Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Originally Posted by NagysAudio
This thread is bordering on lunacy. The haloing, out of focus, and soft shots in Star Wars are part of the negative and the way it was shot. What else can Lowry/Lucas do to make it look better? And if they did use heavy digital manipulation, everyone would cry regardless. There's no satisfying anyone around here. And no, there is no black crush. Just because someone took a few screen caps, where the video card was crushing the black, does not prove anything. If we view proper caps from Xylon, or Capsaholics, there's virtually no black crush to be found anywhere.
Not everything was scanned from the original negative, some footage was damaged beyond repair. Who knows what sources Lucas has used, interpositive, etc. Yes, some shots look slightly more grainy than others and lower quality, but Lowry has used the bare minimum of DNR and re-grain to make it all look as consistent and seamless as a 30+ year old low budget movie can.
1.9K, or 2K are practically identical scans. Anyone arguing otherwise is obviously misinformed, or has an agenda against Lucas. The new special effects were done at 1.9K essentially making this the Star Wars DI. To re-scan at 4K, George would have to redo the entire movie AGAIN! What would be the reason for George to disturb the negative yet again for a 4K scan? And re-add the special effects yet again? And redo the painstaking major restoration, yet again? Sure, it would look slightly better, but is it really that big of a deal breaker? And do you guys have any idea on how much that would cost? The special editions cost 15+ million dollars. To make a new DI, he would have to redo EVERYTHING and it would cost close to that amount.
Again, the hypocrisy is mind numbing. I don't see anyone complaining about the 2K DI for Avengers, or TDKR, or Avatar, or Prometheus, or every other big budget movie made in the past 10 years. Just like all of those movies, Star Wars will most likely forever be stuck with a 1.9K DI. Live with it.
It's a marvelous, painstaking, and beautiful restoration of some of the very best movies in cinema's history.
Originally Posted by NagysAudio
42041 - I stand corrected regarding TDKR. What about the CGI? What were they rendered at? As for telecine (1920X1080) versus 1.9K, or even 2K scanning, at that resolution I'm willing to bet that you won't see a difference whatsoever.
Jd213 - I've watched the Xylon's comparison and there's ZERO black crush.
P.S. 42041 - That YouTube trailer that you've posted has significantly less teal than the 1080P trailer. It looks more Aliens and probably more representative on what we'll see on the actual disc.
I have not made any mention of issues with soft focus and no that is not one of anomalies with the DNR I am referring to. No the haloing is not part of the OCN, nor misconstruing chromatic aberrations, it is the fault of the DNR used years ago. It is painfully obviously in a lot of shots with C3PO in the desert with the sky behind him.
There have many releases with blatantly heavy usage of DNR that have been given stellar reviews and few ever question them. Least of all the easily placated.
You keep saying there is no black crush along with no visible DNR artifacts which are both patently false. The BRs exhibit it on my calibrated display and it is there on all the other screencaps by various venues, including CAH and Xylon.
As 42041 has mentioned they were scanned via the old telecine method which produces adequate results but things have progressed significantly that new 2K scans of the same film will produce more detail and greater accuracy in regards to color and dynamic range than with telecines of old. That in itself would be worth the effort to redo the OT.
For such important and popular titles the effort of creating scans that fully resolve the effective resolution found on the OCN for posterity sake alone is sufficient reason to do it again. 6K essentially taps out all the effective detail found on 35mm.
You claim light usage of DNR with nothing to back up those claims, best to quit asserting otherwise. Either way it was done in the early days of Lowry digital scrubbing were artifacts were painfully visible, beside if the DNR had no negative affect on the detail then why bother regraining? If it looked fine there is no reason to do so unless to coverup their sins, as in visual DNR artifacts.
Lucas is a billionaire and SW will continue to make enormous profits, to attempt to justify not redoing the OT due to cost is an apologist of the worse degree and foolish. Lucas could pay for the most amazing restoration for the OT by the interest in his bank account alone. And he is guaranteed a profitable return on them as well.
Blade Runner which does not have remotely the same devotion and fan base has received significantly more effort and care than the OT, in addition to the fact that multiple versions are available to choose from. Only draw back is the low bitrate that holds back, in particular the Final Cut, from it being one of the best sets ever for a catalog Sci-Fi title. Oh and the Dangerous Days documentary never being released in HD as well.
As mentioned before new digital scanners produce superior results to telecines from days of old at the same resolution. Avengers is mostly all digital, minus a few bits that were shot on film.
PS What surprises me is that anyone can complain about Titanic's SFX looking dated but not call out the OT SE SFX which have not aged gracefully. I am fairly certain that those were not rendered out at 1080P back in the day, even if they were the textures are terrible, looks almost like Toy Story 1 in quality. Being a bit hyperbolic and facetious.
LFL really should redo them all, if Lucas has time and money to make an Ewok blink he can get around to scrounging some change in his couch to fix that stuff.Edited by KMFDMvsEnya - 9/26/12 at 10:46pm