CT Special edition - worst and best changes

Yes, C-3PO is golden once more, and the hallway itself is also not as green as it used to be:

Spoiler

R2-D2's oversaturated blues are also history:

Spoiler

The color artifacts in the droid sale shots are also gone:

Spoiler

There's a lot of additional detail to be found on the 4K version as well. Here's the detail on the Tantive IV door, that was not visible on the bluray due to the lower resolution and DNR:

Spoiler

Finally another tiny detail is different from the 2004 master, namely the font of "A Long Time Ago...". For ANH the 1997 SE font is used, and for TESB and ROTJ the theatrical font. Here's the one for ANH:

Spoiler

 

That would be great.

As errors needing fixed go, the Y-Wings are almost not noticable. Bascically three Y-Wings dive down and out of a shot. One of them (Or is it two) vanishes maybe three frames early. It's on the level of a black triangle in the corner of the screen during the Wampa arm. It's not too bad. There are mattes left in which are more of a distraction.

Thanks for the images!!!

It's amazing how much more texture everything has. And it jumped out at me as soon as we're on teh Tantavie IV. The doors and wall. Even the material of the Rebel Fleet Troopers pants. And this goes on like that for the entire movie until we get to the detail on the fabric neck straps on the Yavin medals.

These are like new movies.

 

Indeed these look amazing! I really hope this will be the 4K version they'll hopefully release next year!

BTW: are the Prequels 4k too on Disney+?? And Rogue One and TFA?

 

And even in the worst case scenario, they release them on a physical media with some 2011 fixes missing, there's the overscan feature on your TV you can turn on. You'll lose up to 5% of the border image, but these two errors would probably be out of frame then. I know, not an ideal solution, but an option if you can't unsee them.

 

All of them are 4K on Disney+!!!!! So while the Prequels are the same as the BluRays they are 4K with HDR.

My guess is the movies are now done. So the Y-Wing glitch is there for good and a few matte lines in Return of the Jedi. Fingers crossed more will be done, but with George Lucas out, I think the OT has reached the end of it's mutations. Persoanally I'm beyond pleased with how these turned out. Fingers crossed physical media from Disney isn't cancelled completely before these can a release on BluRay and 4K!!!!!!!

 

I think there will be a complete SAGA Set together with the single BD release of Ep IX.

 

I hope so too, but think those versions of the films will be the same as what is on Disney+ right now. I think we have two years left at most for Disney to release movies on physical media. They want all of us subscribing to Disney+. Discs get in the way of that plan. It's not something I want to see but something I think is going to happen. And it will happen as quickly as VHS tapes vanished.

 

When Greedo says "It's too late. You should have paid him when you had the chance", doesn't it sorta sound like "Maclunky" or maybe "Malaclunky" at the beginning of the second sentence? Has "Maclunky" been with us this whole time and we never knew it?

 

It's a horrible development that owning something that's finished (okay, I do get the irony with Star Wars) and for good is becoming less and less of an option. Programs, music, video games, film and TV are all moving towards subscription based systems. Worse Disney has recently effectively pulled all Fox titles from specialty screening so they can hog everything for streaming. Some day we'll wish we could all go back.

 

That day is now.

 

Agreed..... unfortunately. It's much closer than most people can fathom right now.

I think The Rise of Skywalker is coming out on disk. Catalogue titles are up in the air going forward. Anything made for Disney+ is probably never coming to disk.

Fingers crossed some sort of set is in the work where Ep 9 helps get us the rest of the films in 4K.

 

These restorations were apparently done from the 97SE negatives. Would they have created new negatives of these new restorations for preservation purposes? Would any new negatives be of the same raw quality of the original negatives?

 

Do love me some oh so sweeter looking textures. I heard that in prior blu-ray releases, TPM in particular didn't turn out too well?

