Saga The Official Star Wars Blu-Ray Discussion Thread

Discussion in 'Star Wars Saga In-Depth' started by Fat_Rancor_Keeper, Apr 17, 2010.

Moderators: Darth_Nub
  1. Darth_Monkey_Boy Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 11, 2008
    I'll admit that "AOTC" doesn't look all that great, but as far as DNR, "TPM" is the worst. What kind of television and BD player are you guys watching it on? I have a Samsung 1080p 55" LED edge-lit TV and a Samsung BD player with an HDMI cable. I have encountered folks who don't mind the look of DNR, so maybe it comes down to personal preference, but every time I watch "TPM", the waxy look of the people always throws me off. Not in any of the other "Star Wars" movies is the DNR so rampant.:-B Check out what a reviewer over at Blu-ray.com said about it:
    While I disagree that it's the worst movie in the series, it's not his opinion I'm interested in, it's his description of the picture quality... and it is dead on!


    I had a Sony 5-disc DVD changer with a component cable. I'm not saying that the resolution goes up to 1080i, or anything like that, it just looks better in a BD player than in a DVD player by quite a bit. Also, a good BD player makes BDs look better than the PS3 does. I have a Samsung BD-P3600 player, and- with the exact same HDMI cable- it kicks the crap outta the picture on my PS3!
    Last edited by Darth_Monkey_Boy, Feb 24, 2013
  2. KenobiSkywalker Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Sep 3, 2012
    star 4
    That may be, but on any current DVD player with an HDMI output, it will be no different than a standard Blu Ray player. The PS3 isn't a standard Blu Ray player and has better upscaling than the majority of things in it's price range. A Blu Ray player would take the lead when you get into the high end (usually $499 and up) range that has exceptionally good video scalers. The person I responded to wasn't looking in that price range.


    That's not exactly true, the price differences for the most part comes from the feature set. I have a PS3 and a Oppo BDP-105, and there isn't a measurable difference between the two when playing a Blu Ray (this with calibration tools, not my eyes). If expensive calibration tools don't notice a difference on a $40,000 calibrated HD projector in a controlled environment, then it's not there.
  3. darklordoftech Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Sep 30, 2012
    star 5
    I've heard that PS4 will support 4k video! Wonder what this means for the Saga...
    KenobiSkywalker likes this.
  4. KenobiSkywalker Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Sep 3, 2012
    star 4
    The OT could be released in 4k. The PT was unfortunately filmed in 2k. And while it could be upconverted, it will never be true 4k.

    I'd be willing to bet that the ST will be filmed in at least 4k, which I would love to see.
    Last edited by KenobiSkywalker, Feb 26, 2013
  5. Alexrd Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 7, 2009
    star 5
    I hate DNR. It's use is completely unnecessary. But TPM , although it has the most DNR applied of all six movies, doesn't have the waxy look like some films like Predator and Patton (aside from a couple of shots). It has, in my opinion, a more "acceptable" level of DNR that doesn't make me turn off the TV. The fact that the movie was restored and is an huge upgrade over the DVD makes it more forgiving. Still, I would (and still do) prefer a DNR free version of the movie. Let's hope the next release gives us that.

    As for AotC, it's in my opinion the worst Blu-ray of the set. It has DNR applied, scenes swapped by mistake (I hope), and that teal shift throughout the whole movie. It's the movie I watch the least nowadays, and when I do, it's the DVD version I always go to.

    TPM, like the OT, can be released in 4k. However, these movies have a lot of special effects in it, and I doubt all of them have a 4k resolution. If they will be released in that resolution, there will need to be an huge 'special edition-like' effort to redo a lot of those special effects.

    We'll see how it goes...
  6. darklordoftech Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Sep 30, 2012
    star 5
  7. KenobiSkywalker Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Sep 3, 2012
    star 4
    I'm kind of torn over which has the worst picture quality of the set. But if I had to choose one, I'd probably also go with AOTC. The CGI in AOTC and TPM is terrible and while the DNR was noticeable in TPM, AOTC felt more like watching a video game than a movie.


