Star Wars: The Complete Saga (1977-2005)

[evoll]

I have been debating if i should buy the whole set but i hear the pq isnt much better then a upconverted dvd so whats the verdict on pq?? I dont care what scenes was added or removed lol,just pq over dvds,thanks guys.

[Mavrick]

Originally Posted by evoll

I have been debating if i should buy the whole set but i hear the pq isnt much better then a upconverted dvd so whats the verdict on pq?? I dont care what scenes was added or removed lol,just pq over dvds,thanks guys.

It's miles better than upconverted DVD.

[Donat96]

Originally Posted by evoll

I have been debating if i should buy the whole set but i hear the pq isnt much better then a upconverted dvd so whats the verdict on pq?? I dont care what scenes was added or removed lol,just pq over dvds,thanks guys.

It's definitely much better than the DVDs. Even the worst looking one, The Phantom Menace, has a very clear improvement. They're not as good looking as some other BDs, but they are definitely worth having over the DVDs.

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by El_Jay

What's the point of high definition, higher resolution, if they smother the resolution and don't show fine detail?

Wrong. That's not the point of HD. The point of HD is to perfectly replicate the director's intention.

In many movies, things are purposely shot at soft focus. They used to shoot actresses with a stocking over the lens. Classic portrait lenses have such short focus (purposely) that eyes will be in focus and the nose and cheeks will be out of focus.

Ask any director (or actor) whether the intention is show the detail of every hair on an actor's head or to show imperfections in an actor's skin. They'll tell you no.

In fact, one of the problems with HD is that it shows details that you were never intended to see, which sometimes kills the illusion. And most actors hate HD for that reason. Although I can't prove it, I'd bet that HD is leading to more actors having surgery at ever-younger ages.

It's one thing when a BD release winds up looking like a poorly Photoshopped image of someone 50 who is trying to look 30. But for most releases, that's not what I'm seeing. Frankly, I don't even see what all the fuss is about on "The Great Lebowski". Everyone I've shown it to thinks it looks great (if a little too bright in the bowling alley scenes.)

(As an aside, I went through this in reverse many years ago. I was producing a TV teleconference and we had custom sets put together. When I saw the sets, I was upset because there were all kinds of imperfections. The director said, "don't worry about it, you'll never see it on screen." And we didn't. Today, it's the opposite problem: every imperfection shows up on HD. So especially for effects movies, things that used to be believable are no longer and set designers have to work even harder so that we maintain our suspension of disbelief.)

[rockstarnati]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth5929

George Lucas is like Jesus.

Decent enough guy, but his fans suck sometimes.

This is the best thing I've ever read. Kudos.

[raygendreau]

Originally Posted by sephiroth5929

george lucas is like jesus.

Decent enough guy, but his fans suck sometimes.

sith happens!

[rockstarnati]

Originally Posted by raygendreau

sith happens!

I love this thread.

[spanky87]

So whats the timetable like on the individual releases for each film? All I want is The Empire Strikes Back. I don't want the prequels, nor the ANH/ROTJ special edition versions.

[El_Jay]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

Wrong. That's not the point of HD. The point of HD is to perfectly replicate the director's intention.

In many movies, things are purposely shot at soft focus. They used to shoot actresses with a stocking over the lens. Classic portrait lenses have such short focus (purposely) that eyes will be in focus and the nose and cheeks will be out of focus.

Ask any director (or actor) whether the intention is show the detail of every hair on an actor's head or to show imperfections in an actor's skin. They'll tell you no.

In fact, one of the problems with HD is that it shows details that you were never intended to see, which sometimes kills the illusion. And most actors hate HD for that reason. Although I can't prove it, I'd bet that HD is leading to more actors having surgery at ever-younger ages.

It's one thing when a BD release winds up looking like a poorly Photoshopped image of someone 50 who is trying to look 30. But for most releases, that's not what I'm seeing. Frankly, I don't even see what all the fuss is about on "The Great Lebowski". Everyone I've shown it to thinks it looks great (if a little too bright in the bowling alley scenes.)

(As an aside, I went through this in reverse many years ago. I was producing a TV teleconference and we had custom sets put together. When I saw the sets, I was upset because there were all kinds of imperfections. The director said, "don't worry about it, you'll never see it on screen." And we didn't. Today, it's the opposite problem: every imperfection shows up on HD. So especially for effects movies, things that used to be believable are no longer and set designers have to work even harder so that we maintain our suspension of disbelief.)

When you saw TPM in theatres, was it DNRed? When you see a movie in the theatre, can you see pores, hair, fine detail? I know I can. I watched The Ides of March last night and it looked fantastic. Every detail clear and visible.

"The point of HD" is probably more arguable than either of us are making it, but "showing the director's intent" should include a serious increase in detail, unless the "directors intent" was not the "directors intent" when the same film was shown in cinemas.

