Original Star Wars Trilogy - Observation

[Dashiell]

Hello, all!

This may be a real obvious post to owners of DVD-RB Pro, but I've just done a successful test and was astounded by the results...

The September 12 release of the original, unaltered Star Wars trilogy on DVD was met with mixed emotions... Everyone loved the fact that the films were now available on DVD in their original 1977, 1980 and 1983 incarnations, but were upset that the discs were not mastered anamorphically.

I've just used DVD-RB Pro's "Convert 4:3 LB to 16:9" to correct this on all three films, and then burned to a +R DL using ImgBurn's build mode. Even though the disc required no added compression, I selected CCE Basic as the encoder and set the proper title set to be converted (only the film) in the AVS Expert Options area. The results were outstanding... a beautiful anamorphic disc the way it should have been. Even the subtitles were handled properly.

My question is... if this was so simple and generated such a good result, why haven't more of us geeks who were so upset over the fact the discs weren't 16:9 done this? Is there a drawback I'm missing? The disc is indistinguishable from the original and, in my opinion, looks a little better (CCE's doing, I'd imagine).

When something works out as simply and beautifully as this has, I get concerned that I've missed something... Also, is it absolutely necessary to select an encoder for this purpose? I use RB-Pro. If I were to select "No compression" and dvd-9 target size, would the app still do the 16:9 conversion? Other threads seem to indicate the answer is no, but all of them seem to be using the freeware version.


Any expert opinions?

[linx05]

Maybe because they didn't buy it like that? ;)

[Fishman0919]

http://www.starwars.com/episode-iv/release/video/news20060516.html

Both ver are avil, looks like you got the wrong ver... or wasn't looking at the disc where is said Fullscreen and Widescreen ;)

[Dashiell]

http://www.starwars.com/episode-iv/release/video/news20060516.html

Both ver are avil, looks like you got the wrong ver... or wasn't looking at the disc where is said Fullscreen and Widescreen ;)

Nono.. I'm not talking about fullscreen vs. widescreen. The 1977, 1980 and 1983 versions of the films are widescreen, but NOT anamorphic. They are 4:3 Letterboxed.

Actually, I'm thinking the last two posts are partially the answer to my original question! :)

[wmansir]

I think the Lucas camp claimed the original masters were lost (they only had the Special Editions) and so they had to use a laser disc version for the latest DVD release.

Expect the originals to be 'discovered' in a few years and yet another DVD set to be released.

[Fishman0919]

ah... sorry :o


As far as...
The disc is indistinguishable from the original and, in my opinion, looks a little better (CCE's doing, I'd imagine).

indistinguishable...yes, CCE can make copies that look amazing
but best then the org, don't think so... not unless it's a poor qual dvd you are doing and you are applying some filters to clean up the pic.

[Fishman0919]

I think the Lucas camp claimed the original masters were lost (they only had the Special Editions) and so they had to use a laser disc version for the latest DVD release.

Expect the originals to be 'discovered' in a few years and yet another DVD set to be released.


hhhh... maybe for Blu-ray/HD DVD

Here ya go George... here's some more of my money!

[Dashiell]

I'd like to spread the word around as long as there is nothing "deal breaking" that I'm missing...

You can make your Star Wars OT discs anamorphic with DVD-RB Pro! Another great feature of this already incredible software!

[manono]

Hi-

I'd like to spread the word around as long as there is nothing "deal breaking" that I'm missing...

The feature has been in DVD-RB for as long as I can remember, although I guess it was introduced at some point early on.

DVD-RB is good, but it can't give you back the resolution lost by making the DVDs widescreen 4:3. You're just kidding yourself if you think the video quality is as good as that of the 16:9 releases of a couple of years ago.

[Dashiell]

Hi-

I'd like to spread the word around as long as there is nothing "deal breaking" that I'm missing...

The feature has been in DVD-RB for as long as I can remember, although I guess it was introduced at some point early on.

DVD-RB is good, but it can't give you back the resolution lost by making the DVDs widescreen 4:3. You're just kidding yourself if you think the video quality is as good as that of the 16:9 releases of a couple of years ago.

Of course not, and I'd like to make it clear that I'm NOT talking about the 2005 reissues. Those are beautiful anamorphic transfers.