    Very true, TPM and the OT would likely need to have most, if not all of their special effect scenes to be re-rendered. IIRC the Special Edition version of the OT was scanned in 2k, so they'd basically have to remake the Special Edition with 4k or 8k scans.
  8. Alexrd Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 7, 2009
    star 5
    I strongly disagree.
  9. KenobiSkywalker Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Sep 3, 2012
    star 4
    Why? On my screen at least, even untrained eyes are able to pick up on it. The clone troopers don't look close to real in most of the Geonisis scenes. Same goes for Yoda in a handful of scenes. And in TPM, it's incredibly easy to pick up on who's an actor in a costume and what is CGI, among other things.

    (Disclaimer: I am a videophile, so I'm not easily impressed with special effects and CGI.)
  10. darklordoftech Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Sep 30, 2012
    star 5
    If it's true that the original negatives were edited, the unedited parts of the OT can still be in 4k.
  11. Alexrd Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 7, 2009
    star 5
    Because I think they hold up quite well.

    Pick what? Knowing that something is CG doesn't make it bad CGI.

    Again, I disagree.

    So...?

    I'm a videophile as well, and I can appreciate the effort that goes into making good CGI.
  12. Mange Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 11, 2003
    star 4
    The PT (or at least AOTC and ROTS. TPM was shot on film) wasn't filmed in 2k, it was filmed in 1080 (even worse than that actually as though the picture was captured in 1080 lines in 16x9 aspect ratio, it was cropped to 817 lines for the 2.35:1 aspect ratio. An anamorphic converter, which eliminated the need of cropping the picture and the loss of pixels, which fitted the CineAlta was introduced by Canon in 2005 IIRC).

    I'd rather see it filmed using ordinary film stock.
    KenobiSkywalker likes this.
  13. KenobiSkywalker Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Sep 3, 2012
    star 4
    Right, it becomes bad CGI when it distracts from the movie itself, on my screen it's noticeable and jarring enough to be distracting. I never was bothered by it (or even really noticed much) on DVD. On BR it's rather hard for me to watch without being distracted by the CGI. Just my opinion. I probably should state that I didn't mean to attack your opinion if that's how I came across, I was interested in why you disagreed.

    I respect that. I'll agree to disagree and leave it at that.

    I don't think they were well animated. As I said above, it was distracting for me. I know it was revolutionary for the time, but looking back at it today the CGI is pretty bad compared to what we see now.

    Ah, I do think I read that somewhere now that you mention it. [face_blush] Thanks for correcting me.

    I agree, I'd really be impressed if they filmed it on 70mm film. Sadly though it's not likely that they will use film on the ST.
    Mange likes this.
  14. Cryogenic Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 20, 2005
    star 4
    The most heavily DNR-ed shots were quite distracting when I saw TPM 3D last year. While I appreciate the smooth, storybook look Lucas was going for, I wish they'd retained a bit of the film's natural grain structure. All three prequel films seem to have had a fair bit of noise reduction applied to them.

    Really? I've seen uncompressed stills that blow away the DVD transfer. Going by these stills, AOTC looks the most improved over its DVD release, to me. On the other hand, I haven't seen the full thing on Blu-ray yet, still. I did download a fan trailer from YouTube in HD, though, and I really liked the teal look. I was in this thread saying this more than a year ago, but I think the teal shift actually gives it a more moody, esoteric quality.

    You're confusing vertical and horizontal resolution.

    The vertical resolution of the digital captures of Episodes II and III is, indeed, approx 817 lines (it's complicated by the fact that some shots are blown up: i.e., zoomed-in -- so they'd be even fewer lines; though, for the record, I mean blown up in post-production, not at the point of capture). The horizontal resolution, however, is either 1920 or 1440 (depending on whether they shot to the newer HDCAM SR tape for Episode III (1920); or in AOTC's case, the inferior HDCAM (1440) or straight to server (1920)).

    The"2K" and "4K" labels commonly thrown around refer to horizontal resolution (2K = 2,000; 4K = 4,000). Therefore, all six Star Wars movies, essentially existing as either 2K scans (the OT films and TPM) or 2K captures (whether "true" 2K or up-scaled to 2K for processing and mastering), are at "2K". If you were to raid the LFL archives, or wherever the digital intermediates are kept, this is the resolution you would find the films in. It's Blu-ray resolution, basically, but with less compression.

