Ask questions to The Digital Bits team (Bill Hunt, Jeff Kleist et.al.)

[Jeff Kleist]

No, and it doesn't matter what codec they use

I expect they'll go with DTS, unless Lucasfilm is given a really good reason to demand THD.

They'll all probably be 6.1 (EX channel made discrete)

MGM still decides what's done with their assets, distribution is exactly that. The discs get printed, go to the right warehouse, and they can also use things like marketing people, film restoration or DVD Production facilities at the distributor. The distributor will sometimes invest in the title in hopes of increasing their income through bigger sales, but control remains at the owner, not the people who send it to market. Obviously movies that Sony invests in in the future, the Bond films for example, they would have a say in what's done with those

[Supernaut]

Can The Phantom Menace even fully benefit from a 1080p presentation? Wasn't it originally shot digitally at 1280x1024?

[Jeff Kleist]

Phantom Menace was shot 35mm film. I think you may be thinking of that horrible night scene where Qui-Gon checks Anakin's midichlorians (Lucas challenged us to pick up the scene shot digitally, wasn't hard, digital definitely was not ready for prime time.

The digital presentation of Episode 2, and possibly what many elements were rendered at was only 1280x1024, maybe that's what you're thinking of. Either way, the cameras they shot Episode 3 with were far superior, and that's still better than 720p resolution

[Supernaut]

Fascinating... So does that mean ILM will have to re-render a lot of the effects shots for I&II?


While we're on the subject of Star Wars, what do you think the odds are of getting a properly restored Original Trilogy on Blu?

[DenonCI]

Originally Posted by Supernaut

While we're on the subject of Star Wars, what do you think the odds are of getting a properly restored Original Trilogy on Blu?

Not very good unless Lucas was hit exceptionally hard by the real estate market in California and needs an infusion of cash

[Jeff Kleist]

No, they won't re-render. Piles of movies have low-res effects compared to today. I'm sure he may choose to at some point in the future, but you can render an object at any resolution you want, it doesn't change the raw resolution of your elements though, which is likely still far below what you'd want for 1080p. Pixar talks in the Toy Story films how they enhanced their existing characters in 2, and again for 3

I wish people would understand. Lucas HATES the theatrical OT. They sit about 5 rungs under the Christmas special on his "to burn" list. You have no idea what it took to even get those LD rehashes out there.

It's time people give up on it, and instead encourage his constant tinkering to undo the more offensive bits (Han shot first, the musical number in Jabba's and the lack of the Yub Yub song). All six movies will almost certainly have changes in them on the new Blu-rays. And no, I don't count things like re-painting lightsabers so they look good as changes Falcon)

[Supernaut]

Way to crush a man's dreams Jeff.

[jd213]

Certain fans have already gotten ahold of release prints and have been looking for ways to make HD transfers from them. If the BDs do indeed lack the originals, it might accelerate the project. I imagine film scanners are getting cheaper, too.

Of course it won't look as good as a professional release, but it would at least be better than the old letterboxed DVDs.

[Jeff Kleist]

There was actually an extensive search for quality release prints back around 2006 by Lucasfilm nothing that wouldn't cost just as much or more as pulling the negatives would. Considering that the films are still what, 95% identical after trimming out the jabba scene? More? it's a better idea to start with the commercial releases and cut in/out what you need, were you to undertake such a project

[jd213]

Yeah, I think someone already suggested that in the thread I was reading.

It also means that George's claim of it being too expensive to remaster them is pretty much BS.

[Jeff Kleist]

Depends on how you define expensive and the cost-benefit ratio

I will tell you that the noise from the OT lovers, the people who will not buy anything but the unaltered versions is drastically overstated. At best it would be a break-even prospect to capture those additional sales, most optimistic outcome.

It's better stated that it's not worth his time and money to do so, even if he didn't hate them

[jd213]

Seems like the perfect excuse for a double dip, so it would seem to be worth it to me. There's plenty of time between the 2011 versions and whenever all the 3D versions will be out, too.

