Holy $#!+: they fixed the saber clash (ROTJ Blu-Ray)

[Stark]

**- I seem to remember a guy saying recently that he still only had Star Wars on VHS, with no plans to ugrade... [/size]

There might be a difference between someone not buying endless re-releases of something they don't want, and people claiming they can't 'notice' an obvious improvement. I think buying movies is a waste of time and doubly so if you already own it. This doesn't reduce the disparity in quality, no matter how much people stick their head in the sand.

A great byproduct of the move to BD and the expectation of quality is greatly improved releases of old stuff; lots of old shows were shoveled onto DVD with minor treatment if any, but that doesn't fly on BD. I'd add Miami Vice to my queue if they could clean it up, and demo shots I've seen are amazing, far better than the noisy, blurry DVD release. Is denial useful?

[Darth Tedious]

A great byproduct of the move to BD and the expectation of quality is greatly improved releases of old stuff; lots of old shows were shoveled onto DVD with minor treatment if any, but that doesn't fly on BD.

Too true.

Is denial useful?

It might help some people justify their refusal to spend the money on a BD player...
Personally, I don't see how anyone with decent vision can deny the difference, even if they don't want to spend the money to own it.
I myself haven't bought a player yet, though I'll very likely be getting a PS3 in the very near future. If I don't I'll very likely get a BD drive for my PC. I've thought the difference was amazing since the first time I saw comparisons to DVD.
What really sold me was seeing 2001 (and that was only in 720p). As you say, it's the extra effort taken in the remastering that makes the difference, even when the resolution isn't that much higher.

Funnily enough, most of the people I've known who said they didn't think there was a noticeable difference actually changed their tune the next time they got their glasses prescription updated...

[StarSword]

Good stuff. Vader's eye pieces are really reflective - I think you can see a guy holding a camera in the reflection.

That reminds me of something I saw on the featurettes for ROTS. For the first time in the PT, Threepio was shiny and reflective. So shiny and reflective, in fact, they actually had to have somebody go through frame by frame and paint the set and crew out of his coverings. Go figure.

[Darth Tedious]

That reminds me of something I saw on the featurettes for ROTS. For the first time in the PT, Threepio was shiny and reflective. So shiny and reflective, in fact, they actually had to have somebody go through frame by frame and paint the set and crew out of his coverings. Go figure.

Aside from the medal ceremony at the end of ANH, it was the only time in the whole saga he was fully polished. IIRC, there are shots in the medal ceremony where you could make out the cameraman on the DVD version. They may very well need to fix that for the BD.

This is an interesting issue that Elfdart mentioned: There is a point where you start getting too much detail. I think it'll be great to see all the grit and imperfections on the costumes, but how many of the OT set pieces will show their lack of detail? How many scratch-built props will look as dodgy as they actually were? For some people, this might spoil some of the 'magic' a little...

[Elheru Aran]

While I'd love to have both a Blu-Ray player and a TV capable of displaying that, the fact of the matter is that financially it's just not viable right now, as it is for a good many other people. Does that mean that upgrading movies that already exist on DVD is a bad thing? No. It doesn't mean that I'll necessarily run all over myself to pick up the high-def, though, nor will I particularly care until I actually have the means to enable myself to replace my collection with high-def.

DVD has its flaws, but as far as I'm concerned it's still a viable medium. I'd rather see a visually flawed movie than "high-def or nothing!" .

Now if I hadn't lost my damn SW DVDs back in Tennessee...

[Stark]

I myself haven't bought a player yet, though I'll very likely be getting a PS3 in the very near future. If I don't I'll very likely get a BD drive for my PC. I've thought the difference was amazing since the first time I saw comparisons to DVD.

I'm not sure I'll ever get a player for my TV; I pretty much exclusively watch stuff ripped from disks because I'm lazy. But BD is such a superior source for compression you end up with similar-sized files with way better quality, so it's somewhat worth owning a drive on the PC.