    But the possibility also exists to scan the original negatives (the OT films and TPM) at 4K, which is the point it is generally agreed that 35mm film stops yielding useful picture information; and even AOTC and ROTS could be enlarged to 4K and have their effects re-done at 4K, in theory. 2K, however, is "good enough" for most purposes. The vast majority of films, including James Cameron's visually-spectacular, envelope-pushing "Avatar", have either been shot in 2K (digital from the start) or had their negatives scanned and manipulated at 2K (film to digital), and all their effects -- if they're blockbuster movies with copious VFX work -- rendered at 2K. Tests have also been conducted that revealed that the overwhelming majority of film prints only offer about 720p resolution (1440) in practice, due to differing quality of film stocks, lighting conditions, and significantly, major picture quality loss due to multiple generations of printing (the print you see at the cinema is normally two or three generations removed from the original camera negative).

    As for the anamorphic converter... I don't think George Lucas was able to utilize one at any point in the production of Episodes II or III. However, he appeared to try and emulate the look of anamorphic, in places, in ROTS. At the very least, he got a little bolder with focus planes in ROTS, getting away from the "flat" look of AOTC and introducing more shots which isolated characters against a soft background. But I think the majority of these were accomplished in post-production (e.g., consider shots from Padme's veranda at night when she's in that soft blue dress post-Order 66 -- the city may be defocused, but only because it was added later as a visual effect).

    There is more information about some of the challenges posed by adopting digital cinematography in the following multi-part article on Episode II:

    http://www.theasc.com/magazine/sep02/exploring/index.html
    Last edited by Cryogenic, Mar 1, 2013
  15. Alexrd Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 7, 2009
    star 5
    RotS didn't have any DNR. On the contrary, Lucas added a grain effect to the whole movie. As for TPM, I believe they applied it for the 3D conversion.

    In terms of resolution? Sure, the Blu-ray is better in that regard, as expected. But the teal shift, scene swaps and DNR make me prefer the DVD version.

    Unfortunately that isn't the case. Whites are no longer white, reds are now magenta/purple, blue is teal-ish, etc...

    What irks me the most is that the few clips of the movie present in the extras don't have any of those problems, which make me believe this was done pretty close to the release.
  16. Cryogenic Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 20, 2005
    star 4
    The 3D transfer for TPM appeared to follow the transfer readied for the Blu-ray disc.: i.e., DNR and other issues in the same places at the same levels. ROTS does have DNR, I think, starting with the raw capture down. Adding grain is a separate issue. If anything, it rather implies DNR, since why would you add grain to an already-noisy image? All this DNR seems to have been Lucas' way of bringing the picture under control and making the frames smooth-looking and consistent. If you're the filmmaker and you're adding grain artificially, then it means you're in full control of the grain field, too. Ultimately, you want that grain there to at least imply an additional texture that you've scrubbed away, but in more of an even, less-obtrusive quality than whatever existed pre-noise-reduction. DNR and added grain go together. (I believe the same approach was taken by Lowry Digital with the OT).

    Some possibly-aggressive DNR aside, based on the caps I've seen, the AOTC Blu-ray looks like an improvement in all areas, to me. Scene swaps? Two brief moments that have slightly different edits? Well, fine: we all have our preferences.

    Well, I like the whole thing. AOTC is a bit more of an acid trip than the other five, so why not?

    Interesting.

    All the films -- barring ROTS, perhaps -- seem to have been altered in their colour casts since getting onto DVD/Blu-ray. I mean, TPM is never brought up, but it originally had a more pastel-ish grey-green tone, and the OT films have all been pushed from white to blue.
  17. Mange Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 11, 2003
    star 4
    You're confusing vertical and horizontal resolution.[/quote]
    Uh, no I'm not. The vertical, not the horizontal, resolution was of interest here as the movies were cropped horizontally. (2K is 2,048 horizontal lines.)

    Yes, the horizontal resolution is indeed 1920. As for Episode II, some of the filmed material was stored on HDCAM cassettes but apparently also on data recorders.

  18. Alexrd Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 7, 2009
    star 5
    I didn't notice any.

    You don't get film grain with a digital recording. Thus the addition. Why didn't he do the same with AotC? No idea.

    I don't see Lucas as a guy who likes to sacrifice picture quality over grain control/removal. Grain even helps the effects blend with the rest of the picture. I believe it was done for the 3D conversion, because grain layers are noticeable in stereo.