What you're saying about HD exacerbating problems and making makeup more apparent etc. is true... for television. Movies have always been displayed in theatres at much higher resolution than VHS, DVD, etc. so it's not like 1080p resolution is ushering in some new era for films.

[evoll]

Originally Posted by Donat96

It's definitely much better than the DVDs. Even the worst looking one, The Phantom Menace, has a very clear improvement. They're not as good looking as some other BDs, but they are definitely worth having over the DVDs.

Thanks for the reply and i guess i will pick these up soon. O i also hear they will be made in 3d but idk if thats great idea or not,whole diff can of worms to open there lol

[Charon]

Originally Posted by crazyBLUE

More reference pics I took. I don't see where they look waxy & plenty of fine detail is there...











I forgot one

Not screenshots but you can tell it looks amazing. Haters gonna hate. I personally hate the prequels but cannot deny the blus look great. That goes for both TPM and AOTC, ignore the reviewers as they are paid shills and mostly biased morons. Yes, even dvdfile and thedigitalbits. These ********s used to call DVD MPEG2 compression artifact ringing 'edge enhancement' leading to a generation of morons repeating this same BS in situation where there was no such thing. That EE was in fact mostly MPEG2 artifacts and blur from interpolating 720 to 854 in widescreen titles.

Bottom line is that TPM is made from a DI far superior to any film version. Any troll who says otherwise is either remembering it wrong or confusing grain for detail. Too many morons around who believe that 35mm release print projection looks good when in fact it looks terrible. They blame bulbs and projectionists when in fact is mostly generation loss. Grain is not detail, even the best 35mm projection is utter crap. Anybody who disagrees has a biased opinion favoring crap because of grain that isn't supposed to be there and also nonexistent detail they claim to see. If you like the prequels they have never looked better than they do on blu. That's a fact, not an opinion. Disagree, then mess with your TV's settings until it looks like crap. Then it will maybe resemble the theatrical version you remember. Pretentious elitist pricks need to seriously find something else to be pretentious, superficial, and elitist about.

[Bluyoda]

Originally Posted by Charon

Not screenshots but you can tell it looks amazing. Haters gonna hate. I personally hate the prequels but cannot deny the blus look great. That goes for both TPM and AOTC, ignore the reviewers as they are paid shills and mostly biased morons. Yes, even dvdfile and thedigitalbits. These ********s used to call DVD MPEG2 compression artifact ringing 'edge enhancement' leading to a generation of morons repeating this same BS in situation where there was no such thing. That EE was in fact mostly MPEG2 artifacts and blur from interpolating 720 to 854 in widescreen titles.

Bottom line is that TPM is made from a DI far superior to any film version. Any troll who says otherwise is either remembering it wrong or confusing grain for detail. Too many morons around who believe that 35mm release print projection looks good when in fact it looks terrible. They blame bulbs and projectionists when in fact is mostly generation loss. Grain is not detail, even the best 35mm projection is utter crap. Anybody who disagrees has a biased opinion favoring crap because of grain that isn't supposed to be there and also nonexistent detail they claim to see. If you like the prequels they have never looked better than they do on blu. That's a fact, not an opinion. Disagree, then mess with your TV's settings until it looks like crap. Then it will maybe resemble the theatrical version you remember. Pretentious elitist pricks need to seriously find something else to be pretentious, superficial, and elitist about.

Small question: What have you been smoking?

[Troy73]

Originally Posted by Charon

Not screenshots but you can tell it looks amazing. Haters gonna hate. I personally hate the prequels but cannot deny the blus look great. That goes for both TPM and AOTC, ignore the reviewers as they are paid shills and mostly biased morons. Yes, even dvdfile and thedigitalbits. These ********s used to call DVD MPEG2 compression artifact ringing 'edge enhancement' leading to a generation of morons repeating this same BS in situation where there was no such thing. That EE was in fact mostly MPEG2 artifacts and blur from interpolating 720 to 854 in widescreen titles.

Bottom line is that TPM is made from a DI far superior to any film version. Any troll who says otherwise is either remembering it wrong or confusing grain for detail. Too many morons around who believe that 35mm release print projection looks good when in fact it looks terrible. They blame bulbs and projectionists when in fact is mostly generation loss. Grain is not detail, even the best 35mm projection is utter crap. Anybody who disagrees has a biased opinion favoring crap because of grain that isn't supposed to be there and also nonexistent detail they claim to see. If you like the prequels they have never looked better than they do on blu. That's a fact, not an opinion. Disagree, then mess with your TV's settings until it looks like crap. Then it will maybe resemble the theatrical version you remember. Pretentious elitist pricks need to seriously find something else to be pretentious, superficial, and elitist about.

Wow! Just.....Wow! You have an embarrassingly poor understanding of film. This is based on the statement "Grain isn't supposed to be there"

If it was part of the film stock used, then Yes it is.

