Star Wars: The Complete Saga (1977-2005)

[Beast]

CrazyBlue, you make me wanna show up on your doorstep with Pizza to watch a marathon of the films with you. That looks A-Mah-Zing.

[budious]

Originally Posted by crazyBLUE

Personally I don't trust shots pulled off the internet just because no one has any idea how that image has been screwed with & in what way it was altered.

This is the same movie off my screen with no alterations & the blacks are fine IMO...

For comparison then...

2006 DVD Theatrical Edition


2004 SE HDTV scaled to DVD


Nice home projector though, wish I had that setup.

[crazyBLUE]

Originally Posted by budious

For comparison then...

2006 DVD Theatrical Edition


2004 SE HDTV scaled to DVD


Nice home projector though, wish I had that setup.

Thanks & thanks for posting those ~ I was comparing them & the Blu-ray is way better

[budious]

Originally Posted by crazyBLUE

Thanks & thanks for posting those ~ I was comparing them & the Blu-ray is way better

I'm not sure if that particular choice of frame is good indicator between the two. The DVD also appears to be cropped more in that scene at the top and bottom. Look at the vertical dash lighting and Obi Wan's lower robe fold.

Another frame from Tarkin/Leia with good contrast to look at:

2006 DVD Theatrical Edition


2004 SE HDTV scaled to DVD

[42041]

Originally Posted by therainberg

Film projection is darker to cut down on perception of strobing in 24p sequential image motion.

Except it isn't. I've seen plenty of digital presentations and many more 35mm ones and I've yet to see anything that backs up what you're saying, at least with projectors that are in theaters right now, not some mythical projectors of the future. I've seen digital projection that was as dim as anything I've ever seen at the movies (courtesy of a Sony 4K unit with a 3D lens on). The SMPTE standards actually specify the same brightness of 14 foot-lamberts for digital cinema and film projectors with film in the gate, but of course, projection is a lost art and most theaters unfortunately neglect to meet that standard.

Anyway, I don't see any point in debating the merits of film projection with people who are clearly ignorant on the matter. Back to Star Wars.

[crazyBLUE]

Originally Posted by Beast

CrazyBlue, you make me wanna show up on your doorstep with Pizza to watch a marathon of the films with you. That looks A-Mah-Zing.

I missed this

Feel free to Beast & don't forget the beer

[crazyBLUE]

Originally Posted by budious

I'm not sure if that particular choice of frame is good indicator between the two. The DVD also appears to be cropped more in that scene at the top and bottom. Look at the vertical dash lighting and Obi Wan's lower robe fold.

Another frame from Tarkin/Leia with good contrast to look at:

2006 DVD Theatrical Edition


2004 SE HDTV scaled to DVD

All this has me curious & I may just get home from work tomorrow & see about capturing the same images that were posted. Especially this one because I can't believe how blurry Leia is.

[chip75]

Originally Posted by crazyBLUE

This is the same movie off my screen with no alterations & the blacks are fine IMO...

If we go back just before release, we found out the blacks (or the detail within) were identical to the DVD's, they just boosted it for the Blu's. All that information was there on the DVD's if you play around with the image.

Out of curiosity can someone explain, if by playing around with the image to reveal more detail is there some kind of threshold were the rest of the image deteriorates to term the blacks crushed? If the detail is there (I thought it would be all black and no hidden detail) can the blacks be still defined as crushed?

[budious]

Originally Posted by crazyBLUE

All this has me curious & I may just get home from work tomorrow & see about capturing the same images that were posted. Especially this one because I can't believe how blurry Leia is.

It's just motion blur because she is entering the frame from the right in this scene.

One last comparison before I call it a night:

2006 DVD Theatrical Edition


2004 SE HDTV scaled to DVD


Anyways, I'd gladly give $40 US for a trilogy set of Blade Runner Work Print BD quality telecines from used theatrical prints.

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by Nicolawicz

That's what you digital fanboys like to think. The fact is, for every Lucas there's a Spielberg (or for every Rodriguez there's a Tarantino, whatever). Real filmmakers who would never work with inferior mediums like digital. And at least those directors you mentioned have the excuse of 3D; they wouldn't be shooting a normal movie on video. Well, maybe Jackson and Cameron would, but they've been prostituted beyond recognition anyway.

For better or worse, everyone will be shooting digital soon because film is very quickly disappearing. Kodak is practically out of business. They NEVER made money selling negative film - the money was all in the film used for theatrical prints. Now that there's virtually no theatrical prints, it's just a matter of time before Kodak discontinues their negative films. Kodak's policy even before the bankruptcy was that as soon as demand drops to the point where they can't make consistent batches, they eliminate the film. Even in 35mm still photography, they're down to just 13 emulsions whereas they used to have well over 100 emulsions. Agfa has already gotten out of the film business and that just leaves Fuji, which isn't in such great shape either.

My bet is that Spielberg's upcoming Robopocalypse and Indy 5, if it's actually made, will be shot digitally.

[42041]

Originally Posted by therainberg

But we are arguing with your taste for inferior film projection and not the technical facts.

