Star Wars: The Complete Saga (1977-2005)

[motorheadache95]

Originally Posted by Falaskan

if the 4K remasters aren't the UOT, I can only assume Disney is saving them for the 50th? Would they wait that long??

I doubt it, that's way too long to sit on the whole thing. I still think the longest we'll wait for a new release is 2020 when Fox's distribution deal runs out on all but the original film.

On a positive note-- let's say hypothetically Disney was not going to release the UOT at all, or it was a clause in Lucas' sale or something as people have brought up. At the very least, a remastered 4K release of the modified versions would be a major upgrade template for a new despecialized edition.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Nicolawicz

Right, I think the crappy digital camera Lucas used had a 1920x1080 (16:9) sensor. Modern digital cameras have a more square sensor for anamorphic.

For using conventional 2x anamorphic glass, yes. If someone used one of those with a 16:9 sensor you'd end up with a super-wide ratio of something like 3.56:1 (!), which is why 1.3x anamorphics specifially for use with 16:9 sensors were created by companies like Vantage with their Hawk 1.3x glass, yielding the conventional 2.35 aspect. Heck, Soderbergh shot Haywire with a 2x anamorphic that just covered the 1.33 area of the 1.89 RED sensor.

Unfortunately Lucas was so ahead of his time in The Quest for Digital™ that nothing like this really existed when he was shooting the prequels, not for use with 16:9 sensor coverage anyway. And yet why doesn't James Cameron cop the same amount of shit for having shot Avatar in flat 1080p 1.78 using the same camera system as Lucas employed on Revenge of the Sith? (Sony F950) Funny that. IMO it's more a case of not what you use but how you use it, after all this is the same guy who got Super 35 looking far greater than it had any right to.

[bobbyh64]

Speaking of 16:9, does anyone else here think it's kind of ridiculous that it's the standard aspect ratio of TV now? I read that it was chosen because when you overlap all the common aspect ratios that have been used (1.33, 1.66, 1.85, 2.2, and 2.35) the rectangle that all of them overlap is 16:9. Also, the geometric mean of 1.33 and 2.35 is close to 16:9. Seems strange to adopt that ratio when almost nothing is intended for 1.33 now. Would've been simpler just to have TVs be 1.85:1. I know it's almost the same as 16:9; I just think the reason it was adopted is strange.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by bobbyh64

Speaking of 16:9, does anyone else here think it's kind of ridiculous that it's the standard aspect ratio of TV now? I read that it was chosen because when you overlap all the common aspect ratios that have been used (1.33, 1.66, 1.85, 2.2, and 2.35) the rectangle that all of them overlap is 16:9. Also, the geometric mean of 1.33 and 2.35 is close to 16:9. Seems strange to adopt that ratio when almost nothing is intended for 1.33 now. Would've been simpler just to have TVs be 1.85:1. I know it's almost the same as 16:9; I just think the reason it was adopted is strange.

But 16:9 wasn't adopted "now", I mean I know it's a fairly recent thing in the Americas but Europeland had 16:9 directives 25 years ago when 4:3 TV production was still very much alive and kicking.

[bobbyh64]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

But 16:9 wasn't adopted "now", I mean I know it's a fairly recent thing in the Americas but Europeland had 16:9 directives 25 years ago when 4:3 TV production was still very much alive and kicking.

True. I wonder why the US adopted the format so late in the game.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by bobbyh64

Seems strange to adopt that ratio when almost nothing is intended for 1.33 now.

The fact that it's not in wide use today hardly renders it irrelevant.

Originally Posted by Geoff D

But 16:9 wasn't adopted "now", I mean I know it's a fairly recent thing in the Americas but Europeland had 16:9 directives 25 years ago when 4:3 TV production was still very much alive and kicking.

I probably shouldn't admit this but the first few times I saw widescreen TVs in Brit shows I did a double-take and thought 'wait, is this set in the future'.

'Muricans...we're awesome

[MPeriolat]

Originally Posted by JimSmith

Well I'll be damned, no theatrical versions of the original Star Wars trilogy will be released on a format greater than crappy VHS! The 1997 CGI from the Star Wars special editions is really showing it's God awful age, looking more horrendous as time goes on!

I'm not happy either, to be honest, but glad TDB got the word out so we were not all disappointed later. The good news is the 1977 version of Star Wars DOES still exist, but some reassembly is required. I'm just thanking the stars it's not an Alamo situation. As for me, I do have the DVD version of the 1977 cut that was released some years back. While not ideal, it'll hold me unless and until we get a proper blu ray of original Star Wars.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

But 16:9 wasn't adopted "now", I mean I know it's a fairly recent thing in the Americas but Europeland had 16:9 directives 25 years ago when 4:3 TV production was still very much alive and kicking.

Dude Europe didn't even have electricity 25 years ago, what the heck are you smoking.

[JimSmith]

Originally Posted by MPeriolat

I'm not happy either, to be honest, but glad TDB got the word out so we were not all disappointed later. The good news is the 1977 version of Star Wars DOES still exist, but some reassembly is required. I'm just thanking the stars it's not an Alamo situation. As for me, I do have the DVD version of the 1977 cut that was released some years back. While not ideal, it'll hold me unless and until we get a proper blu ray of original Star Wars.

The problem is we never will and yet we keep getting our hopes up.

