*** Urgent Star Wars DVD News ***

[Jeshopk 8]

I am quite content with my OT laserdiscs.

But I will probably splurge just for the more detailed image some day.

[TheMaulMan 0]

Again, I can understand the disappointments, but I can't understand how a Star Wars or even John Williams fan can't recognize all the good in the new DVD set. I sit and watch A NEW HOPE in awe, not believing the astounding image quality. I am literally seeing the films in whole new light.

The lightsaber color and dialogue problems greatly annoy me, I do admit, as does the dialed down fanfare in the Battle of Yavin. I can't speak to the reversed music channels because I know I wouldn't have noticed it...because I still don't notice it even knowing it's there.

Bottom line...IT'S NOT PERFECT, PEOPLE!!! GASP!! MISTAKES WERE MADE!!! OH, THE HORROR!

In a few ways, in a few places, the DVDs are worse than previous releases. That's a shame and a very frustrating disappointment. This simply shouldn't be. BUT...in every OTHER way, they blow any other release of the Star Wars Trilogy out of the water. 95% of it is spectacular.

Isn't it possible to be REASONABLE about this? Can't we say what's awesome about it, while also acknowledging the problems? To me, it's incredibly immature to latch on to a few mistakes and say the release is a disaster or a waste when so much effort and care was obviously taken OVERALL to restore these films. Lucas DIDN'T HAVE to go to such lengths to get the image to sparkle like it does. He could have spent less money and put out a much poorer image. The fans still would have been happy with a normal DVD image and not known the difference. He didn't HAVE to fix any more effects, and add more UNADVERTISED material. He did this to make the releases the best they could be.

The mistakes are inexplicable. BUT THEY DON'T COMPLETELY WIPE OUT EVERYTHING ELSE.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

It isn't so much that mistakes are made.

Mistakes are common, they happen every day, it's a human thing.

It's more the way complaints about these mistakes are brushed aside, like they do not excist.

That's what bothers me most.

[TheMaulMan 0]

I agree. The right and mature thing to do is address these mistakes, and admit error. Eventually, I believe we will see an explanation for all the issues.

[Henry B 50]

Again, I can understand the disappointments, but I can't understand how a Star Wars or even John Williams fan can't recognize all the good in the new DVD set. I sit and watch A NEW HOPE in awe, not believing the astounding image quality. I am literally seeing the films in whole new light.  

The lightsaber color and dialogue problems greatly annoy me, I do admit, as does the dialed down fanfare in the Battle of Yavin. I can't speak to the reversed music channels because I know I wouldn't have noticed it...because I still don't notice it even knowing it's there.  

Bottom line...IT'S NOT PERFECT, PEOPLE!!! GASP!! MISTAKES WERE MADE!!! OH, THE HORROR!  

In a few ways, in a few places, the DVDs are worse than previous releases. That's a shame and a very frustrating disappointment. This simply shouldn't be. BUT...in every OTHER way, they blow any other release of the Star Wars Trilogy out of the water. 95% of it is spectacular.  

Isn't it possible to be REASONABLE about this? Can't we say what's awesome about it, while also acknowledging the problems? To me, it's incredibly immature to latch on to a few mistakes and say the release is a disaster or a waste when so much effort and care was obviously taken OVERALL to restore these films. Lucas DIDN'T HAVE to go to such lengths to get the image to sparkle like it does. He could have spent less money and put out a much poorer image. The fans still would have been happy with a normal DVD image and not known the difference. He didn't HAVE to fix any more effects, and add more UNADVERTISED material. He did this to make the releases the best they could be.  

The mistakes are inexplicable. BUT THEY DON'T COMPLETELY WIPE OUT EVERYTHING ELSE.

You're right, these are still basically good movies. But aren't the VHS and LD versions superior?

[hoby12 0]

Yet there are so many good mistakes in Star Wars:

like han grabbing leia's tit

or stoomtroopers banging their heads....

[Elmo Lewis 6]

You're right, these are still basically good movies. But aren't the VHS and LD versions superior?

Not really. The image quality is quite lacking, and the audio is quite disappointing. And the VHS will deteriorate each time you play it.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

I have the 1993 LD's in bootleg form on DVD, and they are very good.

Yeah the sound is just old fasioned Dolby Stereo, and the picture does not look like it was shot yesterday.

But they are the films that enthralled millions in the cinema, before the powers that be considered them inadequate, so i'm happy with them.

I had no intention to get the new DVD's, even before I found out about the flaws.

[Henry B 50]

A DVD transfer of the laserdisc, then.