If you're talking about 'dodgeyness', lots of people can't handle 100/200hz motion interpolation either. It tends to make everything look 'cheap', because it looks more natural and we're used to 24/25fps movies. The number one thing people notice on my (4 year old) TV is the motion smoothing, and they generally attribute this to 'Blu Ray' because its so different.

[Anguirus]

Oi. Look, I'll break it down for you guys.

Upgrading to Blu-Ray is an investment. Impossible for me at the moment, but doable on a good day.

Is Blu-Ray better, technically, as a format than DVD? Sure, that premise is implicit in my willingness to upgrade at all. There's no point in arguing with one of you videophiles about it, so I haven't.

However, the theoretical threshold of betterness between Blu-Ray and DVD, vast and chasm-like though it no doubt is, will not play a role in when or if I will upgrade. What dumbass consumers like me need is the proverbial "killer app."

Star Wars had the potential to be that killer app for me. It's a movie I grew up with, one that has stood the test of time, one that's got lots of kickass effects and sound so that it's actually worth your money to make it look as cool as possible. However, Lucas managed to make just the wrong "tweak" for my normally-tolerant self to stand. So instead of the Star Wars set motivating me to buy them, and a player, sometime in the not-too-distant future, I'll just sit on my butt with my massive DVD collection and wait for the next morsel to come along. I'm kind of ok with "never," as by the time DVDs really peter out it would be nice to be able to legally, affordably, not bother with the physical media side of things and still get high-def.

I am glad that the set looks good, though. Even I can't help but notice the off-color lightsabers and the white boxes around the TIE Fighters in the '04 set...they ought to have been ashamed. Maybe they'll even re-remix the sound for the Battle of Yavin.

[Vympel]

I am glad that the set looks good, though. Even I can't help but notice the off-color lightsabers and the white boxes around the TIE Fighters in the '04 set...they ought to have been ashamed. Maybe they'll even re-remix the sound for the Battle of Yavin.

If you're proceeding from the assumption that the Blu-Rays are just a whored-up slapdash job off the 2004 DVD, you'd be wrong. There's some shoddy stuff in these blu-rays, to be sure (the sabre colour issue still hasn't been comprehensively fixed, though the majority have it seems) but its not that shoddy - the sound issue in the English-audio of the 2004 DVDs is confirmed gone.

[Aniron]

What dumbass consumers like me need is the proverbial "killer app."

Star Wars had the potential to be that killer app for me. It's a movie I grew up with, one that has stood the test of time, one that's got lots of kickass effects and sound so that it's actually worth your money to make it look as cool as possible. However, Lucas managed to make just the wrong "tweak" for my normally-tolerant self to stand. So instead of the Star Wars set motivating me to buy them, and a player, sometime in the not-too-distant future, I'll just sit on my butt with my massive DVD collection and wait for the next morsel to come along.

The Lord of the Rings Extended Editions, The Alien Anthology, Jurassic Park set this year, Scarface, The Godfather Collection: The Coppola Restoration, Harry Potter post Goblet of Fire, classical music concerts (lossless audio = awesome for this), Solaris, The Thin Red Line, Saving Private Ryan (I think it looks grotesque because of the cinematography), etc.

I'm kind of ok with "never," as by the time DVDs really peter out it would be nice to be able to legally, affordably, not bother with the physical media side of things and still get high-def.

This is completely idiotic as downloads will never approach the level of quality discs have and be efficient. Streaming right now is tolerable, but there are loads of problems, like artifacting, pixelation, lossy sound, etc. 1080p streaming may catch on, but with ISPs instituting bandwidth caps, it wouldn't be a smart movie. iTunes has decent HD rips, especially for television shows, but they too have the same problems that streams have. You will be waiting for a long time for digital HD downloads that look great on larger displays.

[Anguirus]

Oh darn, I'll have to just trick my non-videophile idiotic self into being happy with my stuff any way. Which uh, isn't actually necessary because I'm kinda happy right now.

