Star Wars: The Complete Saga (1977-2005)

[fat_rancor_keeper]

This is something I wondered about a while back..........all of these screen-shots, clips and comic-con vids aren't really blu-ray previews but shined up HD 2004 transfers.

I don't know. It puts things into perspective and makes you wonder how people could describe anything from the 2004 transfer as "stunning" even if it is looking better than it ever has.

[PRO-630HD]

Originally Posted by aiman04

I stand corrected. I thought a "transfer" means from the negatives to digital files, and when they prepare them (fixes, color timing, etc) for the new medium (blu-ray) they're then called "masters".

EDIT:

Wait, in bold is exactly what I meant. Now which is correct then, a new transfer or a new master?

That definition is exactly correct. So the Star Wars blurays are the same HD 1.9K (WTF!) transfers from 2004 that have been tweaked into new masters.

[nmycon]

Originally Posted by aiman04

I stand corrected. I thought a "transfer" means from the negatives to digital files, and when they prepare them (fixes, color timing, etc) for the new medium (blu-ray) they're then called "masters".

EDIT:

Wait, in bold is exactly what I meant. Now which is correct then, a new transfer or a new master?

Thanks.

I think I may have gotten transfers mixed up with prints in terms of film

I was thinking transfers are always made from masters, but the masters are "reworked" versions of transfers, the "prints" I guess would be the DVDs, blu-rays, etc.

[aiman04]

Originally Posted by PRO-630HD

That definition is exactly correct. So the Star Wars blurays are the same HD 1.9K (WTF!) transfers from 2004 that have been tweaked into new masters.

Thanks for the clarification! Curious to see how far the tweaks can improve the picture.

nmycon: It's ok, I also get things mixed up that sometimes.

[Maggot]

Originally Posted by aiman04

Thanks for the clarification! Curious to see how far the tweaks can improve the picture.

nmycon: It's ok, I also get things mixed up that sometimes.

So let me get this straight and I'm sorry if this has already been over before. From what I'm reading, the bulk of the new Blu-rays are from the older 2k transfers? To me, the term new transfer means, you went back to square one and created a new print for which a new master was made. But if you simply used something old, isn't that not really new? Shouldn't a film series of this magnitude have been given something like a new frame by frame further restore(if needed) 4k or better scan/transfer? Seriously, are we talking Lucas went el-cheapo here on this set?

[Cowboy]

Originally Posted by Maggot

So let me get this straight and I'm sorry if this has already been over before. From what I'm reading, the bulk of the new Blu-rays are from the older 2k transfers? To me, the term new transfer means, you went back to square one and created a new print for which a new master was made. But if you simply used something old, isn't that not really new? Shouldn't a film series of this magnitude have been given something like a new frame by frame further restore(if needed) 4k or better scan/transfer? Seriously, are we talking Lucas went el-cheapo here on this set?

I know there is no way you can be suprised by this.......it's been going on for a long time.

[nmycon]

Originally Posted by Maggot

So let me get this straight and I'm sorry if this has already been over before. From what I'm reading, the bulk of the new Blu-rays are from the older 2k transfers? To me, the term new transfer means, you went back to square one and created a new print for which a new master was made. But if you simply used something old, isn't that not really new? Shouldn't a film series of this magnitude have been given something like a new frame by frame further restore(if needed) 4k or better scan/transfer? Seriously, are we talking Lucas went el-cheapo here on this set?

this is correct, changes were made to the 2004 transfer, to create a new master for the 2011 blu-ray release.

If the 2004 transfers were not scanned at 1080p resolution, I'm sure they would have done a 4K scan for the blu-ray release. However since the footage already existed in 1080p, it really makes more sense to use it, but make minor tweaks.

I'm sure that with the colour correction and lightsaber effects improved upon from the 2004 DVDs, it will be like seeing the films again for the first time. The binary sunset has been vastly improved upon (judging by the pics on starwars.com), that was one that always bugged me.

It's obvious that efforts shifted towards the 3D release (for which an entirely new transfer is likely being made) quite some time ago.

[deado]

Well that youtube 1080p clip of Episode 4 with the board game looks pretty good - even if these aren't from 4K masters which it now looks like they aren't....

You can tell the detail in the scene is good - C3PO etc it looks a lot better than it has previously. If that clip is anything to go by that is.

[Beast]

Originally Posted by Maggot

So let me get this straight and I'm sorry if this has already been over before. From what I'm reading, the bulk of the new Blu-rays are from the older 2k transfers? To me, the term new transfer means, you went back to square one and created a new print for which a new master was made. But if you simply used something old, isn't that not really new? Shouldn't a film series of this magnitude have been given something like a new frame by frame further restore(if needed) 4k or better scan/transfer? Seriously, are we talking Lucas went el-cheapo here on this set?

It was already fully restored and prepped for the 2004 release. Other than fixing some of the problems, they didn't really need to do a full rescan and restoration since the last time. So I wouldn't really consider it an "El Cheapo" job. It's just like most releases that already had recent restorations. There's no sense throwing out all that work and starting from scratch. Very few Hi-Def masters are starting from scratch.

[nmycon]

Originally Posted by Beast

It was already fully restored and prepped for the 2004 release. Other than fixing some of the problems, they didn't really need to do a full rescan and restoration since the last time. So I wouldn't really consider it an "El Cheapo" job. It's just like most releases that already had recent restorations. There's no sense throwing out all that work and starting from scratch. Very few Hi-Def masters are starting from scratch.

exactly!

Just look at the James Bond blu-ray releases. The 2K restorations were done in 2007 (i think) for the DVD "Ultimate Collection" (or something like that). They put those same 2K transfers on to blu in 09/10 and the difference is incredible! I have no doubt that the difference between the 2004 DVDs and this blu-ray set will be equally impressive.