 

I can't say for sure, but it looks like TPM had DNR (digital noise reduction) applied to it for the 2011 release, making a lot of shots look waxier than they were originally. It also reduced some natural grain and surface textures. The reason I'm saying I'm not sure, though, is that we're all familiar with the version that was sourced from the 35mm celluloid version (1999 theatrical, DVD, HDTV), which had nice film grain (although it was heavy in overblown areas). BUT the BD version was sourced from the original digital editing file, with additional picture information on the sides. While the individual elements where shot on film, the majority of the film was in one way or another digitally added to. So I wonder, in 1999, did they apply film grain to the completed digital file with all the effects in place, or did they originally apply DNR to only the elements shot on film originally knowing that a celluloid output will gel it all with a layer of film grain? Logically wouldn't it need to be one thing or the other- as the individual elements shot on celluloid would stand out with their natural film grain otherwise. This is probably something only a special effects veteran who worked in both the pre-digital and early-digital era.

Also, I clearly remember, years ago, seeing a couple of screenshots sourced from the original 2K version of AOTC that had an incredible amount of detail, maybe even more than the Blu-Ray has. It was a shot of Yoda, Mace and Obi Wan in the Jedi Temple hallway and one of Dooku shooting Force Lightning at Yoda. Does anyone remember those? Mind you, this was before 4K and 8K were really established, so those shots might look less awe-inspiring now than they did many years ago.

 

Depends what you are looking for. In terms of simply watching the movie actually in motion it looks spectacular but for those who use measures such as the amount of fine detail, sharpness, clarity, digital noise reduction, black levels and the like it's less about the actual viewing experience but what can they see when they freeze frame, zoom in and look around.

In terms of the viewing experience terms like cleaner, tighter, softness are used as well as a concern for the level of grain (they want to see some but not too much).

Overall what exactly they are looking for seems to be some combination of what they like in combination with more objectively measured standards but through a subjective lens.

For example TPM and AOTC are far "softer" in terms of details and texture with not as strong black levels. Whether that actually means anything to your experience is up to you. AOTC in particular was made softer by Lucas because he felt it was unnaturally sharp due to the HD camera capturing far more detail than film could so he softened to look more like film.

From this reviewers perspective he breaks it down visually like this:

TPM 7.2
AOTC 7.0
ROTS 7.5
ANH 8.2
TESB 8.4
ROTJ 7.8





For visual comparison to the Disney movies he gave TFA 7.9 and Rogue One 8.8.

For me that information is interesting but watching them myself the difference between AOTC 7.0 and TESB 8.4 is next to nothing. More like separated by 0.1 not 1.4.

There is also what I find to be the ever perplexing "dated CGI" argument. Never sure what that is actually supposed to mean. Of course the CGI is "dated" just as as the practical effects are "outdated". Various reviews who very likely never liked the CGI of the SE's in the first place are still going on about it. Of course the "dated" practical effects work gets a pass for some reason.

 

I think its because practical effect don't 'date' as badly as early CGI when the poor matte lines, etc, are cleaned up. The practical effects of the PT, for instance, hold up much better than AOTC CGI in my opinion. It's all a matter of personal taste though.

 

The problem is that in what sense is even meant by "dated"? Obviously the walkers in TESB are completely outdated to the ones seen in R1 and TLJ. They can in no way match the motion or environmental realism of those movies. That is simply a reality of the limitations of optical compositing vs digital compositing as well as physical models to CGI.

The motion, flow and interaction of anything done digitally is going to be beyond anything that could be done before that. The OT had to constantly do what would be visual "cheats" today. Tat would hardly be contemplated now because it'd just look really odd. Things as simple as ships taking off and landing in shot were not able to be done back then unless they would spend an inordinate amount of time and resources to try to get it to work.

 

Prequel and Special Edition bias runs so deep reviewers aren't even aware of it.

Beyond that the OT is basically taking optical effects at the very end of what was possible. Those are the culmination of 80 years of movie making. So there is a level of tried and true sophistication going on there. Late 90s and early 00s CGI are the first steps into a new frontier. Still those aren't bad effects. It's like calling 1933's King Kong 'dated' and implying that somehow it's worthless than other movies. Oh no... King Kong is a classic.