Nope, in this case we're talking technical facts. Contrast ratio is an empirically measurable parameter. If a DLP projector can match a high contrast print stock for deep blacks, I haven't seen it. My point isn't that digital projection sucks, it doesn't, but to me this issue is far from clear cut.

[42041]

Originally Posted by therainberg

Well you haven't seen it. Nobody of any consequence notices nit-picky geek things like what you're talking about anyway... if it were true.

lol, whether viewers are discerning or not is completely irrelevant. It makes a huge difference in the resulting image quality, like the difference between some cheapo LCD and a Pioneer plasma. But like I said, since you obviously haven't seen good film projection, and you don't think I've seen good digital projection (for the record, I've seen Sony 4K units, Barco's "ultrabright" 4K units, some random Christie 2K ones... I fancy that's a pretty good sample), this discussion is going precisely nowhere.

[zafisher94]

I'm watching the saga for the first time in numerical order with my little brother. I just finished pt 3, so next up is the original trilogy.

It is interesting that depending on which order you watch (considering you're a first time viewer) how different the effects can be. In one sense, you get a great narrative and epic story by watching them in order, but the surprises are also lost, so it's very tough to choose which I prefer so far.

[worldwide11]

Watched "Return," and am surprised by how unimpressive the film is this time 'round. George's endless revisions have become quite distracting in this one. The "palace dance" is absolutely atrocious. The wookies seem implausible as an ally with whom to kick imperial butt. The forest chase optical effects are less convincing than ever. Vader's "noooo!" is unnecessary.

The trilogy seems to have come off the rails with this one. I used to be as big a fan of "return" as the two films prior. But George's endless tinkering has really turned me off to this formerly very good film.

[mikesncc1701]

Originally Posted by worldwide11

Watched "Return," and am surprised by how unimpressive the film is this time 'round. George's endless revisions have become quite distracting in this one. The "palace dance" is absolutely atrocious. The wookies seem implausible as an ally with whom to kick imperial butt. The forest chase optical effects are less convincing than ever. Vader's "noooo!" is unnecessary.

The trilogy seems to have come off the rails with this one. I used to be as big a fan of "return" as the two films prior. But George's endless tinkering has really turned me off to this formerly very good film.

I was thinking watching all of these (I watch them 1-6) that everything leading up to the "NOOO!" scene was really gonna bug me. Surprisingly enough, it didn't hurt nearly as bad as I thought it would. I'm not making any excuses for his treatment of the films but I'm really glad I wasn't as annoyed as I expected, makes it a little easier to swallow in the long run.

[budious]

Originally Posted by worldwide11

Watched "Return," and am surprised by how unimpressive the film is this time 'round. George's endless revisions have become quite distracting in this one. The "palace dance" is absolutely atrocious. The wookies seem implausible as an ally with whom to kick imperial butt. The forest chase optical effects are less convincing than ever. Vader's "noooo!" is unnecessary.

The trilogy seems to have come off the rails with this one. I used to be as big a fan of "return" as the two films prior. But George's endless tinkering has really turned me off to this formerly very good film.

http://herocomplex.latimes.com/2010/...ary-kurtz-wer/

Originally Posted by LA Times

“We had an outline and George changed everything in it," Kurtz said. “Instead of bittersweet and poignant he wanted a euphoric ending with everybody happy. The original idea was that they would recover [the kidnapped] Han Solo in the early part of the story and that he would then die in the middle part of the film in a raid on an Imperial base. George then decided he didn’t want any of the principals killed. By that time there were really big toy sales and that was a reason.”

The discussed ending of the film that Kurtz favored presented the rebel forces in tatters, Leia grappling with her new duties as queen and Luke walking off alone “like Clint Eastwood in the spaghetti westerns,” as Kurtz put it.

Kurtz said that ending would have been a more emotionally nuanced finale to an epic adventure than the forest celebration of the Ewoks that essentially ended the trilogy with a teddy bear luau.

[worldwide11]

Budious, thanks for that clarification.

I was going to complain about the finale, but didn't want to come across as if I were dismissive of the film altogether. But yes, the "celebration" doesn't seem quite right. In the "original" version (whatever that means), the conclusion was quite melancholy: Luke had lost his father (again), as well as both of his mentors (Yoda and Obi Wan). All of this is overshadowed this time around by the goofy dancing (rebel soldiers dancing with little teddy bears after a war in outer space? I don't think so), and shall I mention it, the insertion of "weza free!!!!" from jar jar????

[gregmasciola]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Sure, but a file doesn't exist in a vacuum. It has to be stored on something, and right now there isn't a foolproof method of archiving digital data for the long term. Not that film is indestructible, but a properly preserved set of elements will last for decades.

All I'm saying is that while a digitally stored video can become damaged or lost, it isn't going to fade, become wobbly or accumulate dust and dirt over time. Either way, I don't really have any preference between film/digital.

[Moviefan2k4]

Can we please get back to an actual Star Wars discussion, instead of debating tech issues?

[chip75]

Originally Posted by Moviefan2k4

Can we please get back to an actual Star Wars discussion, instead of debating tech issues?

Star Wars? I thought this was the digital film vs. old-school-film thread....