Star Wars (1977) original Blu ray. Crappier than ever.

Thanks

Part of my concern is getting the “right” version.
From what I can glean from this and other threads some versions are betters than others and some have been futzed with......scenes changed and or CGI added?

 

Well, there is no official Blu-ray available of the original, unaltered trilogy. They've all been futzed with, each release more than the one before. The only way to get officially released versions of the original, unaltered trilogy on DVD is to buy used copies of the 2006 DVDs that come with the bonus discs. The bonus discs have the unaltered versions, but they are n0n-anamorphic. You would have to go the pirating route to get the theatrical versions in HD.

 

I have them on DVD but they are dated 2004, no bonus discs.
If they’ve all been futzed with then I’ll probably buy the sets with the Yoda/Vader covers, they’re usually inexpensive, and enjoy them as is. I probably won’t notice the changes anyway

 

"Original film stock" means nothing. A lot of those prints were absolute crap. And I'm a 20-year veteran who worked for Technicolor for a long time. (I'm actually sitting in the original Technicolor/Hollywood building right this second.) If it ain't from the negative, it's B.S. These are just fan scans from release prints, and they're all over the place. I've seen the results, and all they can say is: "it's different from what the director did 15 years ago." Different is not always better.

I'm very confident that if and when Disney gets the rights back to Star Wars, they will go back and rescan, restore, and release the original theatrical versions from the negatives and conform them to make them absolutely 100% identical to the versions seen in theaters. One hopes it'll be done with good taste and good judgement. The problem is: if you put 5 restoration experts and 5 crazy fans in the same room, I think a) they'd all kill each other, and b) at best you'd get 10 different opinions. Which is right? Which tells the truth? Don't forget that even 10 different 1977 prints looked different from each other. They looked different in 70mm, different in London, different in NY, and different in LA. They never get this stuff 100% correct -- at best, the labs were +/- 5 RGB printer points off (and that includes density), 5 points green and -5 points blue and 1 point red would all be acceptable, but it'd look pretty crappy from what the director and DP intended.

No -- as has been discussed before, those transfers were also not of the original theatrical releases. There are editorial differences, VFX differences, title differences, color differences, and mix differences. But there were far more differences starting with the 1997 re-releases.

I believe these SD masters were done by Lou Levinson at Modern Videofilm around 1988 or possibly 1992, but I'm not 100% sure.

 

You're responding to my "original film stock" comment completely out of context. We were talking about the content of the original movie: revisions vs. original. Not about image quality.

I realize you work in the industry. And I know you like to disparage the work that enthusiasts do in attempts to digitally preserve original movies, as originally shown. But until you can point us to a better-looking solution, I'll keep enjoying how wonderful 4K77 looks and sounds.

 

Here’s another article that details a little more about Lucas’s idea of this microbiotic world.

George Lucas' original plan for the Star Wars sequels revealed

 

I and others completely understand your experience and your opinion most certainly has merit, but that does not mean that your experience isn't the only experience.

Some of the greatest minds in the world were merely "uneducated fools" in the eyes of the so called "elite".

Regardless, what I bring to the table is someone that actually formulated pigment recipe's and also spent my professional life studying chemical molecules and atoms. I have used equipment that have cost millions as well, and not only was it used for scientific study but was published in journals and is part of the history for curing countless diseases....and above all, is not merely used for entertainment (not that this isn't important!!)

A release print is not B.S. nor are the captures made from them. The jump in quality is obvious. And why wouldn't it be? It is a well known fact that the blurays used inferior technology because they obviously used the same masters that were used for the special edition DVD's (which had inferior scanning to begin with) except that they had even more digital tinkering. While it is true that these were still scans from the OCN, it is obvious as hell that there was a color correction that was complete and utter CRAP to go with the other problems.

Unlike the release prints which were an accurate footprint both chemically and optically of what was released to the theater and enjoyed by millions, the blurays were George Lucas not only new vision, but actually a new colored look and even down to the actual focus...it was a digital re-imagining in a MILLION other ways.

"If it ain't from negative it's B.S." Yeah I have heard that now from you, but also from at least one other technician and I say it again. That just makes absolutely no sense.

A release print is a snap shot of what film goers have seen over the entire world. A release print has millions of molecules that have properties that are unique even to the OCN. I have explained the digital capture and scan of that footprint that many of us find precious because it stands for the TRUTH.

