darth vader. then he said, "see him in 3d next year."

prices?
 

Does anyone know how much the price has been fluctuating? I was going to buy the saga last week when it was at 69.99, but I was waiting for my trade in credit at amazon. Now its up to 84.99. So do you think it will go back down, or should I just get it now?

no.

I don't hate Lucas by any means, just saying he is a little out of touch if he doesn't even know when his own movies are coming out (sort of a big difference from winter to summer, ya know?). I mean, if they put so much effort into the 3D you think he would have a clue as to when it was hitting theaters. Unless of course they delay it....

NOW that is sweet! Nice art!

People can voice their opinion about how good or bad these discs look or sound.

lol, thanks!

Yeah well, it still beats the DVD's by far.

I'd love to see what your definition of good is. TPM isn't brilliant by any means because of the DNR, but its a million miles better than the DVD and better than alot of Blu-ray films out there. I'm hoping on a re-release at some point with a DNR-less TPM and an AOTC without the teal tint and softness; but for now we'll have to make do and its not a bad thing.

Which you could say about any blu, working from a 35mm source, that's not an absolute abomination. And TPM had an extra advantage going in, namely that the DVD was such crap to begin with, as other comments have noted, we should have been blown away -- even if it had been mediocre.

In the theatre, TPM had things like detail, film grain; on blu-ray, it does not.

And I must respectfully disagree with the other fellow who believes it's a million times better than a lot of other blus. Or, if it is, I don't own them/haven't seen them.

George Lucas is like Jesus.

Decent enough guy, but his fans suck sometimes.

Can you explain by what you mean by "detail"? Watching the bd, when Maul pulls down his hood at the final battle, his horns stand out as being glued on. I never thought that when I saw it in theaters.

It's obviously not the best looking bd out there, which is a shame because it should be up there. Maybe its the best they could have done without doing a new master? Or as others have said, intentionally blurred it to fit with the others which is just bad "directing".

"Love everything Star Wars unconditionally and regardless of quality or personal taste. If you don't feel this way, you aren't allowed to speak.

Sincerely, a guy with a Star Wars name who is clearly objective about all this."

Did I miss anything?

The Good, The Bad and The Ugly.

The Big Lebowski.

Predator UHE.

Besides that, I can't think of any BD I've seen that TPM looks better than. :shrug:

Then again, I don't own a lot of shitty BDs.

Just because something has been DNR'd, doesn't mean that it looks crap. Yes, fine detail has been lost and in some instances the characters do look waxy (Qui-Gon) but it scores top marks on clarity and there are some reference quality shots, so if you think that makes it only marginally better than the aforementioned titles then I'm shocked.

Yes, it does.

What's the point of high definition, higher resolution, if they smother the resolution and don't show fine detail?

"Top marks on clarity"? Wtf does that even mean? It lacks fine detail, yet it's "clear"? :confused:

Show me one "reference quality shot" in the whole 2 hour plus runtime. Good luck with that.

It is only marginally better than those titles. In fact, The Big Lebowski looks better than it.

I took these with my Dslr camera from my Projector screen & would call them reference quality.

http://i389.photobucket.com/albums/o...Screens009.jpg

http://i389.photobucket.com/albums/o...Screens011.jpg

http://i389.photobucket.com/albums/o...Screens013.jpg

The actors look waxy, and there is no fine detail (hair looks terrible, almost like matted fur...lol). Jar Jar and Boss Nass look MUCH more cartoony than they did in the past as they have lost some detail (the moment Jar Jar is asked to be a general looks terrible imo). It is very bothersome as most spent $90+ on this set and one of the main offerings looks pretty poor. I was very excited to see TPM as they added an extra 8% to the picture, but it appears they killed it with the DNR.

Maybe its just personal preference about the DNR, I don't know. To me TPM looks terrible.

On a side note, I watched ANH last night and its pretty amazing to see some of Mark Hammil and Harrison Ford's make up had smeared on the storm trooper uniforms they stole (watch the scene when Luke is trying to convince Han to save the Princess, and look at the breast plates just beneath their necks..lol). I found that kind funny.

I was expecting the worst considering all the scrutiny, but I think it looks fine. I personally wouldn't be bothered either way because I hate the prequels and try not to acknowledge their existence. From what I saw (to be fair, it wasn't much) and from the screenshots, both TPM and AOTC look great. There are worse looking blu-rays. Batman Begins comes to mind. TPM looked better than the theatrical FOTR transfer. Thankfully the OT looks superb. People are holding these films to a higher standard because it's Star Wars.