    Lowry was restoring the movies, and in order to make all the footage consistent, they had to do that. But I believe they avoid it if possible.
    Last edited by Alexrd, Mar 1, 2013
  19. Blur Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 11, 1999
    star 4
    Coming very late to this party, but I finally bought my first Blu-ray player last December, and the first Blu-ray(s) I got were the SW Saga. After seeing each film & the special features, I can honestly say this Blu-ray DVD set is possibly the best individual purchase I've ever made (2nd only to the Blu-ray player itself, of course):

    -The OT films look magnificent; not only obviously clearer & sharper than previous releases, but I literally noticed things I don't remember ever seeing before - plus, the audio was obviously improved:

    - In ANH, Han's shirt was more yellow-ish than I remember.
    - In ANH, Obi-wan has a dark stain/mark on the upper-right corner of his shirt - this can be seen in several scenes.
    - In ANH, the doors on the Rebel Blockade Runner (that the Stormtroopers blasted through) had two sets of flashing lights on either side - though I'm sure these were always there, I didn't notice them until this release.
    - In past ANH releases, I always had a hard time hearing the somewhat muffled conversation between the two Stormtroopers standing guard while Obi-wan is turning off the tractor beam (in the DS). On the Blu-ray, though this conversation still wasn't 100% clear, it still sounded much more distinct than previous releases.

    Liked all of the changes on the Blu-rays as well, i.e.: they muted the extreme blue of the escape pod lid/cover in ANH (first?! seen in the 2004 DVD); fixed the edge of the Wampa's arm in ESB, removed Luke's scream from ESB, added Vader's NOOOO in ROTJ (which IMHO fits perfectly), slightly?! changed the Krayt Dragon call that Obi-wan makes, improved the Vader/Ben lightsaber fight in ANH (yes, it's not perfect & never will be, but it still looks better than previous versions), etc. IMHO, these changes either improved the film or didn't affect it much, unlike some of the 1997 SE & 2004 DVD changes.

    One of the reasons I may be more awed by this release than some younger fans is because, being a child of the OOT, I grew up on the various crummy OT VHS pan & scan releases, watching the films on sub-par edited network television back in the day, and seeing the non-anamorphic laser disks in the '90's (which, at the time, seemed great). The only thing as good as the Blu-rays were seeing the SE's in the theatre back in 1997. However, it's been so long since I saw those that I can't remember if the picture quality was better than the Blu-rays...

    Re: the deleted OT special features:

    - The Biggs/Luke Anchorhead deleted scene was nice; despite the poor picture quality, it was interesting to finally see something I had been hearing about for years. That being said, I agree 100% with the decision to exclude this from the finished film. It would have definitely slowed things down, and would have also negatively affected the "flow" of the narrative.

    - The rough cut extended Mos Eisley b&w cantina scene was AWESOME - this is definitely my favorite scene in the entire saga, and seeing the additional aliens, Han's "girlfriend", etc. was very nice.

    - Liked the ROTJ scene when Moff Jerjerrod was ordered to destroy Endor - this added another dimension to his character & the film, though it's probably best that they left it out since there was already enough going on during these sequences, i.e. the DS II space battle, the Vader/Luke battle, and the Endor ground battle.

    - Liked the close-up scenes of the alien & human ROTJ Rebel fighter pilots - I would have liked to have seen some of these characters in the final film.

    -The animated Nelvana sequence with Boba Fett was excellent - they really cleaned up the picture quality; I didn't think a cartoon from the late '70's could look this good! I think I saw this once back when the Holiday Special was first released on TV, but remember none of it. In any case, good story & fantastic animation. It was nice to see the "first" appearance of Boba Fett, and cool to see Luke in his outfit from the ANH end celebration.

    Re: the PT:

    - TPM looks better than ever before - amazing. Still my favorite PT film.

    - AOTC & ROTS were very crisp & clear, but, as has been said, due to the extemely good picture quality, the CGI actually stood out much more than before; the video game analogy is very accurate. I never thought I'd say a film was too perfect, but they were in this case. I also wasn't as impressed by the crispness of the Blu-rays here because, IIRC, these films were already filmed digitally so, the picture improvement for these isn't as distinct as the OT & TPM (Plus, I saw both of these films in limited digital releases back in 2002 & 2005). That being said, the films were still excellent.