When you call B.S. on someone like Team 1 who took a picture of a frame and did that for 3 years and likely got a better result because of using a camera capable of getting 3D images of the molecules that are not on a strictly 2D....I say you sir should really have more respect?

Even the most simple consumer understands the capability of a DSLR camera, because they see the results. Matter of fact that technology is what is used to make the films to begin with!

I understand that a negative has more information. I understand that completely, so before you go explaining that like you did with broadcast tape vs VHS tape sermon (and the point still not being noticed or cared about that VHS tapes are often what was used for DVD's even in "official" capacity...because independent companies are still OFFICIAL), how about we notice what I actually wrote? (a mere google from my posts would actually show that not only have I been well aware of broadcast tape, but I have actually argued the merits that DVD's can't even capture consumer grade tape let alone broadcast tape which has millions more magnetic oxide properties)

A OCN is not color timed, a negative is not what the public saw and last but not least a one trick pony fixed focal point scan is not going to get even a fraction of the details that a chemical molecule has when it was put on the film print to begin with.

When I see someone saying that even 4K can get all the detail of the most rudimentary Silver Halide particle I got a little calculation for you.

Silver Halide particles are .2 micrometers at the smallest (varying in size depending on the halogen that is bonded). A 35 mm film stock is 24 mm x 36 mm which equates to 864 mm area. The Silver Halide particle converted to mm is .0002 mm. Therefore we are talking about 4.32 million particles per film strip. This is not accounting for the organic dyes that are also present that bond with the silver halide particles nor am I getting into the configuration/planar geometry that gives a property that allows the bonds to be arranged in a way that maximizes how we perceive the photons of light. Are you going to seriously equate that with the Pixel Per Inch on a flat scan? LOL ok.... In the words of Bender from the Breakfast Club. Not even close bud.

Look it is like saying that film prints are not analog. Some things just need to be googled rather then explained here. Oh and for the record, this idea that faded prints still don't have important information and are "B.S." just doesn't sit right with me. Even chemicals that have changed in property didn't cease to be a chemical. There are still properties there that are essential to the makeup of what we saw. In many cases a film print can actually be in better shape then the negative. With the mindset that it is "B.S." what would some of the most fantastic films that were restored from them be? Should we throw them all in the trash and let all of us age waiting for a negative transfer that may never happen? Are our lives not important...the fans that actually paid for the work and lined the pockets of the artist? What about those technicians having jobs as a direct result of that?

Anyway, unlike a scanned image, a camera actually sees through a lens in a similar fashion that we see as humans (well except for the fact that a digital camera has far less capabilty like the fact that a human eye can change the shape of the lens based on photosensitivity...but i digress). I don't know why there is this fetish that only digital scanning is important. It is like technicians have become so detached from the science behind why they have anything to scan to in the first place!

I have seen it before, and that is why I constantly read about technicians trashing the original artists like Hitchcock and Nolan and how they conducted their art, and that is just not right. After seeing Dunkirk finally (I know I know...where have I been), the scan from IP looked AWESOME. It is the most beautiful film I even seen since the Master. That is how the big boys do it, and the Revenant in all its digital glory doesn't even come close (though it looks great too).

 

Would Disney handle such a restoration effort completely in-house or outsource with someone like Robert A. Harris overseeing the process? Additionally, if the Mouse House acquisition of 20th Century Fox goes ahead, then they'll outright own the 1977 film too, so that should the grease the wheels considerably and make any OT theatrical version restoration/re-release easier to accomplish... just one thing though; would they overrule Kathleen Kennedy in such a commercial decision if she started dragging her feet out of loyalty to George Lucas though, as she's seemingly doing of late...?

If they want to do it 4K and from the original camera negatives, it's a year-long, million-dollar-plus process right off the bat; the 1977 film's theatrical version would need the original O-negs and assorted trims to be re-scanned, meticulously reconstructed as a new digital internegative with re-compositing of selected shots featuring optical effects, whereas Empire and Jedi's O-negs are still intact (as I understand it) in their original iterations, in great shape, and could be scanned as is... but a superlative brand new 2K transfer taken from first-generation IP's (the existence of which have been essentially confirmed by Rick McCallum, and which are likely the source of the OT theatrical footage seen in Empire of Dreams), who's picture quality could rival - if handled with care and precision - any new title's release, is easily achievable, could be done tomorrow if the will was there, and which would cost a fraction of a full 4K restoration effort.