But what's more important is the content of these movies. Compassionate Han. Superfluous Jabba. Silent Yavin. These are all big minuses, far outweighing the improved (yet overcolorized) picture and clearer (yet flawed and inconsistent) audio.

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

Yes, the original versions are still the best. But you can't beat the Lowry Digital clean-up on this movies with the old LaserDisc. Not by a long shot.

For instance:

1993 LaserDisc

2004 DVD

1993 LaserDisc

2004 DVD

1993 LaserDisc

2004 DVD

Note: Screenshots have been altered for size, but are uncropped.

- Marc

[King Mark 3,631]

Wow,I did not realise the DVD set was SO much better.

K.M.Who's wavering on buying the set afterall.

K.M.

[Lurker 5]

I don't even care for the candy coloring of the new DVDs.

The other night I was comparing the new DVDs sound mix with the old mix for a friend. We started with a boot that I have with the 1993 picture transfer and the 1985 sound transfer. This to me is about as close to the original as you can get on home video. To me, this was Star Wars. It looked and sounded like Star Wars.

Then we put in the new DVD. Colors were all over the place, not matching between shots (she noticed this too). The sound is also all over the place. With the old mix when Artoo fell over, she laughed, since he sounded like a hollow trash can originally. When I played the new mix, Artoo sounded like a planet exploding, due to the new LFE. It spoiled the joke.

I re-played the stormtrooper walking into the door 4 times from the original version and she never once saw the blooper. As soon as the new mix was played, this fun sort of hidden moment was brought out in the open and again, the fun was lost.

Botom line is, this new version doesn't resemble Star Wars in anyway to me. And if I ever want to watch the movie, I'll watch it with a completed audio track, not this new version with it's obvious scratch track and reversed music.

Neil

[Greg1138 3]

Yet there are so many good mistakes in Star Wars:  

      like han grabbing leia's tit...

Ummmmmm - OK - I've missed something here - when does this happen???? THought I could point out most of the bloopers in ANH - and there are an awful lot of them - but that one's a new one on me!!!! Give us a clue.....wanna see wanna see....

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

I The sound is also all over the place.  With the old mix when Artoo fell over, she laughed, since he sounded like a hollow trash can originally.  When I played the new mix, Artoo sounded like a planet exploding, due to the new LFE.  It spoiled the joke.

These days remastering often means just turning the sound up!

[hoby12 0]

In Jedi when she gots shot by the bunker........ its quick. Lucasfilm would not call this a mistake also - its a creative desicion representing the forshadowing of them getting it on and having kids after the movie is over.

Sorry for spelling mistakes in all my posts - I actually hate spellling very much.

[Greg1138 3]

Lucasfilm would not call this a mistake also - its a creative desicion representing the forshadowing of them getting it on and having kids after the movie is over.  

Absolutely - I totally agree with them too - it was obviously deliberate...... :roll:

Thanks for that one - thought you were originally on about ANH but, either way, I still hadn't seen it....

Cheers!!

[hoby12 0]

The Tit Grab:

is at

Return of the Jedi Disc

01:47:53

Maybe someone can grab that frame and post it. Mine aint working.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

[hoby12 0]

yeh thats the one....thx

[Greg1138 3]

[Lurker 5]

Neil

[hoby12 0]

She seems to be really into both of those.....especially the lower one. Just look at her face......

[Luke Skywalker 1,795]

That ROJ photo looks like porn!, It can only noticed in the still, not the movie (thankfully)

[TheMaulMan 0]

Ah, now we get to it. Neil, you say that your boot is "about as close to the original as you can get on home video. To me, this was Star Wars. It looked and sounded like Star Wars." So isn't your sense of nostalgia what we're really talking about here? Isn't your main concern preserving the warm and fuzzy feelings that the original Star Wars gave you when you were young?

What if you had a picture of a girl for 20 years, a picture that you thought was just beautiful and perfect. Then, imagine a friend took that picture and scanned it...cleaned it up, maybe added a new background, sharpened it, enhanced the color. It's still the same girl as before, and essentially the same picture. In fact, to anyone else, the picture looks BETTER. But to you, it doesn't inspire the same feelings. Sure, it's clearer, sharper, there's more to it...but it's not the picture you fell in love with, not exactly. And damn, there're even a few flaws that weren't there before. And so the only way to get that old feeling is to look at the old one.

Isn't this how you are with Star Wars, Neil? You want it to be as it originally was forever, frozen in time. The slightest change from its original form seems to be an affront to your sensibilities, a threat to your love for the original.

