I didn't see this anywhere and though my fellow nerds could rejoyce. I know I will be buying the original trilogy. I'm glad to see the original un-raped versions will be on there. WOO-HOO!!! Discuss!
About damn time. Also glad to see they're being released at a pretty reasonable price (90 bucks for 6 movies and 9 discs is pretty fair). I'll probably pick the whole saga up, even though I agree the prequels aren't that great, and I still haven't seen 5 or 6...
I'm wondering how much better than can really make it look,
Yeah they remastered the effects of the original trilogy, but there is only so much having a hi def version of a 1970's film is going to improve the looks, you know?
What I am worried about is if this will make the movie look WORSE. This tends to happen when you make an older movie High def. Just look at Independence Day. Looked great on DVD, but as soon as they re-released it on Blu-Ray, you could tell just how dated the movie is.
What I am worried about is if this will make the movie look WORSE. This tends to happen when you make an older movie High def. Just look at Independence Day. Looked great on DVD, but as soon as they re-released it on Blu-Ray, you could tell just how dated the movie is.
I don't have much experience with Blu-Rays. Is this an actual degradation of quality, or just a perceptual effect because you're involuntarily comparing it to all the better stuff you've seen?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
What I am worried about is if this will make the movie look WORSE. This tends to happen when you make an older movie High def. Just look at Independence Day. Looked great on DVD, but as soon as they re-released it on Blu-Ray, you could tell just how dated the movie is.
I have quite a few older movies on Blu (Blade Runner, Clockwork Orange, Terminator, Close Encounters of the 3rd Kind) and for the most part they look a LOT better than the original. You can still tell they are dated but if it was crystal clear it would remove some of the nostalgia value.
I don't have much experience with Blu-Rays. Is this an actual degradation of quality, or just a perceptual effect because you're involuntarily comparing it to all the better stuff you've seen?
It may be quite a bit of this TBH. Only experience I hve had with Blu-Ray is ID4, and I could tell the difference when it came to the special effects.
I have quite a few older movies on Blu (Blade Runner, Clockwork Orange, Terminator, Close Encounters of the 3rd Kind) and for the most part they look a LOT better than the original. You can still tell they are dated but if it was crystal clear it would remove some of the nostalgia value.
I was shocked how good they made Wizard of Oz looked, and I don't need to tell you all how old THAT movie is. It all depends on how much effort the studio is willing to put into making the older movies look good. That could be why Star Wars (and some other highly-requested older movies) have taken so long, they're making sure they do a good restore.
Yeah they remastered the effects of the original trilogy, but there is only so much having a hi def version of a 1970's film is going to improve the looks, you know?
This is obviously coming from someone who has never seen an old film remastered.
Tell me these look worse, and I'll tell you you're crazy. DVD first, then blu-ray.
This tends to happen when you make an older movie High def.
No it doesn't, as shown above. It happens when companies put no effort into transfering their DVD into blu-ray, or over-use techniques which make the picture "better." ie: DNR, digital noise reduction, when used sparingly, looks fine, however, when over-used, it makes people look waxy, such as on the Predator blu-ray.
Leeched image removed
It has nothing to do with the movie being old, it has to do with the producers of the blu-ray just throwing them into blu-rays with no effort, just to make more money.
I can't really tell the difference with blu ray but it makes the discs stronger so I guess it's worth it.
Do you have an HDTV (or other HD screen, such as a laptop with an HD screen), preferably one that is 1080p with HDMI availability? Do you own blu-rays that actually have effort put into them? If the answer to either of those is no, then you don't know anything about blu-rays, and should wait to actually see one before you go around saying "I don't see a difference." If you can not see the difference between a dvd and a well-done blu-ray on an HDTV, you need to have your eyesight checked.
In any case, I'm not very excited for this, even though I am such a huge fan of Star Wars, because of one reason: special editions.
Not the original movies, but the special editions with moronic CGI monsters thrown in for no reason, Greedo shooting first, and Hayden-babyface-Christiensen CGI'd in instead of Sebastian Shaw as Anakin.
Otherwise, I might be excited. But, unfortunately, because of this, I am absolutely not.
"If I do go to heaven, I'll smack god across the face and tell him to get me a grilled-cheeses sandwhich and then say 'Yea what now god!? Say some'in! I dare you!' "
"If I do go to heaven, I'll smack god across the face and tell him to get me a grilled-cheeses sandwhich and then say 'Yea what now god!? Say some'in! I dare you!' "
I'm wondering how much better than can really make it look,
Yeah they remastered the effects of the original trilogy, but there is only so much having a hi def version of a 1970's film is going to improve the looks, you know?