Then again T2 and Jurassic Park are still considered CGI FX classics. Ep2 just had such a totally new look, eyes at the time weren't ready for it. I think the Prequels have aged incredibly well. They are basically the first films made the way all big FX movies are made today.

I wish there was more understanding and appreciation about what was accomplished in making the prequels and how important they are for all of filmmaking going forward. The prequels have a bigger impact on how all movies are made today than the OT did. The prequels reinvented the tools of filmmaking and the methods for creating movies. It's as big a break through in the art of cinema as match cutting, montage, sound, color, or widescreen were.

 

I watched TPM recently for the first time in a while and honestly, save for a few shots that are kind of wonky, I don't think Jar Jar would look all that out-of-place in a movie coming out today. These are shots in full sunlight and Jar Jar basically just looks real:





CGI made a quantum leap with Jurassic Park and The Phantom Menace and while it's gotten gradually better over the past two and a half decades or so, I don't think there's been a comparable quantum leap in that time.

Look at the difference in the sophistication of ILM's work just two years made back in the late 90's:




The first is pretty badly dated, the second is not that much different than what we see today in terms of photorealism. More noticeable improvement happened in two years than in twenty.

That's why people always complain about how fake CGI looks today compared to back in the day. The visible improvement has been marginal, but now it's being used a lot more and in a lot less forgiving lighting situations.

But the truth is that CGI has been really good for a long time and people are just expecting more of it than is actually possible, while at the same time holding on to an overly rose-tinted view of what was possible with practical effects.

 

It's hard to believe the Phantom Menace gets flack when looked at today. That movie makes it work. I totally believe the CGI characters. And they are all CGI. Jurassic Park had a mix of live action CGi to pull off that illusion. TPM works so well that audiences didn't quite know what they were looking at in 1999. It really is a marvel of creative filmmaking. The worlds created are so deep and full of life.

Also the remaster for the 2011 BluRay that was made for 3D and is the 4K version on Disney+ looks fantastic. The film didn't look that good in 1999. It's a beautiful movie. Also the 2001 DVD actually looked quite bad which didn't do Ep1 any favors.

Epsidoe 2 being shot on Video didn't help Attack of the Clones. Or that fact that what most of us saw on a film print is more like the fine cut of the movie and the digital version was actually the final cut. There are a few small changes that for did a lot to improve the movie. Anakin's extra line to Padme. Padme falling off out of the gunship, etc.

Personally for me the OT Special Edition additions help bridge the gap between PT and OT. It feels more seamless. And the '04 Jabba update works for me.

 

@The_Phantom_Calamari Those shots of Jar Jar look fantastic! The colors really pop. Thanks for sharing. It could just be placebo but the Jedi Rocks scene in ROTJ looks so much better with the new coloring as well.

 

I've watched TPM the proverbial "500 times" and as you say save for a shot here or there or some part of a scene it all holds up quite well compared to what is done today.

It is as good in pure technical terms? Obviously not but what also is noticeable is how Lucas simply treated the CG characters as characters in the scene. He puts characters and creatures in blasting sunlight. That classic movie look that TPM has (it has the most in common with the OT in that way) is so gorgeous.

 

Nice to see 1933 King Kong mentioned. That movie is so epic and in my top 10 all time. It is a must if you like stop motion animation.

 

Most of the CGI in the prequels was used to render things that were either rubbery, leathery, or hard and smooth, because that's what CGI was capable of doing believably back then. Fur and hair was another story, and Lucas avoided that as much as possible.

And that's exactly what Lucas means when he says that an artist is always running up against the limits of technology. It's not as if he stopped having to come up with creative workarounds with the advent of CGI. It's just that the nature of those creative workarounds changed.

One such creative workaround resulted in the infamous gag where Han steps on Jabba's tail. I think it's a brilliant bit of technical improvisation that created a really funny and memorable moment, but Lucas really got slammed for that one. I guess limitation only breeds creativity sometimes.

 

The '04 version of Jabba made everything work much better. Even the tail gag with Jabba's more gangster response. You can also tell the Jabba sort of likes Han a bit. So the overall performance or characterization is improved.