I can assure you that you did not see any detail in theaters not present on the blu. 90% of TPM was scanned into 2k Spirit DataScene scanners and downsampled to something like 1920x804 (it is anamorphic on the negative, filmed with anamorphic lens and also some shots were Vista Vision) where the CG was then applied. They basically used a digital intermediate before there was a term for such a thing. An internegative(s) was then created from the digital version from which the release prints were created. An interpositive was created from the internegative on a better film stock than the release prints. This interpositive was telecined and is the source for both the digital cinema and DVD releases. Sorry if I confused anybody.

Like with extended edition of FOTR, the remaining 10% of the film was scanned to create a 100% digital master. This master is the source of the blu-ray and the upcoming 3D conversion.

What you saw in theaters was a generation removed from what is on blu-ray. You couldn't have seen any extra detail. The 90% 2k original would lose 1/3 of its resolution going from IN to RP and over 50% when projected. It was barely better than a DVD. You no doubt saw grain and people mistake grain for actual detail. It's pretty common. That and being under the illusion that a projected release print has an insanely high resolution just because the negative has a theoretical maximum insanely high resolution. (ignoring all the generation loss, the loss of detail when projected, the 2k DI, etc. in favor of blaming dim bulbs and lousy projectionists, not that they help though).

Reliance Entertainment (formerly Lowry Digital) lists TPM and even AOTC on their 'resume' of restored films. The Lowry process uses "Super Resolution" algorithms (combining details from adjacent frames) which also reduces grain and dirt. For those who want to watch it, TPM on blu-ray has never looked better. They would have to create new digital effects at a higher resolution, re-composite them onto a newly scanned film for it to look any better. Not going to happen.

All these reviews that talk of over-DNR remind me of the DVD era when they always spoke of edge enhancement completely oblivious to the fact that the majority of what they considered edge enhancement was MPEG2 compression 'ringing' and also the effect of 720 pixels being stretched to 854. Sure there are some badly DNR'd blus with the grain removed and waxy people but most of the time these reviewers are seeing films that had a 2k DI and are telecined from negatives rather than the digital version.

More reference pics I took. I don't see where they look waxy & plenty of fine detail is there...

http://i389.photobucket.com/albums/o...arWars2005.jpg

http://i389.photobucket.com/albums/o...ulFight003.jpg

http://i389.photobucket.com/albums/o...ulFight005.jpg

http://i389.photobucket.com/albums/o...ulFight007.jpg

http://i389.photobucket.com/albums/o...ulFight010.jpg

I forgot one :D

http://i389.photobucket.com/albums/o...arWars2001.jpg

Thanks for the pics CrazyBlue. When I meant reference quality I was definatly referring to Darth Maul during dual of the fates, you can easily make out all the sweat on his face as hes about to fight the Jedi; now for something that has been DNR'd alot, thats pretty impressive.

Also, when I say TPM has alot of clarity, thats exactly what I mean - clarity. The film is pristine from any artifacts and dirt. Just because some fine detail has been lost as a result of DNR, it does not mean the film isn't clear and clean. The reviewer even acknowledges this "The main improvement here, aside from the obvious increase in clarity from standard definition, is that there's actually more of the image onscreen now."

Once again I'm restating that I don't think TPM is by any means perfect, but for a film with alot of DNR, it certainly doesn't look terrible.

I have been debating if i should buy the whole set but i hear the pq isnt much better then a upconverted dvd so whats the verdict on pq?? I dont care what scenes was added or removed lol,just pq over dvds,thanks guys.

It's miles better than upconverted DVD. :eek:

It's definitely much better than the DVDs. Even the worst looking one, The Phantom Menace, has a very clear improvement. They're not as good looking as some other BDs, but they are definitely worth having over the DVDs.

Wrong. That's not the point of HD. The point of HD is to perfectly replicate the director's intention.

In many movies, things are purposely shot at soft focus. They used to shoot actresses with a stocking over the lens. Classic portrait lenses have such short focus (purposely) that eyes will be in focus and the nose and cheeks will be out of focus.

Ask any director (or actor) whether the intention is show the detail of every hair on an actor's head or to show imperfections in an actor's skin. They'll tell you no.

In fact, one of the problems with HD is that it shows details that you were never intended to see, which sometimes kills the illusion. And most actors hate HD for that reason. Although I can't prove it, I'd bet that HD is leading to more actors having surgery at ever-younger ages.