You'd think as much as you love Star Wars '77, you'd get at least SOME enjoyment of seeing it in this form, with such enhanced detail and color. But I guess this clarity just doesn't match up with your fuzzy memories, does it? After all, Star Wars was NEVER this clear before...why does it need to be this clear now? I imagine you'll really hate it when the HD version is released.

Myself, I'd be glad to have both pictures of that girl. I would find value in each.

[Henry B 50]

What if you had a picture of a girl for 20 years, a picture that you thought was just beautiful and perfect. Then, imagine a friend took that picture and scanned it...cleaned it up, maybe added a new background, sharpened it, enhanced the color.

...But as he was printing it out, the paper got snagged. He didn't bother to correct it, so the picture came out ripped and torn.

Also, he changed her hair color!

[TheMaulMan 0]

This analogy is the problematic thinking I'm talking about. The clearest that Star Wars has ever looked is compared to a ripped and torn picture. Why? Because there's a "thunk" now when the Stormtrooper hits his head? Because ten seconds of music is too low? Because 1 in a million will notice the tuba coming from the wrong speaker? And best yet...because Star Wars looks better when it isn't so colorful. And sharp. And clear. And detailed. And loud.

banghead

[King Mark 3,631]

Were always comparing these sets to previous bad transfers of worn out original prints on VHS or Lazerdisk.If we could travel back to 1977,Star Wars would look just as sharp,vivid and clear as the DVD's,plus there wouldn't be any matte squares around the TIE fighters,which still persist for some reason.

K.M.

[TheMaulMan 0]

Not true, K.M. Due to the digital clean-up, Star Wars has NEVER looked this good, even in the original theatrical release. I do hope they will take the time to digitally remove the matte lines for the HD release.

Heck, the set is worth the price for John Williams fans just to hear the end credits of the trilogy in DVD-Audio quality! Beautiful!

[Lurker 5]

Isn't your main concern preserving the warm and fuzzy feelings that the original Star Wars gave you when you were young?

Why wouldn't I? The movie released in 1977 is a masterpiece.

What if you had a picture of a girl for 20 years, a picture that you thought was just beautiful and perfect.  Then, imagine a friend took that picture and scanned it...cleaned it up, maybe added a new background, sharpened it, enhanced the color.  It's still the same girl as before, and essentially the same picture.  In fact, to anyone else, the picture looks BETTER.  But to you, it doesn't inspire the same feelings.  Sure, it's clearer, sharper, there's more to it...but it's not the picture you fell in love with, not exactly.  And damn, there're even a few flaws that weren't there before.  And so the only way to get that old feeling is to look at the old one.

But Star Wars has never ever looked like this. I would want accuracy. I would want the photo of the girl to look like she did when the photo was taken. If she had on a gray shirt, I don't want it to look blue. If there was a blue candle behind her, I don't want it to look green. I don't want a revised color palette because it's prettier. It might be more appealing, but it's not accurate. The truth is, the 1993 transfer has more accurate color than this new one. The new one is sharper, no doubt, but the color fidelity, the truthfulness of the image, is not there. I'll trade sharpness for accuracy.

Isn't this how you are with Star Wars, Neil?  You want it to be as it originally was forever, frozen in time.  The slightest change from its original form seems to be an affront to your sensibilities, a threat to your love for the original.

No, that's not how I am with Star Wars. That's how I am with EVERY movie. I want them to look the way they did theatrically. That's why I go to see old movies that I own on home video, so I know what they are supposed to look like and so I can judge what the home video representation looks like. The print is the reference. The video is a souveneir. Either it's accurate or it isn't.

You'd think as much as you love Star Wars '77, you'd get at least SOME enjoyment of seeing it in this form, with such enhanced detail and color.  But I guess this clarity just doesn't match up with your fuzzy memories, does it?  After all, Star Wars was NEVER this clear before...why does it need to be this clear now?  I imagine you'll really hate it when the HD version is released.

Clarity and accuracy are two different things. The best would be the 1993 color transfer with the 2004 level of sharpness.

And the more I see and hear this new Star Wars disc the more I'm pulled out of the experience and reminded that this isn't Star Wars. The movie all of us fell in love with has never, ever, ever looked or sounded this way. It's a totally 100% revised movie.

Heck, the set is worth the price for John Williams fans just to hear the end credits of the trilogy in DVD-Audio quality! Beautiful!

DVD-Audio is uncompressed, whereas these discs are compressed with Dolby Digital at 448kbps. That's not even CD quality. The 1993 and 1995 LDs had uncompressed digital PCM soundtracks (just like a CD). And the Star Wars DVD has the music reversed in the surround channels. This is how you think it should sound?