It's the lack of will on either Disney's and/or (most likely) Kennedy's part that is stopping it... not legal issues, technical issues, or rivalry between FOX and Disney... a point which could become moot relatively soon anyhow.

 

Given that Comcast has now submitted a higher bid for Fox, it's not certain at all if Disney will get the 1977 film. That seems like it would throw a wrench in the works.

Sure, Comcast could reissue just the 1977 film, but I think all 3 original films at once is a much better idea commercially.

 

Actually, they were scanned from brand new internegatives created for the Special Editions; the original O-neg of Star Wars was disassembled, fully restored, reassembled, and a brand new IP was struck from it that Rick McCallum described as "perfect"... this new IP formed the source from which the subsequent Special Edition was put together, leading ultimately to a brand new, immaculate internegative (complete with new revisions) being created for that film, from which the SE theatrical release prints were struck... ditto the two sequels, which were both sourced from first-generation IP's. No complete scans of the three O-negs were done for the Special Editions, owing to the prohibitive cost of such at the time... footage featuring optical composites from Star Wars' O-neg was scanned at 2K for re-compositing purposes, but not the entire negative, whilst the O-negs of both Empire and Jedi weren't even touched as far as scans at the time went.

In 2003, it was the internegatives that were scanned for all three films (as those were the sources that contained the SE revisions, which were further revised upon) and used as source for both the subsequent DVD and later Blu-ray releases.

I reserve the right to be proven wrong on any of the above, but I've done the research into this matter, and that's what I came up with, as is my understanding of it... but I will stand corrected if proven otherwise.

 

Why is Robert Harris considered the only person capable of restoring film? He has done great work yes, but there are others out there too.

Scorsese and Chapman, Ned Price and co., Rob Hummel...etc. Robert Harris has been pushing that he should be the one to do this...do that...blah blah blah.

Sorry for that aside, just get annoyed by his little rock star status.

My vote goes with a non-special IP not only because of cost, but also because of accuracy and no/minimal digital tinkering required (barring age of print).

I am confused, did I say otherwise? Scanning technology then is inferior to scanning technology now. Also when I say from OCN, I am referring to the fact that it was NEWLY SOURCED from OCN beginnings as opposed to using IP prints from long ago (which of course were also struck from OCN).

But we all know that newly sourced IP which yes went to IN (which is for all simplistic matters is a duplicate of the IP) was riddled with the new digital effects.

Your implication is that the IP was devoid of digital effects? This link describes it perfectly, but I am open to discussion if I am wrong. From what I understand the O-neg was cut to pieces, and lots of parts may have been actually damaged. I think some parts were actually even destroyed!

Could Disney finally give us the remastered, unedited Star Wars we want?

In closing the non-special non-anamorphic DVD's looked as bad as they did because they came from the laserdisc masters. Everyone knows that, and the reason the bluray looks as bad as it does is because it uses the crappy DVD specialized master which was a downsample from the specialized IP (I don't think the internegatives were scanned, but I am not sure on this and will take your word for it??).

Let's face it, if one is looking for the best for now, SS Edition and 4K77 is about as good as you are going to get. I hope I am wrong, but I don't think so. I am thinking another 5 years at best. Star Wars Disney has to be run into the ground first.

 

Firstly, no parts were destroyed, none whatsoever... all the trims, cuts, and composite elements taken from the O-neg were carefully archived and remain to this day.

The IP as initally struck from the restored O-negs (plural, if Empire and Jedi's IP's were struck from their respective O-negs specifically for the Special Editions process, which I'm not entirely clear whether they were or not, but presuming they were) had no digital effects; that took place later when said digital effects and other assorted revisions were created, printed back onto film, and inserted into the new IP, from which the new internegative was created. Sorry if I wasn't clear on that, but had no reason to think I hadn't been...

It would be interesting to know the current condition of the IP's struck in 1985, and if they are still usable as source... hell, they could very well be the source for the theatrical versions' footage as seen on the aforementioned Empire of Dreams documentary... even if not, they still exist in all likelihood in optimum storage conditions, and that in itself lays bare the lie that the telecine scans taken from those IP's, and used for the 1993 Laserdiscs, were the best available source for the 2006 theatrical versions' DVD release.