It's one thing when a BD release winds up looking like a poorly Photoshopped image of someone 50 who is trying to look 30. But for most releases, that's not what I'm seeing. Frankly, I don't even see what all the fuss is about on "The Great Lebowski". Everyone I've shown it to thinks it looks great (if a little too bright in the bowling alley scenes.)

(As an aside, I went through this in reverse many years ago. I was producing a TV teleconference and we had custom sets put together. When I saw the sets, I was upset because there were all kinds of imperfections. The director said, "don't worry about it, you'll never see it on screen." And we didn't. Today, it's the opposite problem: every imperfection shows up on HD. So especially for effects movies, things that used to be believable are no longer and set designers have to work even harder so that we maintain our suspension of disbelief.)

This is the best thing I've ever read. Kudos.

sith happens!

I love this thread.

So whats the timetable like on the individual releases for each film? All I want is The Empire Strikes Back. I don't want the prequels, nor the ANH/ROTJ special edition versions.

When you saw TPM in theatres, was it DNRed? When you see a movie in the theatre, can you see pores, hair, fine detail? I know I can. I watched The Ides of March last night and it looked fantastic. Every detail clear and visible.

"The point of HD" is probably more arguable than either of us are making it, but "showing the director's intent" should include a serious increase in detail, unless the "directors intent" was not the "directors intent" when the same film was shown in cinemas.

What you're saying about HD exacerbating problems and making makeup more apparent etc. is true... for television. Movies have always been displayed in theatres at much higher resolution than VHS, DVD, etc. so it's not like 1080p resolution is ushering in some new era for films.

Thanks for the reply and i guess i will pick these up soon. O i also hear they will be made in 3d but idk if thats great idea or not,whole diff can of worms to open there lol:p

Not screenshots but you can tell it looks amazing. Haters gonna hate. I personally hate the prequels but cannot deny the blus look great. That goes for both TPM and AOTC, ignore the reviewers as they are paid shills and mostly biased morons. Yes, even dvdfile and thedigitalbits. These ********s used to call DVD MPEG2 compression artifact ringing 'edge enhancement' leading to a generation of morons repeating this same BS in situation where there was no such thing. That EE was in fact mostly MPEG2 artifacts and blur from interpolating 720 to 854 in widescreen titles.

Bottom line is that TPM is made from a DI far superior to any film version. Any troll who says otherwise is either remembering it wrong or confusing grain for detail. Too many morons around who believe that 35mm release print projection looks good when in fact it looks terrible. They blame bulbs and projectionists when in fact is mostly generation loss. Grain is not detail, even the best 35mm projection is utter crap. Anybody who disagrees has a biased opinion favoring crap because of grain that isn't supposed to be there and also nonexistent detail they claim to see. If you like the prequels they have never looked better than they do on blu. That's a fact, not an opinion. Disagree, then mess with your TV's settings until it looks like crap. Then it will maybe resemble the theatrical version you remember. Pretentious elitist pricks need to seriously find something else to be pretentious, superficial, and elitist about.

Small question: What have you been smoking?

Wow! Just.....Wow! You have an embarrassingly poor understanding of film. This is based on the statement "Grain isn't supposed to be there"

If it was part of the film stock used, then Yes it is.

I don't know what else to say......
......that'll work.

I've always been one to believe that no one's opinion is wrong, but this.... this is definitely wrong.

An opinion can be wrong if the facts on which it is based are not accurate.

Martin Scorsese disagrees with you.

But I guess he's a "moron." :rolleyes:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/new...-blu-ray-90831

There is no timetable for individual releases of the films. It could be a long time.

TPM 3D trailer + Raiders
 

Just got back from a screening of the new 4K digital print of Raiders, and they ran the TPM 3D trailer before the show.

It is difinitely the same master as the BR - waxy Qui Goc galore and a very soft looking image in general with a few notable exceptions like the Darth Maul reveal, Anakin close up etc. Compared to newer films, it looked down right archaic.

As for Raiders, the new print is very impressive. The opening sequence is brighter and the overall tone of the film is more golden and brown. The red push from the earlier restoration is thankfully gone, and skin tones look far more natural. I'm not sure if Lowry did this latest restoration, but the quality of the image sure looks like their work, with a thick filmlike texture (think Aliens and Empire Strikes Back) and a lot of detail.

I didn't notice a single scratch og other defects and it's going to look great on bluray. Oh and yes - the reflection in the snake pit hasn't been restored while droplets on the lens during the submarine sequece remain.

The sound is downright awesome and sounds like a new mix.