Star Wars: The Complete Saga (1977-2005)

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Nicolawicz

Are you sure these bozos erase the grain and then add digital grain? That's the stupidest thing I've heard.

It's not as crazy as it sounds (and I agree, it sounds completely crazy).

Some of the work they did on the early Bonds looks fantastic.

I'm not saying it's necessarily the best approach but when it works it can work extremely well.

[Beast]

Originally Posted by Breather

Some TPM screenshot comparisons I found. HDTV vs. BD rip:

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison.php?id=78492

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison.php?id=78493

Qui-Gon shot:

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison.php?id=78496

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/78482

So the Qui-Gon shot just looked bad, likely due to a filter on the camera, even originally.

But wow! That one scene with Padme's Decoy. The HDTV version... her white face make-up almost looks like it's gone.

All in all, I have to say that the Blu-Ray images look much better than the HDTV ones.

[sevb36]

Originally Posted by Beast

So the Qui-Gon shot just looked bad, likely due to a filter on the camera, even originally.

But wow! That one scene with Padme's Decoy. The HDTV version... her white face make-up almost looks like it's gone.

All in all, I have to say that the Blu-Ray images look much better than the HDTV ones.

How the hell can anyone say the Neeson shot is better in the HD? The blu-ray blows it out of the water. It's softer, yes, but still has more detail.

[Jumpman]

mf.com has posted clips of the Prequels and based on the Episode I clip, they tried very hard to mimic the look of Episode II. There's no doubt about it in my mind and they almost succeeded.

Lucas is definitely going for a digital look for Episode I. But, detail IS there.

Obviously, if he rescanned this film at 4K and wasn't going for the digital look, it'd be off the charts.

But, I still see plenty of detail in this new look.

[Beast]

Agreed. It certainly has been de-grained some, like was done to Aliens. But the fine detail is still there.

[Breather]

Originally Posted by Beast

All in all, I have to say that the Blu-Ray images look much better than the HDTV ones.

I'd certainly agree.

[Kryptonic]

Originally Posted by sevb36

How the hell can anyone say the Neeson shot is better in the HD? The blu-ray blows it out of the water. It's softer, yes, but still has more detail.

This is a rare instance where DNR is an improvement.

[Jumpman]

The Episode II clip looks exactly how I suspected it would. Lucas went with a very dreamy look to Episode II, in contrast with Episode III (with the better camera).

[Merlinpants]

Originally Posted by Merlinpants

Attachment 37587

Originally Posted by Kryptonic

This is a rare instance where DNR is an improvement.

Seriously, there is no way this should happen on a premium release from a distributor as big as Fox with Lucasfilm behind it, and the supposed power of ILM. Ridiculous. The HDTV version at least makes him look like a human instead of a hasbro figure.

[sevb36]

Originally Posted by Merlinpants

Seriously, there is no way this should happen on a premium release from a distributor as big as Fox with Lucasfilm behind it, and the supposed power of ILM. Ridiculous. The HDTV version at least makes him look like a human instead of a hasbro figure.

I big time disagree, where is the detail in the HD, I see grain city. I'd take the Blu-Ray any day of the week, and I even see more detail in the blu-ray.

[Merlinpants]

Originally Posted by sevb36

I big time disagree, where is the detail in the HD, I see grain city. I'd take the Blu-Ray any day of the week, and I even see more detail in the blu-ray.

Can't disagree on the detail, but at what cost? The guy looks like a waxwork dummy and it takes you right out of the film. Yuck!

It is starting to look like an advertisement for plastic surgery or botox. Liam Neeson has lost about 25 years in that shot alone

I admit though it is one frame, so I am not too concerned. Anyone can find one bad frame in any film. I will reserve my judgement until I see it in motion, but it doesn't bode well for 'reference' quality at the moment.

[Blu-man08]

Originally Posted by Beast

So the Qui-Gon shot just looked bad, likely due to a filter on the camera, even originally.

Wow. That screengrab from the Blu-Ray rip "just" looks bad? Likely due to a filter? What filter would that be? The Madame Toussaud?

[Nick666]

DNR ????? Oh hell no.

[Stu123]

[QUOTE=Moviefan2k4;5166845]See, now that's a great Yoda for "Episode I".QUOTE]

Yeah he's finally made a change for the good and not a totally pointless crazy one.

[Stu123]

Yeah he's finally made a change for the good with the CGI Yoda and not a totally pointless crazy one.

[Stu123]

Originally Posted by aiman04

When you use DNR you'll lose details, adding digital grain will only make it worse. Certain director purposely adds digital grain for artistic reasons (i.e. 300), especially when shot digitally where there are no analogue film stock used, this is different.

Grains not necessarily be a director's intent. The problem is when they use DNR we'll loose the details so it's better to just leave the grain intact. When the director prefer to remove the grain, that's his artistic intent and if he can do it properly then I'm fine with it (i.e. Aliens).

My 2 cents.



Really honest question here, as you have Predator UHE in your collection, can you tolerate the DNR in that blu-ray? Just curious.

He hasn't gone crazy with the DNR has he? please tell me he hasn't .The whole point of blu-ray is to see more detail and as other people have said you're just scrubbing the detail away with DNR.Predator is a grain fest yes but at least theres detail.

[Merlinpants]

...and Watto in the AOTC clip looks dreadful. He sticks out a mile as an addition, something about his clothing colour is waayyyyy off.

[MerrickG]

Any word on a sale price for these?

[sevb36]

Originally Posted by Merlinpants

Can't disagree on the detail, but at what cost? The guy looks like a waxwork dummy and it takes you right out of the film. Yuck!

It is starting to look like an advertisement for plastic surgery or botox. Liam Neeson has lost about 25 years in that shot alone

I admit though it is one frame, so I am not too concerned. Anyone can find one bad frame in any film. I will reserve my judgement until I see it in motion, but it doesn't bode well for 'reference' quality at the moment.

It's a f-ing freeze frame, not in motion, I've seen some of these clips in motion and they look fine. You can choose to do whatever the hell you want.

[Merlinpants]

Originally Posted by sevb36

It's a f-ing freeze frame, not in motion, I've seen some of these clips in motion and they look fine. You can choose to do whatever the hell you want.

opps, get out of bed the wrong side?

I said in the bit you quoted me on that it is not in motion. Calm down dear!

EDIT: Ah! Just checked your previous posts, you are always like this. Nice!

I have seen the in motion clips, and one thing that stood out in all of them was the obvious green screen to live action blend with almost a halo around the actors. That is just on a laptop monitor, it must look even more obvious blown up on a HD screen. I wonder if he regrets not doing more practical stuff?