Original/Unaltered "Star Wars" Trilogy on Blu-Ray in 2017

Here's a 4K video of a clip from 4K77, (a theatrical 35mm print). Even with youtube compression, if you switch back and forth from 72op (only 80 lines short of 800 lines) and 4K: I bet you will see more detail.

 

Where can I download this version? Is there a better version?

 

Check out my following post. This had been proven.

 

Confused. The video does not play. And the web with all of it's compresion isn't a place to compare picture quality. Didn't know Star Wars was released in 4k. Pretty cool. You claim Harmy's scanned answer print is better than Disney's UHD relase which is scanned from the negative. Don't think so.

A movie house print is 4 stages from the negative. That is a fact. And I pretty sure Harmy didn't use a state of the art Spirit Scanner.

 

It has, there was a Disney 4K Bluray release done recently

Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope 4K Blu-ray Release Date March 31, 2020
Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back 4K Blu-ray Release Date March 31, 2020
Star Wars: Episode VI - Return of the Jedi 4K Blu-ray Release Date March 31, 2020

And project 4K77 and 4K83 (soon to be joined by 4K80) which are restored 4K scans of theatrical prints.

Project 4K77 | The Star Wars Trilogy
Project 4K80 | The Star Wars Trilogy
Project 4K83 | The Star Wars Trilogy

 

Cut directly from the negative back then (1978) would yield you 1400 lines tops. His print is not. 2k tops maybe if Harmy had aces to an early stage print and he were using a Spirit scanner. No way they would transfer his Star Wars Print.
What scanner did he use?

 

My mistake. Check the new post.

 

Harmy didn't have anything to do with the 4K77 and associated releases, in case that's still a point of confusion. That's another group doing one thing: presenting a fan restoration of a theatrical print.

Harmy's Despecialized editions use the following sources:

It's a composite presentation, but works well enough for me.

Also I should point out that we're not actually allowed to talk about where to acquire such things.

 

Yea my mistake. But it doesn't matter what resoution he scanned his print at. You cannot get 4k out of 35 mm movie house print. You can maybe get 3.8 K out of a 35 mm negative at best.

Worse he had made his film look worse. If you try and scan a film/ negative way past it's resolution the detail will actually go down. This is how they know 3.8 k is the max for a 35 mm negative. When they scanned it at 5k or higher the resolution looked worse.

 

I don't want to be rude, but I'm genuinely confused (and curious) where you are getting these hard and fast resolution numbers for analog film.

Harmy is not apart of 4K77 and 4K83, he does a different project. Harmy does Despecialized, Team Negative One does 4K77 and 4K83.

Team negative doesn't specify their scanner but does say this:
Project 4K77 | The Star Wars Trilogy
"When a film is professionally scanned in 16-bit color as DPX image files, every single frame weighs in at 100 MB."

 

Got ya! (Wink)

Sorry guys, the 1997 versions are fine for me.

 

I have posted this already. Please read.


Taken from a known 35 mm film resolution test:

"...The best 35 mm release print was also projected in six selected movie theaters in various countries, and an international panel of experts assessed the resolution of the projected images, using a well-defined formal assessment procedure. The MTF measurements performed on the films have shown that the MTF on the negative film drops to 10% of its peak value at about 2100 lines/PH (lines per picture height). It gradually continues to drop along the film chain from negative to interpositive to internegative and to release print, and it reaches 10% of its peak value at about 1000 lines/PH when measured on the release print. When measured on the answer print, it reaches 10 % of its peak value at about 1400 lines/PH. The MTF measured on the 35 mm answer print film quite closely matches the one measured on the 35 mm interpositive film. This is not surprising, since a 35 mm interpositive is a positive film printed from the original 35 mm negative, as a 35 mm answer print is. Obviously, it must be expected that the resolution measured on the 35 mm release print (or on the answer print) will suffer some reduction when the print is projected in a movie theater, due to the passage of the image through the projector mechanism and lens Indeed, this was confirmed by the subjective assessment tests. They have shown the following. • There was quite a spread in the resolution performance of the six selected movie theaters where the assessment tests were performed. • There was also some spread in the resolution performance of each selected movie theater, when measured at various points of the screen. • The highest resolution that the expert assessors could still discern in the sharpest part of the screen (not necessarily in its center) in the most performing movie theater was about 875 lines/PH. • The average resolution in the sharpest part of their screen of the six movie theaters was about 750 lines/PH. • The highest resolution averaged over the eight multiburst groups measured on the screens of the six selected movie theaters was about 685 lines/PH. • A wide range of resolution values will be obtained, depending on the stocks, the laboratory, the type of printer, etc. Note: The matters covered in this report are more fully treated in the following ITU-R documents. 6/149 9.20.01 35mm Cinema Film Resolution Test Report. 6-9/3Rev.13.5.02 35mm Cinema Film Resolution Test Report. Update of Part 4 of 6-9/3. 6-9/47 (Rev.2) 9.20.02. Revised Report on the status of the 35mm Answer Print Resolution Test....."