[Nicolawicz]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

For using conventional 2x anamorphic glass, yes. If someone used one of those with a 16:9 sensor you'd end up with a super-wide ratio of something like 3.56:1 (!), which is why 1.3x anamorphics specifially for use with 16:9 sensors were created by companies like Vantage with their Hawk 1.3x glass, yielding the conventional 2.35 aspect. Heck, Soderbergh shot Haywire with a 2x anamorphic that just covered the 1.33 area of the 1.89 RED sensor.

Unfortunately Lucas was so ahead of his time in The Quest for Digital™ that nothing like this really existed when he was shooting the prequels, not for use with 16:9 sensor coverage anyway. And yet why doesn't James Cameron cop the same amount of shit for having shot Avatar in flat 1080p 1.78 using the same camera system as Lucas employed on Revenge of the Sith? (Sony F950) Funny that. IMO it's more a case of not what you use but how you use it, after all this is the same guy who got Super 35 looking far greater than it had any right to.

I actually think Avatar looks like crap, too. Like sterile, cheap video.

[kemcha]

First, let me get something out of my system:

I've been ridiculed for this in the past but there is a reason never EVER let yourself be fooled by news that isn't officially released by the studio producing it. Thing is, someone out there in the blog-o-sphere decided to pull a big prank on the internet and every Star Wars fanatic jumped onto the bandwagon.

If the remastered unaltered original trilogy did exist, then Lucasfilm would have been obligated to inform 20th Century Fox of the existence of this remastered version and they would have been required to provide it to Fox (and that 20th Century Fox would have first distribution rights to it). Lucasfilm simply cannot produce a remastered version and just sit on it until 20th Century Fox's distribution deal lapses.

The thing is, if Lucasfilm waits until the distribution deal lapses and then Disney releases it soon afterwards, they may be in for a legal fight with 20th Century Fox. I'm just expecting a legal fight between 20th Century Fox, Lucasfilm/Disney when the distribution agreement ends if they announce an immediate release soon afterwards.

[Nicolawicz]

Originally Posted by bobbyh64

Speaking of 16:9, does anyone else here think it's kind of ridiculous that it's the standard aspect ratio of TV now? I read that it was chosen because when you overlap all the common aspect ratios that have been used (1.33, 1.66, 1.85, 2.2, and 2.35) the rectangle that all of them overlap is 16:9. Also, the geometric mean of 1.33 and 2.35 is close to 16:9. Seems strange to adopt that ratio when almost nothing is intended for 1.33 now. Would've been simpler just to have TVs be 1.85:1. I know it's almost the same as 16:9; I just think the reason it was adopted is strange.

I think it's a compromise between 1.85 and 1.66 (the American and European theatrical ratios).

[Ashamed Pegasus]

In case anyone hasn't seen this yet. I don't think I'll ever be able to watch ANH the same way again.

YouTube

[Chiyo_chichi]

Originally Posted by kemcha

First, let me get something out of my system:

I've been ridiculed for this in the past but there is a reason never EVER let yourself be fooled by news that isn't officially released by the studio producing it. Thing is, someone out there in the blog-o-sphere decided to pull a big prank on the internet and every Star Wars fanatic jumped onto the bandwagon.

If the remastered unaltered original trilogy did exist, then Lucasfilm would have been obligated to inform 20th Century Fox of the existence of this remastered version and they would have been required to provide it to Fox (and that 20th Century Fox would have first distribution rights to it). Lucasfilm simply cannot produce a remastered version and just sit on it until 20th Century Fox's distribution deal lapses.

The thing is, if Lucasfilm waits until the distribution deal lapses and then Disney releases it soon afterwards, they may be in for a legal fight with 20th Century Fox. I'm just expecting a legal fight between 20th Century Fox, Lucasfilm/Disney when the distribution agreement ends if they announce an immediate release soon afterwards.

A remastered version of ANH does exist. We just don't know which version.

http://io9.gizmodo.com/gareth-edward...ist-1790418019

We don't know the goings-on behind closed doors, so Fox may very well be aware. It's just "fun" speculation.

[Roonan]

Originally Posted by Chiyo_chichi

A remastered version of ANH does exist. We just don't know which version.

Yes, we do. It's the Special Edition.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Roonan

Yes, we do. It's the Special Edition.

Eh. The Bits said "we've essentially confirmed it" but note the get-out clause, and that's not the same thing as actually confirming it. They recounted how someone at Disney said that the negative is configured as the SE - which we knew already - and that someone at Fox said all the relevant trims from the original negative were kept, which was just common sense for a company as fastidious about its archive as Lucasfilm Ltd. The Bits then put two and two together to make News. Whether it's fake news or not remains to be seen.

[imsounoriginal]

[rickah88]

I do see it!

[stvn1974]

Originally Posted by imsounoriginal

And it still looks better than CGI Jabba.

[dubious]

Originally Posted by Nicolawicz

I think it's a compromise between 1.85 and 1.66 (the American and European theatrical ratios).

It's really even more simplistic than that.

4/3 = (4:3) [1.33]
4/3 * 4/3 = 16/9 (16:9) [1.78]
4/3 * 4/3 * 4/3 = 64/27 (frequently simplified to 21:9 for marketing, it's actually 64/27 and not 63/27) [2.37]