I'm talking about the PURE versions relased as supplements on Sep 12 of this year. Lucasfilm did NOT create anamorphic transfers for the old "unmolested" versions. They were 4:3 LB masters originally intended for laserdiscs in 1993. RB-PRO makes them anamorphic.

[Trahald]

a conversion from master->16:9DL will be better than master->4:3DL->16:9DL or 4:3ld->4:3DL->16:9DL [DL=dual layer ld=laserdisc] .. at least in theory... the lb->anamorphic conversion is the equivelant of taking a master.. converting it to 720x400, then upconverting it to 720x480 (those are made up numbers) even with a good resizer you inherently lose something.

however... cce is an excellent encoder and given lots of bitrate (which you would have on dual layer) the 4:3->16:9 will still look excellent. and usually better than a realtime zoom since they are usually not as good as lanczos.

[jdobbs]

better than a realtime zoom since they are usually not as good as lanczosExactly.

[manono]

Hi-

I have a widescreen TV and confess to converting widescreen 4:3 films to 16:9 sometimes. Yes, the zoom on my player isn't that good, and when using a DVI connection I lose the zoom ability of the TV. That's not my point, though. My objection is to what Dashiell said in his original post:
The results were outstanding... a beautiful anamorphic disc the way it should have been.
To which I say, "Nonsense". The only "way it should have been" is to have released the DVDs as 16:9 to begin with, using the film negatives (which I've read have been lost, although I don't believe it) as sources for new HD masters, rather than using the old laserdisc masters. Doing a 4:3->16:9 conversion is in no way the equal of making them 16:9 in the first place. A quarter of the resolution is gone (compared to 16:9), and can't be retrieved. On a good display they'll look blurry. This is a cynical ploy from a has-been director trying to milk his franchise for all it's worth, and he shouldn't be rewarded. If Dashiell is pleased with the results, then that's all that counts, but what he did shouldn't be confused with the real thing.

[jdobbs]

I don't think anyone would argue that it would be better to have created an anamorphic 16:9 DVD from the original film. Creating a 16:9 from a 4:3 means you have to interpolate some of the lines based upon what is above and below. It would be much better to have had the lines to begin with. But sometimes you don't.

As for the "lost masters" I say B.S. too... It's not like the films were made in the 1920s or something. Even if the masters were lost -- how many copies of the production films are out there -- about a godzillion? Seems like you could put together a clean master from those pretty easily.

The whole Starwars DVD experience is just an attempt to squeeze every available penny out of the consumer. As much as I loved the first three Starwars movies... this guy has been beating his dead horse for way too long.

[Dashiell]

If Dashiell is pleased with the results, then that's all that counts, but what he did shouldn't be confused with the real thing.

Well of course! I'm hardly confused... nothing would have been better than LucasFilm mastering them properly from the beginning. All I'm saying is that the discs turned out as beautifully as can be expected from the DVD-RB coversion with CCE. When I said "way it should have been" that meant anamorphic. I find it silly that what I did would or could be interpreted by anyone as "the real thing."

When I started this post I was simply trying to illustrate how those of us who were so disappointed with LucasFilm's release now have something to work with... nothing more. It's amazing how many misinterpretations there can be.

[manono]

All I'm saying is that the discs turned out as beautifully as can be expected from the DVD-RB coversion with CCE.

No, that's not what you said, not in your first post, anyway.

The disc is indistinguishable from the original and, in my opinion, looks a little better (CCE's doing, I'd imagine).

Get real.

Also, is it absolutely necessary to select an encoder for this purpose? I use RB-Pro. If I were to select "No compression" and dvd-9 target size, would the app still do the 16:9 conversion?

Anyone that has to ask that question can't be taken seriously.

When I said "way it should have been" that meant anamorphic.

What you've done in no way improves on the 4:3 DVDs.

Look, I didn't misunderstand your first post, I didn't misunderstand your first reply to me, and I didn't misunderstand your most recent post. You make it seem as if you've somehow improved on what was released, and you haven't. The only, I repeat, only, possible benefit to doing this is if, 1) you have an HDTV (which you haven't mentioned, so I can only assume you don't), and 2), it has a lousy zoom (which is true for many if not most widescreen TV sets, and which Trahald has already mentioned). For any other reason, and especially if you have a 4:3 interlaced CRT TV, it's not only a waste of time, but you'll be watching something inferior to the retail DVDs.

