Star Wars: The Complete Saga (1977-2005)

[Jay444]

Originally Posted by EclipseSSD

Yeah, but Episode I got slapped with DNR. Still, it would've been interesting.

THIS was the most disappointing part of this release (imo). I knew before hand that the OT was going to be the Special Editions and from screen caps we KNEW they didn't fix several errors. Which is fine. Par the course for the OT. However, TPM was hyped as having extra picture information added back in, not seen since its theatrical release in 1999 and I have to admit I was excited.....

...then I got the disc in my player... disappointed for sure. Oh well, can't win them all I guess.

[klauswhereareyou]

I guess anything was a step up for Phantom Menace considering how awful the DVD looked, but I do find it annoying that Lucas took the best looking of the prequels and softened it and downgraded the filmic image to make it look more like the inferior HD filmed Eps II and III. But hey it's Lucas right...THX just ain't the standard setter it was back during the laserdisc era.

[The Apocalypse]

For what it's worth, I think Revenge of the Sith looks and sounds pretty fantastic.

[klauswhereareyou]

Sith looks way better than Clones, especially in the FX heavy scenes, but any scene that has very little FX (like a lot of the purely talking scenes) would've looked much better on film and look too early digital cinema-like (too clean/glowy/detail loss) to me. Now if all the Star Wars films had been shot this way I wouldn't have had a problem, but I do have a problem with it when you're five films into the series and you decide to change the look of your films by chosing a new image capture medium. But Clones is just dreadful looking though. Even the FX look preaty bad, especially now in the year 2012. To me most of the shoddy FX in that film is way more unbearable than any of the shoddy FX from the OT.

[HeavyHitter]

I believe Clones was only shot around 2K.

[42041]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

I believe Clones was only shot around 2K.

The live-action material in Clones was shot on HDCAM tape which has a resolution of 1440x1080.

[supercutz]

Originally Posted by klauswhereareyou

Isn't the major problem with releasing the "original" version of Star Wars on blu ray is the fact that Lucas actually went back and cut all the special edition stuff into the camera negative of the films. Any print made for a blu ray would have to come from a different source, which would still be welcome, but I think that's one of the reasons other than Lucas' artistic vision that's keeping back a decent release of the original versions. I think from a historical perspective that there should be good copies of the original version of the OT so we can see the films in the forms that they were originally seen, and in the versions that won Oscars, because I don't think the current iterations of the films can make the claims that they are Oscar winners, because they are not.

I think it's become apparent that GL is full of BS and it's hard to trust what he says.

[42041]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

PeterTHX,

I know you will defend the original SW Blu-rays until the end as being "optimal."

But, Star Wars and Raiders were both shot on Eastman 100T 5247 according to imdb.

Some Star Wars scenes had no special effects and were shot in similar settings and conditions as some scenes Raiders.

It will be a reasonable indicator either way.

Well, you already have Alien and Blade Runner, also 4K remasters of films shot on that film stock and anamorphic format. There's Apocalypse Now which is 4K but not from the negative. Might be others I'm forgetting.

[Cook]

Originally Posted by 42041

The live-action material in Clones was shot on HDCAM tape which has a resolution of 1440x1080.

Thats ****ing crazy. Talk about handicapping the film in the future.

[mrpink134]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

It will be interesting to compare Raiders of the Lost Ark on BD with its 4K restoration to the original Star Wars films. That might give an indication at just how much better ep. 4-6 could have looked on BD.

Easy, Raiders and the rest will blow the SW Blu Rays away! Its easy to figure out why! SS "cares" GL "does not"

[frogmort]

Originally Posted by Coov

I wish we got a version of Anakin that actually likes sand! Sand is Awesome!

Now I watch Vader and think to myself.... he does not like sand.

I think anyone familiar with the non-sequitur comedic stylings of the late Mitch Hedburg will find this hilarious.

[IndyMLVC]

Originally Posted by mrpink134

Easy, Raiders and the rest will blow the SW Blu Rays away! Its easy to figure out why! SS "cares" GL "does not"

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by 42041

The live-action material in Clones was shot on HDCAM tape which has a resolution of 1440x1080.

Which was blown up to 15/70 IMAX with little complaint. HD is surprisingly durable when it comes to upscaling. Marry that with new 4K FX and I doubt anyone but a hardened cineaste would be able to tell the difference.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by mrpink134

Easy, Raiders and the rest will blow the SW Blu Rays away! Its easy to figure out why! SS "cares" GL "does not"

You got your apples in your oranges.

(Doubt this reply will get a fictional psychotic murderer clapping)

[al cos.]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

You got your apples in your oranges.

Alright, why won't it be fair to compare the Raiders blu vs the Star Wars? What special lucas exceptions are we making this time?

[mrpink134]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

You got your apples in your oranges.

(Doubt this reply will get a fictional psychotic murderer clapping)

Really? Please explain. SS cares. GL does not. Look at jaws, the transfer blows any SW transfer away

[42041]

Originally Posted by mrpink134

Really? Please explain. SS cares. GL does not. Look at jaws, the transfer blows any SW transfer away

How so?
They look very much in line quality-wise to me.

[ObiWanShinobi]

Originally Posted by klauswhereareyou

Sith looks way better than Clones, especially in the FX heavy scenes, but any scene that has very little FX (like a lot of the purely talking scenes) would've looked much better on film and look too early digital cinema-like (too clean/glowy/detail loss) to me. Now if all the Star Wars films had been shot this way I wouldn't have had a problem, but I do have a problem with it when you're five films into the series and you decide to change the look of your films by chosing a new image capture medium. But Clones is just dreadful looking though. Even the FX look preaty bad, especially now in the year 2012. To me most of the shoddy FX in that film is way more unbearable than any of the shoddy FX from the OT.

I dont know, I thought Sith looked pretty good all around. I found it to be pretty crisp and detailed throughout....not necessarily "demo material" but better than Clones for sure. Clones did indeed look soft during alot of the dialog/character heavy scenes. I might get tarred and feathered for saying this but i think The Phantom Menace looks better than Clones during similar scenes, that just me though.

[ObiWanShinobi]

Originally Posted by mrpink134

Really? Please explain. SS cares. GL does not. Look at jaws, the transfer blows any SW transfer away

Yes Jaws looks VERY good...but blows ANY SW transer AWAY? Not IMO anyway.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by mrpink134

Really? Please explain. SS cares. GL does not. Look at jaws, the transfer blows any SW transfer away

Seeing as SW is a 2K 1997/2004 restoration of a FX heavy film with different directors and cinematographers and budgets and IJ is 4K 2011 restoration it's apples and oranges. It's like complaining that Man of Steel doesn't look like Memento.