I'd buy that for a dollar .

 

Hey I am just going by what I have read. Until I see it, I cannot believe it. I hope you are right.

So two different IP's and one without digital changes. I would buy that for considerably more than a dollar. Thanks for the clarification.

 

If Disney's willing to spend $50 billion plus and Comcast is ready to spend $60 billion plus on Fox, then the $10-$20 million to redo Star Wars original cut in 4K is not a lot of money.

 

Good question. They have very fine restoration people at Disney, and in the past they've done everything themselves, using facilities at Lowry, Warner MPI, Fotokem/Burbank, MTI Film/Hollywood, and other post houses specializing in film restoration.

I think pretty much everything in the negatives was disassembled, but nowadays we can always put the jigsaw puzzle back together in digital conform. All the 35mm trims were saved in cans -- the trick is "massaging" the frames before and after the splices, because they'll need massive clean up, stabilization, and so on. There are ways of actually digitally recreating up to about 2 missing frames, but (as a VFX person once told me), "after that, it's animating from scratch."

IPs are not good enough for 4K -- too much loss of detail, even in a fine-grain contact print. The color is also better in the neg. It's true that IPs still exist for everything, so that's a good record of the original theatrical releases. In a few cases, they could drop in a shot here and there from IP and just match it, but the OCN will always be better. The color from IPs is always a bit off, because of the yellow backing. Bear in mind that IPs are lab elements never intended for actual viewing or projection, and even using them for video is challenging (but we did it for decades); the positive side is that IPs are generally in good shape, don't fade much, and they're splice-free; the bad side is the color, grain, and detail loss compared to original negatives.

BTW, it was Rick McCallum that I worked with every single day at ILM from January to early April of 2004. Good guy from my perspective, but I know he could be tough in business situations, and he made people nervous (which is typical for producers). I found him very open and honest to deal with, which I always appreciated.

I think it's a whole bunch of factors, but not owning the film is the biggest one. I think they are also hell-bent on getting Star Wars: Episode IX launched and successful next year, and they're painfully aware that they have to overcome a lot of audience and critical resistance on Solo. Once #9 is done, I could totally see a boxed set with all 9 films, and they could provide the original theatrical releases and the "director's cuts" as bonuses. 18 films for one low, low price. As I've said many times, I think this would please Lucas (since his versions would be intact) and also please the audience (since they get to choose what they want), and would make Disney happy (since they'd make a boat-load of money). But it would be thousands of hours of work on each one... even more so if they redo the VFX shots in 4K, which is technically possible.

 

I talked at length to the guy who actually did the restoration a few weeks ago, and we have a good understanding of each other. His intentions are good, but he agreed with all of my points. The problem is often what people don't know, and I think you only see a very narrow side of the situation. So-called restoration done by amateurs is dangerous, particularly when they start believing they and only they know how things must look. I again say: there's multiple points of view here. You get 10 world-class cinematographers in a room, each one is going to have a different argument on pictures.

Picture content is easy. Making it look good is much harder. It's gonna happen, but you guys gotta settle down and be patient. I get that the spirit of the Otaku is alive and well, even in America, but there's a point where you have to let the studios and professionals do their jobs. And you have to understand there are legal, financial, and technical reasons why this stuff takes a long time to do right.

 

Understood, but I’m not gonna wait in perpetuity. My kids are 5 and 7. We watch 4K77 together as a family and enjoy every minute of it.

 

Uh except for the fact that original negatives are absent of color timing that is often changed by the director when they create the IP used to make the IN for RELEASE PRINT.

So much misinformation. "too much loss of detail"....and yet the rest of the world enjoyed that "loss" just fine when they paid for the movie ticket.

Actually a lot of "professionals" started out as amateur and there have been a great many independent projects that have become the standard..see the new director's cut of Raising Cain for example.

To me this kind of thinking has a serious separation of practical vs clinical. I am not sure why there has to be this divide, but with "professionals" this is often the case.

Meanwhile back in the real world there are those of us that have families, friends, and not a lot of time for people to get their thumbs out of the .... waiting for just the right time to release the material as it should have been in the first place.