Neil

[TheMaulMan 0]

Interesting, Neil. The accuracy argument, I mean. But again, it reaffirms your point of view of what you think SW is and isn't. Star Wars isn't a work in progress, it's Star Wars '77. And Star Wars '77 can't be improved, just more accurately depicted. I disagree with this in the sense that I think Star Wars '77 and the various revisions are seperate entities; I get different things from each one, and appreciate them for different reasons. If Star Wars '77 was released tomorrow on DVD I'd be first in line. That will always be the masterpiece that changed our lives.

These revised versions have kept SW fresh for me, and I value them also.

I learned something about audio on DVDs. I always assumed they were DVD-A quality. Damn, the Empire end credits sounded so great to me...so full. That's not even CD quality?? What about the isolated score to Superman? Same deal?

[Lurker 5]

What about the isolated score to Superman?  Same deal?

Same thing. Data reduced Dolby Digital.

Neil

[King Mark 3,631]

Thre were definately no matt boxes around the TIE fighters when I saw ESB in theaters.That's the first thing that shocked me when the first VHS came out.

K.M.

[TheMaulMan 0]

Neil, what version of the original trilogy would you recommend for best video quality, the '93 or '95? Is the LD itself better than a DVD rip of it? What about for sound quality? From your email, am I correct in saying the LD sound resolution is actually higher than the DVDs?

[Lurker 5]

Neil, what version of the original trilogy would you recommend for best video quality, the '93 or '95?  Is the LD itself better than a DVD rip of it?  What about for sound quality?  From your email, am I correct in saying the LD sound resolution is actually higher than the DVDs?

The 1993 and the 1995 LDs used the same transfer. The 1993 set was in the full feature CAV format. It got 30 minutes a side but allowed you to truly freeze frame the movie and do other things like slow-mo, forwards and backwards. The 1995 discs were in the CLV format and got up to an hour per side without the special freeze frame features. They used the same audio and video, however CAV discs did give a slightly sharper picture.

The PCM digital audio track on the discs is identical. The 1993 mix is very nice at times, though Star Wars has some revised effects and Empire is actually missing a sound effect.

The early CAV editions of Empire were also missing six seconds of Leia welding on the Falcon.

I've seen very nice DVDs derived from this set. I've never compared them directly to the LDs though. I would say that the DVDs, when done properly, can theoretically look just as good as the LDs. The one I watched the other day on my father's front projection system certainly held up very well.

Neil

[fommes 153]

This analogy is the problematic thinking I'm talking about. The clearest that Star Wars has ever looked is compared to a ripped and torn picture. Why? Because there's a "thunk" now when the Stormtrooper hits his head? Because ten seconds of music is too low? Because 1 in a million will notice the tuba coming from the wrong speaker? And best yet...because Star Wars looks better when it isn't so colorful. And sharp. And clear. And detailed. And loud.

Because new dialogue is mixed with old dialogue. I didn't need Neil's comment on this to hear it and be bothered by it, and I'm certainly no audiophile.

(And yes, because ten essential seconds of music are mixed low in favour of loud SFX.)

[The Prick vs The DD 0]

Yes, the original versions are still the best. But you can't beat the Lowry Digital clean-up on this movies with the old LaserDisc. Not by a long shot.

- Marc

How did you get those laserdisc shots? Is this a true depiction of its quality? Cause we all know you can easily rip DVD's digitally....but Laserdiscs, isn't that done over analoque lines? Secondly, are there NTSC and PAL versions out and if so, which one is used here? If it's NTSC then it should be normal to be less clear and sharp then PAL.

Oh, and take a look at Vader's right eye of the DVD shot, it's barely noticible. In the LD version you can at least look him in the eye. Same with his cloak: it's intertwined with the black cloth on his suit (almost like a one-piece-suit), however it's distinguishable on the older Laserdiscs. The 1993 LD's look much more natural than when all those colorfilters and exagerated contrasts are used.

The sharpness (if it's true...see above) isn't as important as the presentation itself. Pictures are not about how sharp or cool something looks, it's about creating a believable 'reality'. The older Laserdiscs therefore are more believable then the tweaked-to-death (in the wrong places) DVD's.

But it looks like us few 'nitpickers' are losing this battle. We keep telling peope but somehow it doesn't get through. So unfortunate that most people don't care too much about the truthfullness and realistic depiction of the picture. They just want a 'show'.

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

Okay...

The LD screenshots are not from the actual LaserDisc, but from a DVD-rip (the same one Steef has). The source of the rip is the 1993 "Definitive Collection" LaserDiscs. These are NTSC.

The DVD screenshots are from the R2 (NLO) PAL transfers.

- Marc

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Marc, since I have no knowledge about how they were ripped I think using them in comparison is a little unfair.