    Still haven't seen the PT deleted scenes..

    Also seen some other films on Blu-ray and am equally stunned at how much better the picture is when compared to regular DVD's..Amazing...
    Last edited by Blur, Mar 1, 2013
    KenobiSkywalker likes this.
  20. Bravo Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Sep 10, 2001
    star 5
    Questions for ya all. Let me first say that I have not seen the Blu-ray's yet. Overall, excluding the Special Edition 1997 (although I thought they were the best of the additions/edits since the originals), what will the future of the Star Wars blu-rays be? I heard---and have seen on Youtube---the terrible idea to edit in Vader's voice when he throws the Emperor over the power well in ROTJ. I've heard the response to the blu-rays have been less then ideal from the fans---some fans, like me, view the DVDs as canon on a personal level, not the new blu-rays. A course, I can't afford the blu-rays either. :p

    Question #1:

    With the poor response from the SW community, will Walt Disney (i.e. LucasFilm) void the Blu-rays or maybe even reedit Vader's voice out of the blu-ray's? Lucas is no longer in control now, so...

    Question #2:

    If the blu-ray's are not voided or reedited, will the blu-rays be forgotten in the long run and the DVDs resume their place as "lead" canon on an unofficial level for the fans?


    I ask all of these, because the originals are due to hit 3D edits and be final in 2017 I heard. So, I was just wondering...
  21. Alexrd Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 7, 2009
    star 5
    No. And there is no poor response from the SW community. The Blu-rays broke sales records, and that's what matters in the end. People buy what they like. Personally, I didn't like some changes, but I like most of them.

    What do you even mean with "lead canon on an unofficial level for fans"? That sound like an oxymoron. The DVD were replaced for a more recent and final version with the Blu-ray release, and that's the canonical version. If you prefer the DVD versions (like I do with AotC) there is nobody stopping you from considering them your personal canon version. But that's just for you.
  22. Darth_Monkey_Boy Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 11, 2008
    CGI actually has nothing to do with PQ. I'm not sure what you're getting at. I'm talking about DNR, not special effects. For me, "ROTS" has the best PQ in the Saga. Then comes the OT. Then "AOTC". And "TPM" is the worst. To me. I don't mind if you can tell if the effects look CG, just as long as they can convey what they're supposed to. CG isn't perfect in any way. I mean, Gollem looks quite excellent in "LOTR", but you can still tell he's a CG character.
  23. Alexrd Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 7, 2009
    star 5
    Well said.

    Indeed. Same way Yoda looks great in TESB and ROTJ and you can still tell he's just a puppet.

    Effects, are just tools, none of them are real. That's why I find the argument of CG vs puppets to be useless.
    Last edited by Alexrd, Mar 6, 2013
    VMeran and Darth_Monkey_Boy like this.
  24. KenobiSkywalker Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Sep 3, 2012
    star 4
    CG does have to do with picture quality to an extent, especially when nearly everything is CGI. For me, picture quality is what is overall most pleasing to look at. In my opinion, AOTC looks worse than TPM. Yes, the DNR is awful in TPM, but I'd rather that than the flat, lifeless CGI in AOTC. As for LOTR, I do see CGI in it but it's not distracting or jarring like AOTC is when I watch it. Same with ROTS, I see the CGI, but it's not flat and lifeless for me like AOTC was.

    I also said

    In the message following that up.

    I'm talking about good CG vs bad CG, not CG vs puppet. I do prefer CGI Yoda over puppet Yoda. I thought AOTC did pretty well right up till the clone army shows up on Geonosis. Certain parts following that just look like they were pulled from a video game. It's not bad watching on a 50" HDTV, but throw it on a 2k res or better projection system with a large screen and it's bad.
  25. Darth_Monkey_Boy Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 11, 2008
    Okay. We're apparently talking about 2 different versions of PQ. When looking at reviews for PQ on the BDs I get, I'm looking how good the picture itself is, not how CGI makes the movie look. No matter what, I'd rather no DNR. I think that it is way more of a distraction than "flat & lifeless" CGI. At least the CGI is supposed to be there with the grain
Moderators: Darth_Nub