Now, I haven't seen these DVDs myself. I wouldn't touch them with a 10 foot pole. With low res widescreen 4:3 DVDs, you get aliasing on thin lines. That will only be magnified when blown up to 16:9. 16:9 DVDs when shown on 4:3 TV sets toss out a quarter of the resolution, toss out a quarter of the rows of pixels (unless your 4:3 TV can do the "Anamorphic Squeeze, which very few sets in the US can do), so you're back where you started, except not really. Just by reencoding you've degraded the picture. You haven't said anything about using the original quantisation matrix, so I guess you're blissfully unaware of the advantageous use of matrices, used CCE's default Standard matrix, thus tossing out even more detail and sharpness.

Yes, I realize the advantages of owning the originals; unretouched colors, original contrast, no "improved" special effects, Han shoots first, etc., etc. And the grain, the dirt, the scratches, the aliasing, the fake looking TIE fighters. I'm unclear as to whether or not it's been encoded progressively. If not, that can play havoc with HDTVs that use flag reading DVD players.

For those that wish to compare the 2004 SEs with these new 4:3 versions, there are quite a few pics here:

http://www.dvdactive.com/reviews/dvd/star-wars-episode-iv-a-new-hope2.html

Another review with comparison pics:

http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/read.php?id=23827

Rest assured that the original film negatives will show up sooner or later, that we'll have new versions being released in a few years in Hi-Def, DVD, or both, and then you'll yet again have another chance to give Papa George some more of your money. That's all I have to contribute to this thread. Feel free to have the last word.

Edited later to add the second review.

Edited again as somehow everything was repeated.

[gurkan]

@ manono

"Anyone that has to ask that question can't be taken seriously."

Exactly what are you trying to achieve? Dashiell is obviously a noob that doesn't have english as his mother's tounge. Give the poor guy some slack.
I agree with you on everything you're saying about the quality of the new releases and Gerorge Lucas's greed, but seriously..
Dashiell isn't George Lucas.

[Dashiell]

All I have to say is wow. Unbelievable, in fact.

English is my native tongue, I'm a New Yorker and have been all my life. I'm also an amateur filmmaker with several projects under his belt and a well paid freelance writer.

I am not a compelte noob, although there are some aspects within the minutia of video encoding that I must admit I'm unclear on. Yes, I possess a 16x9 television, and yes, I know all about the matrices and their benefits. The reason I've only got 27 posts under my belt in over a year is because of the fact I'm in complete grasp of most of the technical data.

I never once claimed to be able to do something better than LucasFilm. I said that to my eye, these copies turned out beautifully and they do look better than the 4:3 originals TO ME.

Manono is letting his political views, ego, and obvious inferiority complex get the best of him. Shame, really. The irony is that his technical information is precisely the type of info I was looking for originally... the negative aspects of the converting feature. Only problem was he expressed them like someone with a personal vendetta.

We all know about Lucas greed, most of us are well acquainted with it. In fact, I do agree that LucasFilm will magicly "find" some pristine masters of these originals at some point down the road and release them AGAIN. What I was doing was informing those of us that didn't know about the feature that they could "fix" it for themselves. I had no intention to disturb those who already knew and seem to carry the weight of the video world on their shoulders.

That is MY last post on the subject.

[gurkan]

@dashiell

sorry about the language thing. English isn't MY native language.:rolleyes:

[Dashiell]

@dashiell

sorry about the language thing. English isn't MY native language.:rolleyes:

No worries, gurkan! :)

[Trahald]

@Dashiell
Well.. I just reread your first post before i replied. it does seem to say (especially the 'the way it should have been.' part) that you felt that your version is equivelant to a direct anamorphic release. im getting from your subsequent replies that this is not what you meant and where referring to the aspect only. And through your last post i think you really detail what you originally meant. I think manono is addressing the 'misinterpretations ' comment which doesnt say 'you know what.. i should have said this' which your later posts say.. its more like 'im standing by my original post and anyone who read it should have known i meant 'this'(what i said later)' ... anywho.. i think its clear now what you meant to say. it just took a few posts ;)

anywho.. it is a excellent option and its good it worked out for you. and i look foward to seeing the real 16:9 originals on Blu-Ray

[jdobbs]

It would have come out a lot better if the soundtrack had more cowbell, though.

[Trahald]

It would have come out a lot better if the soundtrack had more cowbell, though.:D :D :D