It wouldn't matter if it was just one opinion, but we all know that the technicians are trashing the information because they are only looking at one so called standard and ignoring the fact that what the audience saw is also important. Take a look at Bull Durham to see what a technician is capable of screwing up (and yes sometimes Directors and crew who have lost their minds through the years).

I get it, there are technicians that have disdain over someone possibly doing a job better than they can. I have seen it, there is actually sheer hate in some cases, and it just doesn't make practical sense.

 

Respectfully, I think Vidiot was talking in the context of what is best ideally for any new film transfer... there was always some inevitable loss of detail in the halcyon days of 35mm release prints (interestingly, both Chris Nolan and Quentin Tarantino are adamant advocates of traditional 35mm projection), and there is also some slight loss of detail in the chain from OCN to IP, but both can and indeed do still look really good when presented in optimum conditions... it's just that a transfer scanned from the OCN is that much better if we're talking about the ancillary market.

If the matter of cost and manual labor with regards sourcing a potential OT theatrical version re-release at full 2K resolution from first-generation IP's as opposed to a costly and labor-intensive 4K restoration from the original camera negatives is what tips the balance for Disney/Lucasfilm to actually pull the trigger on such a future endeavor... then it's IP for the win !!!

The fans aren't crying out specifically for fully-restored 4K transfers of the OT's theatrical versions, they're simply wanting desperately those versions made available once again in pristine condition... don't think for a moment that Disney wouldn't take that fact into consideration when crunching the numbers for such a potential release!

 

4K preferred, 1080p is fine too. Max the bandwidth. Make sure it sounds good. Fix little things if you can - like matte lines or bad dialog.

It doesn't have to be perfect, just nearly so.

 

Nobody here knows what's the situation at Lucasfilm right now. I don't care who worked there in 2004 or who know who and heard what. The fact is, there are conflicting reports and we can't say how the situation looks right now. We can only wait for something once Disney's takeover of Fox is completed. They will have A New Hope then and maybe they will release the theatrical versions in worthy quality.

However, I don't believe we will ever see an official release of the theatrical version of the old trilogy again.

 

There is no question that a digital scan for OCN has pleasing results if you ignore the fact that it can never be truly accurate to the original release print. It just can't because of the nature of optical color correction.

Now all that said...let us say there was an unending amount of money and you had a perfect situation where you could take disposable 35 mm camera quality, obviously that is going to nix even the best digital fixed focal point for reasons I laid above regarding the nature of the 3D capability of a camera with its lens.

Christopher Nolan and QT are adamant for good reason. 4K projection is not 4K results, and even if it was, it is still less than even a 35 mm print in optimum conditions. This is because of the chemical science behind it.

Now for continued consistent preservation, that is another matter all together. I am sure we could argue about this out to 10 pages and still not get a definite answer. But this foolishness about a film print being crap or a person taking a DSLR camera to every frame being garbage is just plain upsetting to me.

I applaud not only the effort, but the result, and until that scan of a better print happens, I am very very happy that it occurred, and the same goes for the scan on the 4K77 project.

 

This is so right. I remember when I was in the film club in school (early 80s), my classmates and I would go see films all the time and take notes. We would also see films we liked several times. One film, Altered States, we saw in 35mm twice in one night at two different theaters. Besides the scratches and sound blips, there was noticeable color differences; this was in the same city!. We also saw it in 70mm blow up a couple weeks later in D.C., which was the best presentation. The sound was spectacular.
I've seen some bad work using original archival elements, such as the original Blu-ray of Patton, well Patton looked pretty good on smaller HDTV back in 2008, but it didn't hold up on bigger screens. 20th Century Fox remastered it. I've also seen DVDs with transfers from exhibition prints, and have never seen a good one, but if it's all that exists in certain cases, then you're stuck with it or nothing.

 

I appreciate the efforts of the fan stuff also. And enjoy the 4K77. If its all we get then they are heroes. Im hoping for a Beatles mono box remastering miracle though. In which the films get transfered and completed to the absolute best quality and purity by professionals and lotsa money.

I never saw Star Wars on anything but a drive in theatre as a kid when it first came out.

I notice that the 4k77 pic is still fairly grainy.

Was Star Wars grainy looking when it first came out to that degree?

 

So what is the general consensus on the Silver Screen Edition v1.6 vs. 4K77 for those who don’t want to download both?