That's really not how it works. If the film's master pressings are in good order, there's huge amounts of resolution in the analog format they're stored in. These masters are then used to generate, say, a VHS tape, which has much lower maximum data capacity. So long as it's going back to the master source material and not just a conversion from some lesser slave source, there's real value. This does involve more work, so it's not always done, but they did it for The Wizard of Oz, and I'd expect Lucas to do it.
Those screencaps from Wizard of Oz aren't all that good, actually. Sure, there's more saturation, but I actually feel the Blu-Ray lost information rather than gained in that specific shot. Other scenes are much better comparisons. And the other films are quite clear improvements, yes.
I'm glad to see the original un-raped versions will be on there.
They aren't, and the rumor is Lucas actually altered the original, master material in making his many revisions, making any attempt to dig that back up, restore and release it a monumental effort.
Also, he'd very much like to see the unaltered original trilogy buried and forgotten. That he put them on that DVD release was a very nice surprise, but they were blind transfers from the LD; if he tried to do that again for a Blu-Ray release and didn't warn us, he'd get a lot of heat for it. I'd guess that they'll skip another format generation or two before we see them in any official manner, but no bets on them being restored in any way.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[The Crafters] | [Johnnies United]
My anecdotal evidence disagrees with yours! EXPLAIN THAT!
There was a "Limited Edition" release of Star Wars 4-6 in 2006 that had pre-Special Edition versions on their second discs (as far as I can tell, it wasn't limited in the slightest). By "blind transfer," I mean they took the LaserDisc release from 1993 and ripped it straight to the DVD without changing anything at all (afaict), so stereo sound, unmodified 4:3 aspect ratio with heavy letterboxing, and it almost feels like they added grain (honestly, I wouldn't put it past Lucas). So I say it's blind, rather than actually looking at it long enough to, say, modify it for 16:9 televisions, or bothering to run it through what was clearly automated video restoration software (2004's DVDs shows all its errors that would've been noticed by a human, later fixed for the 2006 release).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[The Crafters] | [Johnnies United]
My anecdotal evidence disagrees with yours! EXPLAIN THAT!
Do you have an HDTV (or other HD screen, such as a laptop with an HD screen), preferably one that is 1080p with HDMI availability? Do you own blu-rays that actually have effort put into them?
Yes and Yes.
If you can not see the difference between a dvd and a well-done blu-ray on an HDTV, you need to have your eyesight checked.
Thats just like, your opinion man.
Honestly I cant see the difference, my eyesight is fine. You can say whatever you think about me but I don't see it. If you do then good for you, your viewing pleasure is heightened, go buy this. me on the other hand, I'm fine with regular DVD's, this is a win win situation.
Honestly I cant see the difference, my eyesight is fine. You can say whatever you think about me but I don't see it. If you do then good for you, your viewing pleasure is heightened, go buy this. me on the other hand, I'm fine with regular DVD's, this is a win win situation.
Then you're doing it wrong...
If you can't see the difference it is your eye sight. Because the difference in quality is a fact,) not an opinion. This leads me to believe you don't actually have the proper HD equipment. Because if you did, you would realize just how wrong you are.
It's not. At all. If you can not see a difference, there is something wrong with your eyes.
Even in the screencaps I posted before, viewed on a non-HD monitor of a computer, there is an EXTREME difference in the third shot I posted (from Twilight Zone Season 1), and if you can not see the quality difference, you need to have your eyesight checked.
edit- Or, as stated above, you have say a 480p HD TV, which isn't really even HD at all.
"If I do go to heaven, I'll smack god across the face and tell him to get me a grilled-cheeses sandwhich and then say 'Yea what now god!? Say some'in! I dare you!' "
Honestly I cant see the difference, my eyesight is fine. You can say whatever you think about me but I don't see it. If you do then good for you, your viewing pleasure is heightened, go buy this. me on the other hand, I'm fine with regular DVD's, this is a win win situation.
You could just look at the images he put in his post, the difference is fairly obvious. Particularly in the 3rd image, which is black and white on top of it all.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I didn't see this anywhere and though my fellow nerds could rejoyce. I know I will be buying the original trilogy. I'm glad to see the original un-raped versions will be on there. WOO-HOO!!! Discuss!
I collect pre-release Stone-Tongue Basilisk
And now that I have a blu-ray player, this should be awesome.
Yeah they remastered the effects of the original trilogy, but there is only so much having a hi def version of a 1970's film is going to improve the looks, you know?
