Star Wars: The Complete Saga (1977-2005)

[ElvisForever]

Originally Posted by IndyMLVC

Actually, no. There is no "scan of the original print" in the wild, mr "hip." There are only scans of 35mm release prints, which are much worse than a blu-ray, even at 720p.

And if you can't support your theory with facts, then you've outlived your usefulness. I've downloaded the 35mm scans. They're unwatchable, unless you live for nostalgia of heavy grain and less detail.

Who are you? Mr. lame-ass Mike Verta?

You need to just stop. My jaw has dropped and I have nothing left to say because you clearly know nothing of film.

I don't know which is worse, your post...or the one directly above mine. How can someone come to a board about preserving film and say there is no difference between a 4K scan and an upscale of a laserdisc!!!

By the way, just out of curiosity, how big is your file? Lets do a little math. Lets say you have a 15 gig file and a 30 gig file, which one is going to give you more detal provided they both use the same compression? Think hard...really hard...

[IndyMLVC]

Originally Posted by ElvisForever

You need to just stop. My jaw has dropped and I have nothing left to say because you clearly know nothing of film.

I don't know which is worse, your post...or the one directly above mine. How can someone come to a board about preserving film and say there is no difference between a 4K scan and an upscale of a laserdisc!!!

Who said that? A majority of the video used in despecialized is from the Blu-ray's. Now who doesn't know what he's talking about?

And...since you're so disbelieving of the lack of visible detail in 35mm release prints...

For example:

Harmy VS Technicolor Frame Scan
http://screenshotcomparison.com/comp....php?id=113916

35mm vs Harmy
http://screenshotcomparison.com/comp....php?id=159426

35mm vs Harmy
http://screenshotcomparison.com/comp....php?id=178094

[ElvisForever]

Originally Posted by IndyMLVC

Who said that? A majority of the video used in despecialized is from the Blu-ray's. Now who doesn't know what he's talking about?

So you are saying there is no DVD or Laserdisc or 8mm used at all?

Are we seriously arguing against facts now?

A 35mm print has up to 20 million pixels vs what...less than a million on this super duper despecialized if it was all 720p?

At this point, you are straight up trolling and should really get out while your head is completely underwater.

Picking out some random negative doesn't prove a thing. You need to actually go to the problem stills that were mentioned.

[PeterTHX]

I thought we weren't supposed to discuss pirated/bootleg versions on this site.

[IndyMLVC]

Originally Posted by ElvisForever

So you are saying there is no DVD or Laserdisc or 8mm used at all?

Are we seriously arguing against facts now?

At this point, you are straight up trolling and should really get out while your head is completely underwater.

Picking out some random negative doesn't prove a thing. You need to actually go to the problem stills that were mentioned.

No. I didn't say that at all. I said "MAJORITY."

You can keep insulting me all you want but you've still not proved your point. I've provided examples and facts. Now it's your turn.

If anyone is trolling, it is you.

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

I thought we weren't supposed to discuss pirated/bootleg versions on this site.

We're not. We're discussing the difference in detail between a properly mastered blu-ray and a 35mm release print.

Originally Posted by ElvisForever

A 35mm print has up to 20 million pixels vs what...less than a million on this super duper despecialized if it was all 720p?

YES. A NEGATIVE. A release print is much further removed from the negative and, as such, has much lower resolution!

[Ben Reilly]

The final reason is the actual quality of the Blu-Rays. Many people don’t realise that these are old transfer scans done in 2003 and the detail levels, especially after the grain removal done by Lucasfilm/ Lowry, isn’t anywhere near as high as they would have been if they had done a fresh scan using todays technology.

Harmy, who created the great Despecialized Editions, posted a comparison photo over at OT.com demonstrating just how little detail is lost when scaling down to 720p.



the left image is taken direct from the Blu-Ray and the right is the same image scaled down to 720p and then back up to 1080p. Now, if your TV is 1080p then either that or your player should already be upscaling the video back up from 720p to 1080p. Now as you can see there is virtually NO loss in detail.
So don’t think that just because something is 1080p that it will be far superior to the same thing in 720p

The Blu-rays are crap.
The last good release for the equipment was the 2000 edition VHS.