Part of it is I'm also a bit of a different consumer. When I first got a DVD player when I was like 13, I paid whatever the fuck for DVDs cause they were just that awesome. (Although, I still avoided stuff I already had on VHS unless they had extra scenes or whatever.) Now, DVD's average $10-15 cheaper and now Blu-Rays are in that range. And it's just too much for me right now. Plus I have almost everything I wanted in the first place, and a solid 70% of what I buy is stuff that isn't making it to Blu-Ray in this lifetime anyway (MST3K Gamera set anyone?).

Also, you have to realize, I care MORE about picture and sound than ANYBODY else I hang out with (basically the grad student community of Austin), and quite a bit more than my girlfriend who I watch everything with. We got our TV on the street. If my roommate breaks up with her boyfriend, I won't even have access to an HDTV. I have one in my home for the first time ever since a few weeks ago. :lol

[Aniron]

Amazon has price-matched Target's price for the Complete Saga at $79.99.

[Lord Insanity]

The comparisons between the DVD releases and the newly-remastered Scarface alone should shut these idiots up.

Lets see that link has a a series of; a poorly remastered DVD screenshot, then a properly remastered DVD screenshot, followed by the Blu-Ray screenshot. That link reinforces my opinion that a properly remastered DVD is close enough to a Blu-Ray that it is flat out not worth the cost difference. The quality difference is just insignificant on my 30" HDTV. Star Wars is one of the only movies I would consider re-buying and that is more due to the piss poor color mastering of the 2004/2006 DVDs. I never even noticed most of the other things pointed out in this thread.

Adding "no" to the ROTJ scene while unnecessary, I am largely indifferent to. Unlike the "no" in ROTS (which sounded like James Earl Jones was doing a joke fake screaming "no") the ROTJ "no" actually sounds right and fits the scene. Meh.

[Aniron]

The comparisons between the DVD releases and the newly-remastered Scarface alone should shut these idiots up.

Lets see that link has a a series of; a poorly remastered DVD screenshot, then a properly remastered DVD screenshot, followed by the Blu-Ray screenshot. That link reinforces my opinion that a properly remastered DVD is close enough to a Blu-Ray that it is flat out not worth the cost difference. The quality difference is just insignificant on my 30" HDTV.

Are you stupid, or what? I know you're full of crap, but I am considering that you're stupid as well. The Scarface DVD does not have anywhere near the detail the BD does. Go back to your dream world where a 480p image is "close enough" to a 1080p image that was completely remastered and cleaned up in an appropriate manner (no DNR and smoothing)

Hey, guys. The "properly remastered" DVD is close enough to this, this, and this.

[Lord Insanity]

Learn to read jackass. I said it is close enough that it is not worth the cost difference. Why the hell would I spend $20-$30 on a Blu-Ray when I can get a DVD for $10-$15. If I was realistically ever going to have a TV bigger than 30" only then would the slight difference be worth the cost. I am sure on a 50"+ TV the difference is huge but that doesn't apply to me. (and obviously a lot of other people too)

[Anguirus]

Just because a difference is detectable does not mean it is worth the same to everyone.

[Executor32]

I buy and rent Blu-Ray whenever possible, after upgrading to an HDCP-compliant monitor and upgrading to a Blu-Ray/DVD-RW combo drive a couple years ago. To me, the difference between Blu-Ray and DVD on my monitor is rather stark even from across the room, and it's only a 24". However, remove my glasses, and that difference ceases to exist (from across the room, that is, I'm not fucking blind). I suspect that may be what's at play here. Personally, I find the difference to be well worth the extra cost, even if I need to wear my glasses to see it from more than 15 feet away.

PROTIP: If you go to Wal-Mart, they have budget Blu-Ray titles that are only $10-$15. That's how much my copy of ID4 cost me, and it's fucking beautiful on Blu-Ray.

[Batman]

Why would anybody shell out 10-15$ for ID4? Other than the visuals, that movie was so stupid it hurt, and even the visuals weren't all that impressive.