Come join us in the MTGSalvation chat ||| My trade thread. ||| My Personal Modern Blog: The Fetchlands
I don't have much experience with Blu-Rays. Is this an actual degradation of quality, or just a perceptual effect because you're involuntarily comparing it to all the better stuff you've seen?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I have quite a few older movies on Blu (Blade Runner, Clockwork Orange, Terminator, Close Encounters of the 3rd Kind) and for the most part they look a LOT better than the original. You can still tell they are dated but if it was crystal clear it would remove some of the nostalgia value.
I collect pre-release Stone-Tongue Basilisk
LOL
It may be quite a bit of this TBH. Only experience I hve had with Blu-Ray is ID4, and I could tell the difference when it came to the special effects.
Come join us in the MTGSalvation chat ||| My trade thread. ||| My Personal Modern Blog: The Fetchlands
I was shocked how good they made Wizard of Oz looked, and I don't need to tell you all how old THAT movie is. It all depends on how much effort the studio is willing to put into making the older movies look good. That could be why Star Wars (and some other highly-requested older movies) have taken so long, they're making sure they do a good restore.
This is obviously coming from someone who has never seen an old film remastered.
Tell me these look worse, and I'll tell you you're crazy. DVD first, then blu-ray.
No it doesn't, as shown above. It happens when companies put no effort into transfering their DVD into blu-ray, or over-use techniques which make the picture "better." ie: DNR, digital noise reduction, when used sparingly, looks fine, however, when over-used, it makes people look waxy, such as on the Predator blu-ray.
Leeched image removed
It has nothing to do with the movie being old, it has to do with the producers of the blu-ray just throwing them into blu-rays with no effort, just to make more money.
Do you have an HDTV (or other HD screen, such as a laptop with an HD screen), preferably one that is 1080p with HDMI availability? Do you own blu-rays that actually have effort put into them? If the answer to either of those is no, then you don't know anything about blu-rays, and should wait to actually see one before you go around saying "I don't see a difference." If you can not see the difference between a dvd and a well-done blu-ray on an HDTV, you need to have your eyesight checked.
In any case, I'm not very excited for this, even though I am such a huge fan of Star Wars, because of one reason: special editions.
Not the original movies, but the special editions with moronic CGI monsters thrown in for no reason, Greedo shooting first, and Hayden-babyface-Christiensen CGI'd in instead of Sebastian Shaw as Anakin.
Otherwise, I might be excited. But, unfortunately, because of this, I am absolutely not.
Spoiler tags added. Warning for Image Leeching.
MTG Rules Advisor
Winner of Weekly Contest Week 39.
No, they're not. They're releasing the extended editions of the originals, with all the aforementioned bull☺☺☺☺ George Lucas added in.
MTG Rules Advisor
Winner of Weekly Contest Week 39.
Those screencaps from Wizard of Oz aren't all that good, actually. Sure, there's more saturation, but I actually feel the Blu-Ray lost information rather than gained in that specific shot. Other scenes are much better comparisons. And the other films are quite clear improvements, yes.
They aren't, and the rumor is Lucas actually altered the original, master material in making his many revisions, making any attempt to dig that back up, restore and release it a monumental effort.
Also, he'd very much like to see the unaltered original trilogy buried and forgotten. That he put them on that DVD release was a very nice surprise, but they were blind transfers from the LD; if he tried to do that again for a Blu-Ray release and didn't warn us, he'd get a lot of heat for it. I'd guess that they'll skip another format generation or two before we see them in any official manner, but no bets on them being restored in any way.
What version has the originals then? Also what is a blind transfer from LD?
Yes and Yes.
Thats just like, your opinion man.
Honestly I cant see the difference, my eyesight is fine. You can say whatever you think about me but I don't see it. If you do then good for you, your viewing pleasure is heightened, go buy this. me on the other hand, I'm fine with regular DVD's, this is a win win situation.
LOL
Then you're doing it wrong...
If you can't see the difference it is your eye sight. Because the difference in quality is a fact,) not an opinion. This leads me to believe you don't actually have the proper HD equipment. Because if you did, you would realize just how wrong you are.
It's not. At all. If you can not see a difference, there is something wrong with your eyes.
Even in the screencaps I posted before, viewed on a non-HD monitor of a computer, there is an EXTREME difference in the third shot I posted (from Twilight Zone Season 1), and if you can not see the quality difference, you need to have your eyesight checked.
edit- Or, as stated above, you have say a 480p HD TV, which isn't really even HD at all.
MTG Rules Advisor
Winner of Weekly Contest Week 39.
You could just look at the images he put in his post, the difference is fairly obvious. Particularly in the 3rd image, which is black and white on top of it all.