[stvn1974]

I would rather watch a VHS dub with Han shooting Greedo and no "No,NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO" than a 4K scan of the Special Editions.

[Rodney-2187]

Originally Posted by stvn1974

I would rather watch a VHS dub with Han shooting Greedo and no "No,NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO" than a 4K scan of the Special Editions.

For certain!

[Mefan101]

Well, at least Greedo shooting first doesn't look as bad as it did in the 1997 version, right? I personally didn't know about the Han Shot First situation until I got older, because 1997 was the time I watched Star Wars (or A New Hope) from beginning to end (if I remember correctly), even though I had the CBS/FOX VHS on the Original version. I was only 7 years old at the time.

[bobbyh64]

Originally Posted by Ben Reilly

The Blu-rays are crap.
The last good release for the equipment was the 2000 edition VHS.

I might be crazy, but the picture on the left looks better to me.

[Ben Reilly]

Originally Posted by bobbyh64

What's the difference between the Attack of the Clones theatrical film edition and theatrical digital edition? Wasn't that movie shot entirely digitally?

The Film Version has a different line from the Digital Print Version.
In the movie Obi-Wan's line is changed.
Film Version: Good job
As I didn't see the digital version, I cannot remember what the line was changed too. I did read it somewhere long, long ago though.

[Ben Reilly]

Originally Posted by bobbyh64

Why are the Despecialized versions in 720p instead of 1080p?

Because the quality of the video isn't actually 1080p.

[bobbyh64]

Originally Posted by octagon

That's a bingo.

I don't know Lucas' current thinking with regard to the Special Editions vs the Classic Editions. He seemed to be mellowing toward the end of his tenure. He stopped calling the original cuts workprints and rough cuts and the like and started calling them the classic cuts. So who knows how he feels about the whole thing now.

But to be perfectly honest that's largely irrelevant because I don't particularly care how Lucas feels about the classic cuts.

I value them and while I can certainly respect Lucas' talent and accomplishments, I think I'm gonna go with me on this one.

Sorry

"Classic Editions"! I like that term. I will now refer to the unaltered OT as the Classic Editions of Star Wars.

[Rodney-2187]

Originally Posted by octagon

I don't know Lucas' current thinking with regard to the Special Editions vs the Classic Editions. He seemed to be mellowing toward the end of his tenure. He stopped calling the original cuts workprints and rough cuts and the like and started calling them the classic cuts. So who knows how he feels about the whole thing now.

But to be perfectly honest that's largely irrelevant because I don't particularly care how Lucas feels about the classic cuts.

I value them and while I can certainly respect Lucas' talent and accomplishments, I think I'm gonna go with me on this one.

Excellent post!

[Mefan101]

The Originals should also count as canon as much as the Special Editions.

[Michael24]

Originally Posted by bobbyh64

"Classic Editions"! I like that term. I will now refer to the unaltered OT as the Classic Editions of Star Wars.

That's a great term, actually. Less of a mouthful to say than "Unaltered Original Trilogy." I like it.

[Mefan101]

^ I agree

[Rodney-2187]

Originally Posted by Michael24

That's a great term, actually. Less of a mouthful to say than "Unaltered Original Trilogy." I like it.

Some call it the OUT. (Original Unaltered Trilogy)

[bobbyh64]

I used to call it the OUT, but then I switched to UOT because I feel it's a more accurate description. If you call it the Original Unaltered Trilogy, that makes it sound like there's more than one unaltered trilogy (unless you put a comma in there, so Original, Unaltered Trilogy, which makes more sense). The Unaltered Original Trilogy is better because it describes the OT in its unaltered form. But anyway, "Classic Editions" is much nicer!

[IndyMLVC]

Originally Posted by Mefan101

It also depends on which version of the DE you have....I think.

I have Star Wars DE 2.7, The Empire Strikes Back 2.0, and Return Of The Jedi 2.5. All three look amazing. You can still tell when there an older source, but is not as jarring. I once had older copies, which were not as clear, especially for ROTJ (which was version 1.0 at the time).

Don't bother explaining that to Elvis. He doesn't even seem like he's ever seen them.