They are bootlegs afterall.

Any screenshots from the ACTUAL 1993 LD's out there?

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

Hmm...

I assumed because both are digital media the image would be the same on both. Yes, I think we need someone to make some actual LD screenshots.

Still, the sharpness of the DVDs is unparalleled. I know this is just a small part of the presentation, but still...

The ANH screenshot looks way too blue, though. The Tantive IV has white corridors, not blue ones. And are that officer's eyes brown in the first screenshot?!?

- Marc

[Lurker 5]

LaserDiscs have an analog picture, not digital.

Neil

[The Prick vs The DD 0]

Marc, since I have no knowledge about how they were ripped I think using them in comparison is a little unfair.

They are bootlegs afterall.

Any screenshots from the ACTUAL 1993 LD's out there?

That was what I was after. King Mark almost seemed convinced they were so much sharper, whereas perhaps these are not fair to compare with a ripped and encoded LD which was then transformed into bootleg DVD's.

[The Prick vs The DD 0]

Okay...

The LD screenshots are not from the actual LaserDisc, but from a DVD-rip (the same one Steef has). The source of the rip is the 1993 "Definitive Collection" LaserDiscs. These are NTSC.

The DVD screenshots are from the R2 (NLO) PAL transfers.

- Marc

Ah but then it's natural the LD also looks more blurred. NTSC have much less sharpness then PAL. So it's also a bit unfair to compare NTSC LD's with PAL DVD's. Unless of course, there are no PAL LD's about, then it would be fair since then there are no sharper releases out there.

Thanks for heads up.

[The Prick vs The DD 0]

LaserDiscs have an analog picture, not digital.

Neil

I was actually talking about the output. Aren't LD's ripped 'undigitally'? In other words, doesn't some quality get lost when ripping Laserdiscs? Unless it was done professionally or like with an expensive LD that has digital outputs?

Thanks bout the info though, didn't know LD's themselves were analog.

[Lurker 5]

LaserDiscs have an analog picture, not digital.

Neil

I was actually talking about the output. Aren't LD's ripped 'undigitally'? In other words, doesn't some quality get lost when ripping Laserdiscs? Unless it was done professionally or like with an expensive LD that has digital outputs?

Thanks bout the info though, didn't know LD's themselves were analog.

LD players don't have digital video outputs because as I said, they are an analog video format. Hopefully the outputs of the LD player were fed directly to a computer or a mini DV tape. That's when the picture would be digitized. Theoretically it should be an exact duplicate.

Neil

[A24 4,333]

LaserDiscs have an analog picture, not digital.

Neil

I was actually talking about the output. Aren't LD's ripped 'undigitally'? In other words, doesn't some quality get lost when ripping Laserdiscs? Unless it was done professionally or like with an expensive LD that has digital outputs?

Thanks bout the info though, didn't know LD's themselves were analog.

LD players don't have digital video outputs because as I said, they are an analog video format. Hopefully the outputs of the LD player were fed directly to a computer or a mini DV tape. That's when the picture would be digitized. Theoretically it should be an exact duplicate.

Neil

If you copy using analog outputs then how could it be an exact duplicate?

[Lurker 5]

Assuming it's a full bandwidth digital recording (no compression) then there should be no difference between that and the analog source.

Neil

[The Prick vs The DD 0]

LD players don't have digital video outputs because as I said, they are an analog video format.  Hopefully the outputs of the LD player were fed directly to a computer or a mini DV tape.  That's when the picture would be digitized.  Theoretically it should be an exact duplicate.

Neil

Thanks for the info Neil. But it doesn't mean you can't rip an analog picture digitally, right? Then at least you get a duplicate analog picture when using a digital output.

If you copy using analog outputs then how could it be an exact duplicate?

My point exactly, once analog outputs are used, you lose quality through the lines. So a direct comparison is difficult. Especially on computer monitors, where you can virtually count every pixel on the screen.

[The Prick vs The DD 0]

Assuming it's a full bandwidth digital recording (no compression) then there should be no difference between that and the analog source.

Neil

Huh? But you can't get a digital recording through analog outputs.

Am I missing something here?

[Lurker 5]

Assuming it's a full bandwidth digital recording (no compression) then there should be no difference between that and the analog source.

Neil

Huh? But you can't get a digital recording through analog outputs.

Am I missing something here?

It's like recording an LP to CD.

Neil

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

PAL does not by definition contain more detail than NTSC. It depends on the transfer.

And a digital image is better than any of the old analog ones.

Either which way you look at it, the DVDs are still sharper than anything that has come before.

- Marc