Transfers that were made for DVD were done at double resolution, in anticipation of the upcoming hi-def format, so essentially, the 2004 transfers were intended to be used for blu-ray as well.

Taxi Driver needed a restoration before it could be put out on blu-ray, the DVDs looked awful. So, it got the 4K treatment. You can bet that'll be the same transfer that is used for it's next hi-def release.

[IndyMLVC]

Originally Posted by earmullet

Sorry, I missed it. What are we supposed to believe?

The bonus disc information. I posted it last night.

[jala12]

You know, I have to wonder. With all the sound revisements and such going on, will the the battle droid voices be tweaked for episodes 1 and 2 to sound more like their episode 3 and clone wars counterparts? Matthew Wood could easily redo them again seeing as he voiced them himself.

[fat_rancor_keeper]

we can only hope

[Maggot]

That really leads me to suspect that this may be the first time, for me, that a Blu-ray set is not going to look THAT MUCH better then a recent DVD set. I have played my DVD SE set upconverted and it looks quite good for a DVD. The best I've ever seen. I hope I'm wrong. I hope my socks are blown off, but I'm beginning to have doubts with what I'm hearing.

[nmycon]

Originally Posted by phansson

Where did you see that there is a new 2011 master? I am confused here.

If changes are made, there isn't a new master. That would entail Lucasfilm scanning the negatives again.

And saying that a 1080p "master" is sufficient is kind of old school. Any decent release now is scanned at 4k (8k occasionally).

a transfer entails scanning negatives. a master is essentially a transfer (to which changes may or may not be made) from which discs are mass-produced. We just settled this debate

The reason film is scanned at 4K is to "futureproof" it until the next hi-def format. the improvement if offers over 1080p on a blu-ray disc is incredibly subtle.

[nmycon]

Originally Posted by Maggot

That really leads me to suspect that this may be the first time, for me, that a Blu-ray set is not going to look THAT MUCH better then a recent DVD set. I have played my DVD SE set upconverted and it looks quite good for a DVD. The best I've ever seen. I hope I'm wrong. I hope my socks are blown off, but I'm beginning to have doubts with what I'm hearing.

How can you say that with the colour corrections we have seen. And it's reported that the lightsabers colours have been greatly improved upon. I think the compression artifacts stick out like a sore thumb on all of the DVDs, Phantom Menace is the worst offender of the bunch, the skies always look incredible nosey for some reason.

There's more to look at than just the resolution. The most glaring errors from the 2004 DVDs have been fixed.

Look here!

This is from a TV broadcast of the 2004 transfers in 1080p. So no colour improvements or anything. You can still see how much better it looks at only 2K resolution compared to 480p.

[phansson]

Originally Posted by nmycon

a transfer entails scanning negatives. a master is essentially a transfer (to which changes may or may not be made) from which discs are mass-produced. We just settled this debate

So essentially what you are saying is true. If they change the color of the menu, you will get a new master (for the Blu Ray disc). We all care about new "transfers" of the film from negatives.

Originally Posted by nmycon

The reason film is scanned at 4K is to "futureproof" it until the next hi-def format. the improvement if offers over 1080p on a blu-ray disc is incredibly subtle.

That is really not true, a 4k master will have better grain retention and better detail even if it is down sampled to 1080p. Check out Baraka, which was an 8k scan and still one of the most incredible Blu Ray's out there.

As for your comment earlier, check your info on the Bond DVD's. The best transfers of the set were new scans of the negatives at 4k resolution. Dr. No, From Russia with Love and Goldfinger, were all 4k scans.

Basic gist of this entire argument is this. Lucas (whom I typically stand up for) is screwing us again by using a seven year old, sub par master/transfer/print/whatever you would like to call it. The first three films will look phenomenal, the last three will look so-so.

[Maggot]

Originally Posted by nmycon

How can you say that with the colour corrections we have seen. And it's reported that the lightsabers colours have been greatly improved upon. I think the compression artifacts stick out like a sore thumb on all of the DVDs, Phantom Menace is the worst offender of the bunch, the skies always look incredible nosey for some reason.

There's more to look at than just the resolution. The most glaring errors from the 2004 DVDs have been fixed.

I only say that I'm worried, but hopeful. I had the original Bond set with the Lowry transfers and they were excellent. Yes, the Blu-rays were superior, so although I'm worried about the difference, I also have a good experience with films that had already been scanned in HD before for DVD, but looked even better on Blu-ray. Personally, I think the biggest improvment that is sorely needed is flat panel bit depth. From my understanding, they are still 8 bit depth, which is woefully low. I think we have all seen the occasional sky or background with poor color gradation transitions.

[nmycon]

Originally Posted by phansson

The first three films will look phenomenal, the last three will look so-so.

What makes you say this?

[Jason520C]

So from my understanding, there's a chance that we haven't seen the REAL blu-ray footage at all, right?

That's great and all, but we've seen what is obviously the new transfer of TPM. Why would they show us TPM but not any of the other movies?

Don't get me wrong: I'm happy with what I've seen of the OT so far for the most part. Sure, some colors (especially Vader's saber cough cough) could look better, but for the most part I think it looks great.

Then again, the humdinger glitch is pretty much confirmed to be fixed, and we found it in Comic Con, proving that we haven't seen the REAL blu-ray footage yet. Or Comic Con was all fake while all these YouTube clips are real (compressed of course but still the blu-ray clips).

So many contradicting things...guess we really won't find out until we get word from people like us who have seen the blu-rays with their own two eyes, but I'd like to know NOW!