I don't know what else to say......

Originally Posted by Bluyoda

Small question: What have you been smoking?

......that'll work.

[Donat96]

Originally Posted by Charon

Not screenshots but you can tell it looks amazing. Haters gonna hate. I personally hate the prequels but cannot deny the blus look great. That goes for both TPM and AOTC, ignore the reviewers as they are paid shills and mostly biased morons. Yes, even dvdfile and thedigitalbits. These ********s used to call DVD MPEG2 compression artifact ringing 'edge enhancement' leading to a generation of morons repeating this same BS in situation where there was no such thing. That EE was in fact mostly MPEG2 artifacts and blur from interpolating 720 to 854 in widescreen titles.

Bottom line is that TPM is made from a DI far superior to any film version. Any troll who says otherwise is either remembering it wrong or confusing grain for detail. Too many morons around who believe that 35mm release print projection looks good when in fact it looks terrible. They blame bulbs and projectionists when in fact is mostly generation loss. Grain is not detail, even the best 35mm projection is utter crap. Anybody who disagrees has a biased opinion favoring crap because of grain that isn't supposed to be there and also nonexistent detail they claim to see. If you like the prequels they have never looked better than they do on blu. That's a fact, not an opinion. Disagree, then mess with your TV's settings until it looks like crap. Then it will maybe resemble the theatrical version you remember. Pretentious elitist pricks need to seriously find something else to be pretentious, superficial, and elitist about.

I've always been one to believe that no one's opinion is wrong, but this.... this is definitely wrong.

[Dynamo of Eternia]

Originally Posted by Donat96

I've always been one to believe that no one's opinion is wrong, but this.... this is definitely wrong.

An opinion can be wrong if the facts on which it is based are not accurate.

[Dotpattern]

Originally Posted by Charon

Too many morons around who believe that 35mm release print projection looks good when in fact it looks terrible. They blame bulbs and projectionists when in fact is mostly generation loss. Grain is not detail, even the best 35mm projection is utter crap. Anybody who disagrees has a biased opinion favoring crap because of grain that isn't supposed to be there and also nonexistent detail they claim to see.

Martin Scorsese disagrees with you.

Movies viewed in the HD format boast a "film-grain quality," Scorsese said, adding Blu-ray "allows the film to be seen as closely as possible to how it was intended to be."

But I guess he's a "moron."

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/new...-blu-ray-90831

[The Apocalypse]

Originally Posted by spanky87

So whats the timetable like on the individual releases for each film? All I want is The Empire Strikes Back. I don't want the prequels, nor the ANH/ROTJ special edition versions.

There is no timetable for individual releases of the films. It could be a long time.

[Tannhauser]

Just got back from a screening of the new 4K digital print of Raiders, and they ran the TPM 3D trailer before the show.

It is difinitely the same master as the BR - waxy Qui Goc galore and a very soft looking image in general with a few notable exceptions like the Darth Maul reveal, Anakin close up etc. Compared to newer films, it looked down right archaic.

As for Raiders, the new print is very impressive. The opening sequence is brighter and the overall tone of the film is more golden and brown. The red push from the earlier restoration is thankfully gone, and skin tones look far more natural. I'm not sure if Lowry did this latest restoration, but the quality of the image sure looks like their work, with a thick filmlike texture (think Aliens and Empire Strikes Back) and a lot of detail.

I didn't notice a single scratch og other defects and it's going to look great on bluray. Oh and yes - the reflection in the snake pit hasn't been restored while droplets on the lens during the submarine sequece remain.

The sound is downright awesome and sounds like a new mix.

[42041]

Originally Posted by Charon

ottom line is that TPM is made from a DI far superior to any film version. Any troll who says otherwise is either remembering it wrong or confusing grain for detail. Too many morons around who believe that 35mm release print projection looks good when in fact it looks terrible. They blame bulbs and projectionists when in fact is mostly generation loss. Grain is not detail, even the best 35mm projection is utter crap. Anybody who disagrees has a biased opinion favoring crap because of grain that isn't supposed to be there and also nonexistent detail they claim to see. If you like the prequels they have never looked better than they do on blu. That's a fact, not an opinion. Disagree, then mess with your TV's settings until it looks like crap. Then it will maybe resemble the theatrical version you remember. Pretentious elitist pricks need to seriously find something else to be pretentious, superficial, and elitist about.

What do theatrical prints have to do with anything? The original negative has grain which should be readily visible on a high resolution transfer.

And while most 35mm projection is crap, good 35mm projection is far from it.

[Blu-Jawa]

I posted this cool video I got from a friend never seen on tv or video as far as I know. it's a 19 min out take that was never used on the Richard Prior Show
of the Star Wars Cantina Sketch.

Contains some Strong language


On my you-tube channel. http://www.youtube.com/user/Jediiii

Richard Prior