 

Ah, I see the confusion. This only takes into account "the resolution of the projected images". A scan of a 35mm film and a projection of that same film is very different. Mainly because, as you keep pushing the same image onto larger and larger surfaces: the physical grain (the smaller visual component of a film image) is also blown up in size. Thus something projected on a movie screen can seem to be one visual resolution, and something scanned and shown on a conventional-sized TV or monitor can have a very different resolution.

 

Between the Time Stone, Pebodies machine, the Dolorian and the Victorian chair thats floating around out there, can’t anyone not only get the right 77 version but also erase the other 6 movies... Let’s remove all traces of Jar Jar and the whining mad magazine Solo Son.

 

George couldn't even get the right 77 version, according to him

 

Not of you can understand - Jar Jar Binks was supposed to be annoying.

 

Mmmmm.....Actually I am wrong slightly. The 700 - 800 lines for 4th stage movie prints is true. However, that would be the resolution for the projected 35 mm print of Star Wars Ep. 4. If it was scanned I believe the resoution would be much higher than 800 lines. Could be 2k. But no print can give more resolution than the negative. Impossible.

I can scan a 35 mm negative at 8 k and I will get a big file. But that doesn't mean I get 8k resolution. So just because some fan got his 35 mm print of Ep 4 scanned and got back a mega file does not mean he now has a 4k movie. This is easy to understand.

 

It'll still look better than 1080p, though. I think 4k77 and 4k80 look fantastic (going off the noDNR versions here).

 

Film is so different than video. It may be that some people prefer the way film looks as opposed to it being higher resoution.

The 1080p I just pulled out of my butt. Although I have heard the number mentioned. There is also the factor that it is the original Star Wars movie. Many fans hate the 1997 versions. So I think think personal bias had a lot to do with it.

This reminds me of so many collectors who insist that those Motown 1960 singles have more bass than the CDs when Motown used to low cut all their singles (pre 1969) at 75 hz.

 

I don't see how the new versions could be true 4k since all the added GCI effects were done in early 720 HD. And as I have been told many times by members on here that, "Uprezz just adds more pixels. It isn't giving you more resolution....." So they should call the new STAR WARS movie (720 /4k) Disney Hybrid Mess.

 

Ahh no. They are 720 / 4k. Remember all of the CGI effects were done in early 720 HD. And Uprezzing just adds more pixels. It doesn't give you more resolution.

 

The film itself is 4k, the effects are lower res, the DI is still over 4k, I think.

 

Yep to the point I walked out of the theater... mission accomplished.

 

No, Harmy's despecialized takes or took the original 2011 blu-ray as a base and uses various sources to fill in gaps or paint over the top of the Special edition additions and changes. The introduction of 4k77, Star Wars the silver screen edition and various print scans I think has rendered the GOUT upscales needless for the version he is currently working on.

They really were not, you just don't seem to have a clue what you are talking about. I've been reading through your posts and it's all incredibly arrogant I have to say.
All CGI effects were never done in "720 HD" The standard is 2k and film is capable of a heck of a lot of detail.

Project 4K77 | The Star Wars Trilogy

 

1) Why is no one talking about that perfect condition early 1977 release film found in Mexico a few years back? Yeah the audio is no go, but apparently the film is perfect? Why would that not be an amazing original source to work from?

2) I’m confused.. there is or there is not a 4k version being made or already made?

3) Does anyone agree that there were more than one version sent out in 77 to theaters? I Know as fact, when I was 6, we stood in line, in I believe September, in Mansfield Ohio for hours to see New Hope. I know (I can see it clearly) there was a scene with Luke and Bigs talking before Bigs left, and I never saw that scene again in any version.