[johndoyle123]

regarding this sony , mgm deal

recently mgm catalog has seen a surge in activity , here in the uk we have platoon , hustler and midnight cowboy all coming in may ,,,

but is it likely that once sony gets its hands on them we should all wave goodbye to the growing prospect of actually owning films such as 12 angry men , great escape and some like it hot on blu-ray ,let alone other great catalog films ,,,, just as things where looking up this happens am i the only person worried ???

[Jeff Kleist]

No. As I said, Sony has nothing to do with what comes out. If you move to the house down the block, do you stop going to work just because the guy driving the carpool changed?

MGM has credit again, which allows them to actually do stuff. And they would be fools on their classic library not to take advantage of Sony's restoration facilities on great titles like Great Escape or 12 Angry Men. Personally I'm hoping that by some miracle MAd Mad Mad World might still be able to be saved. But that's Mr Harris s baby

[master_8ball]

Originally Posted by jd213

Seems like the perfect excuse for a double dip, so it would seem to be worth it to me. There's plenty of time between the 2011 versions and whenever all the 3D versions will be out, too.

You're talking about Jackass right

[MerrickG]

Originally Posted by Supernaut

Way to crush a man's dreams Jeff.

Its been stated over and over and over and over again for many years. I want them just so people will be quiet about them. Restore Han shoot first and the original Jabba musical number and I am happy. Everything else that was fixed made the film better as far as Im concerned.

What people really want is to be able to capture the magic they experienced the first time they say Star Wars as a child.

[worth]

Originally Posted by merrick97

What people really want is to be able to capture the magic they experienced the first time they say Star Wars as a child.

Yes, it of course has nothing to do with preserving historically important films as they were originally made. Or preserving the work of the cinematographers, effects artists and sound mixers who actually helped make the films important in the first place.

[MerrickG]

Originally Posted by worth

Yes, it of course has nothing to do with preserving historically important films as they were originally made. Or preserving the work of the cinematographers, effects artists and sound mixers who actually helped make the films important in the first place.

I think all of that stuff is way overrated, because the films still exist just (IMO) better form minus a few changes.

I am not at all saying that the originals aren't important nor am I trying to crap on those who do feel that way, but I just feel that the level of desire (as Jeff said) for the originals is WAYYYYY overstated by the vocal minority.

[worth]

For me, the whole goal of home theatre is to replicate what it would have been like to see a film on opening night in a good theatre with a good print. That's something that won't be possible with the Star Wars blu-rays.

There's no reason it has to be an either/or situation. Blade Runner, Close Encounters and other discs offer original cuts as well as enhanced or alternate versions, giving the viewer a choice. You'd think Lucas would want the originals out there, if only to prove how "inferior" they are to his "improved" versions.

I'd have been happy had Lucas just done a straight transfer of archival prints - no additional restoration or clean-up required. And it would only have added around $50 000 to the price tag - a drop in the ocean considering they're expecting to move 8-9 million units.

[Jeff Kleist]

I think all of that stuff is way overrated, because the films still exist just (IMO) better form minus a few changes.

You know that kind of justification doesn't fly with me Merrick. The book is still there for people to read! The Little Mermaid lives happily ever after! Starbuck is a chick! The only difference in this case is that for once, it's the creator and not some re-imaginer that's doing it. He's absolutely burying it where no-one can see it.

There's no reason it has to be an either/or situation. Blade Runner, Close Encounters and other discs offer original cuts as well as enhanced or alternate versions, giving the viewer a choice. You'd think Lucas would want the originals out there, if only to prove how "inferior" they are to his "improved" versions.

But those filmmakers wanted to preserve the original version. Lucas does not

I'd have been happy had Lucas just done a straight transfer of archival prints - no additional restoration or clean-up required. And it would only have added around $50 000 to the price tag - a drop in the ocean considering they're expecting to move 8-9 million units.

I would put 8-9 million as a very optimistic number. And there's a lot more cost than just the film scan. There's the color timing (which is never consistant between reels on a brand new release print. At the duplicator they put them in "red/yellow/blue push" piles, and try to give you all reds or all blues or all yellows. As I said, he doesn't want to do it, and there is no profit motive to do so. The number of people who will not purchase Star Wars:SE(rev 3) under any circumstances is very very small.