[Aniron]

Blu-ray.com has reviewed the Complete Saga. As I suspected, after seeing portions of the Phantom menace rip, it is littered with DNR and smoothing.

he application of DNR isn't nearly as egregious as it was in the notorious Predator re-release, but the image does look a bit off at times, with faces taking on that distinctly smooth, waxy quality that always accompanies excessive filtering. It's not all bad however; the predominately CGI scenes—like the battle on Naboo—look excellent, if a bit outdated and cartoonish, and there are no issues with color or contrast. Edge enhancement isn't a concern either—which is kind of surprising given that DNR is usually accompanied by oversharpening to compensate for the inherent softening—and there are no blatant compression problems.

[...]

Episode III is on a whole different picture quality plane of existence. This is the outright stunner of the prequels, with a degree of clarity and color that approaches Avatar and other high-profile eye-candy releases. You can see instantly how much crisper and more detailed everything is here, CGI and live-action material alike. The filtering has been abandoned in favor of an exceptionally resolved picture. See the fabric of General Grievous' cape. The clean lines of the nascent Darth Vader's shiny new helmet. The wrinkles on Yoda's weathered face. Count Dooku's eyebrow hairs, individually visible. This is impressive stuff.

[Vympel]

This is promising:-

There are certain scenes that look soft—I'm specifically thinking of the first few shots when our heroes land on Endor's forest moon—but any softness seems inherent in the cinematography, not introduced later due to DNR. Any filtering of the original trilogy is minimal; there are no clay-like, Vaseline- smeared faces to worry about here. You can tell occasionally that the image has been lightly cleaned up, but grain is visible and better yet, the prints are absolutely pristine. I don't think I spotted a single white speck or bit of debris. The fluctuations that appeared on the DVDs are also a thing of the past; color is more stable now and better balanced. Remember how the lightsabers' hues sometimes shifted? Not so here. Color reproduction in general is astute; rich and vibrant without looking boosted or oversaturated. There are times when black levels seem like they could be either a hair darker or lighter, but contrast seems carefully considered for the most part, with an emphasis on preserving detail in the shadows. And aside from some light noise, I didn't see any real signs of depreciatory compression. I can't imagine these three films looking much better than they do here. I suppose it's possible, but I'll leave that for Lucas to figure out.

[Stark]

Why would anybody shell out 10-15$ for ID4? Other than the visuals, that movie was so stupid it hurt, and even the visuals weren't all that impressive.

Maybe cause it's a cool movie and people like fun? Y'know, people who don't pretend to be a fictional character because their life is so utterly devoid of meaning there's no other way to cope.

And man, how can Lucasarts fuck up the transfer like that? I've seen stuff much older (and much lower quality) clean up fine. Did they rush? Was there a budget? These things seem impossible for a SW release.

[Vympel]

Do you mean the TPM transfer? If so, blu-ray.com's speculation is the only thing that makes sense.

It kinda sucks, the way TPM looks is one of the few good things I have to say about that shitpile. Oh well, I'll likely only watch it once in a blue moon, doesn't matter.

[Darth Tedious]

A few people from another board already have their copies (lucky bastards got them early), so with luck there'll be a fan review for at least TPM by the end of the night (AEST).
If one gets done, I'll repost it here...

[Darth Tedious]

Well, his review was a quite brief, but positive.
Here it is:

well for 1 the quality is AMAZING, especially having a copy of a dvdrip on my computer u can really notice the difference, even little things like qui gon's stray hairs when they're in the hanger about to go to coruscant is just something u dont really notice in dvdrip lol

for now im very very keen on watching it all, including all the special features and documentaries, well worth the $109 spent!

So apparently the transfer wasn't too bad. A good sign if TPM is the worst of the saga (and I don't just mean for the movie itself ).

EDIT: And this also just in:

Well I got through IV V and VI and I must say they look amazing, I II and III will have to wait till I get back from Melbourne.
Also had a quick look at Star Warriors about the 501st at the Rose Parade will watch it all when I get home, looking forward to all the deleted sceenes as well.

[Aniron]

Why would anybody shell out 10-15$ for ID4? Other than the visuals, that movie was so stupid it hurt, and even the visuals weren't all that impressive.

Because it's a bomb-ass movie that is worth the purchase for the lossless audio?

[Batman]

it's your money.