All six Star Wars movies coming to VUDU April 10

[Hedji]

Agreed.

That fellow (Mike Verta) who posted that is a character. He's got some real skills as a composer and prop replicator. Formerly married to Winnie Cooper herself, Danica McKellar.

I've followed his Restoration project for years. It's an incredible effort. Selfishly, though, he's not sharing it like Harmy's Despecialized Editions.

[MIB41]

I have that Blu-ray set and while I do agree the tones do overcompensate at times, the example he used was a one-off in that scene. The lights did revert back to white in the following scenes and not everything had that saturated feel to it. I guess it's always going to be a little subjective. Some like the image brighter, more color soaked, while others like a more washed out look. At the end of the day the studio is trying to sell you on buying the series again. I don't think there will ever be a film completely restored that ever gets a unanimous thumbs up, because people have a particular taste in that area. Keep in mind too televisions are often color customized to a viewers choice, so some of that can be adjusted out by your own hand. Plus keep in mind, he's using a static shot of that scene to pick it apart. You're talking about a 38 year old effects shot that has to look like it fits the rest of the film when the high resolution pulls out every imperfection. If you're just watching the movie, it's not necessarily going to jump out at you in the same manner unless you're looking for it. We have special effects artists at Wonderfest just about every year and after some 18 years of sitting through seminars and watching the technical perspective play out, I've come to understand there is some embellishment that gets applied after you get past the practical effects application. These guys are selling themselves as much as the company they represent. So when I see these comparisons, I no longer have a knee jerk reaction. There's some manipulation in play there. Ultimately there is no singular artistic vision when you're talking about exposures and tonal changes. Everyone has a different take so when the studio wants to come in and repackage the same product, these are areas that get toyed with.

[Hedji]

I agree, you can't base the argument on a single shot. But the Blu Ray transfer is now over 10 years old, from the original DVD release. There's no denying, the overall look just feels wrong, and I don't need Mike Verta to drive the point home anymore. It doesn't look right. And while not everyone will agree all the time, there are some fantastic restorations that are pretty much unanimously praised, such as Jaws, E.T., and Raiders of the Lost Ark. They got it right with those films. Why not Star Wars?

[enyawd72]

They got it right with those films. Why not Star Wars?

Because they wanna keep selling you the "Ultra Super Special Remastered Definitive Deluxe Restored Ultimate Master Edition."

[MIB41]

Keep in mind too that 'restoration' is a term broad stroked quite a bit. When you start applying high definition to effects films, sometimes there are mistakes that become downright obvious, unless something is done to alter the scene. A perfect example is Jaws. When Hooper is being attacked by Jaws in the cage, there was a scene right after you see the top of the cage open. Jaws pulls back and you can see the rigging underneath his belly. In the restored Blu-ray, it's virtually painted out. They've also played around extensively with the exposure and sound of that film. In fact, many of the sound effects have been altered from the original version. I think the purest copy of that film in it's original presentation is actually on laser disc. So there's definitely going to be differences in assessment because as a movie ages, audiences tastes for effects do as well, so allot of times you have to present it in a way they think they remembered it. It's seldom going to be a true restoration by every measure of the term. There will almost always be updates in some form or another to ramp up the experience. Star Wars has probably been the most updated film of all time. And interestingly I don't believe most people would accept it (dated effects and all) in it's original format. Those imperfections do not exist in our memories' as kids because we saw it on the big screen. Much harder to sell that on the small screen without altering the picture.

[Hedji]

Yes, I was aware they painted the belly of the shark. Doesn't bother me, because overall, the film looks stunning. And natural. They did change the sounds for the original DVD release, and that audio mix is still on the Jaws Blu Ray, but the original mono mix is there for purists too.

Bottom line... Star Wars (and its fans) deserve much better.

[Werewolf]

There's no way to be nice about it or honestly try to justify it, the 2004 transfer used for the Blu-Ray is absolutely horrid. Even if you love the "special" changes it's an extremely poor transfer both in picture quality and sound. I'm not even against the existence of the special editions. Along with properly restored theatrical cuts, I also wouldn't mind seeing the 97 edits restored. There is no excuse for the transfers to be so poor.

Also, the original effects are not dated. People are just so used to bad transfers from VHS on up that people don't realize how good the effects looked.

I think the purest copy of that film in it's original presentation is actually on laser disc.

The Laser Disc and 2006 bonus disc use the same digital transfer. But the Laser Disc doesn't have the original pre-New Hope title. That transfer was already outdated in 2006, non anamorphic and suffered from primitive digital clean up and noise reduction. But, as bad as it is, the 2006 bonus discs are still the best quality versions commercially available of the original trilogy.

[Werewolf]

Saw this on Yakface.

http://yakfaceforums.com/main/2015/04/09/rumor-han-shoots-first-again/

Don't know how reliable the site is they are pointing to but they claim that the Han shooting Greedo has been fixed in the digital release. Making this another special edition, I guess? I have my doubts. Anyhow, we will know for sure tomorrow.

[edit] Dark Horizons debunked it already. That was quick.

[Werewolf]

Bummer, looks like we are still stuck with the Night at the Roxbury Han Solo digitally jerking his head.

[MIB41]

There's no way to be nice about it or honestly try to justify it, the 2004 transfer used for the Blu-Ray is absolutely horrid. Even if you love the "special" changes it's an extremely poor transfer both in picture quality and sound. I'm not even against the existence of the special editions. Along with properly restored theatrical cuts, I also wouldn't mind seeing the 97 edits restored. There is no excuse for the transfers to be so poor.

Also, the original effects are not dated. People are just so used to bad transfers from VHS on up that people don't realize how good the effects looked.



The Laser Disc and 2006 bonus disc use the same digital transfer. But the Laser Disc doesn't have the original pre-New Hope title. That transfer was already outdated in 2006, non anamorphic and suffered from primitive digital clean up and noise reduction. But, as bad as it is, the 2006 bonus discs are still the best quality versions commercially available of the original trilogy.

I was referring to Jaws on Laser disc and I wasn't trying to dispute the point so much as illustrate that very little is ever truly "restored". How people 'see it' is subjective. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I was just offering mine. Let's move forward.

[Werewolf]

I wasn't trying to dispute the point so much as illustrate that very little is ever truly "restored". How people 'see it' is subjective.

We are going to have to agree to disagree on that.

Is the contrast right, the color timing, damage, dirt and wear to the print, etc. none of those are really subjective.