Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

The godfather movies are the same age as SW. they have been restored greatly . Can the same be done for the star wars trilogy ? putting the OOT on BR or Dvd

what happend the the negitives?

Originally posted by coolmovies
The godfather movies are the same age as SW. they have been restored greatly . Can the same be done for the star wars trilogy ? putting the OOT on BR or Dvd

what happend the the negitives?

Yes. I have seen stills and a clip of SW in 1080p. Looks amazing. I am not sure what the source was. But it works.

http://www.pauliesworld.org/swhighdef/

If the link doesn't work copy and paste it into your address bar.

The detail on Yoda is amazing.

Wow, that looks immaculate!

They have been restored already. That's what the the Special Editions were all about, besides the new scenes & FX.

Originally posted by THE JLRTENJAC
Wow, that looks immaculate!

I agree. I was pleasantly suprised.

You can download the two trilogies in 1080p on torrent sites. It will just take a few months depending on your internet connection. lol

it will take you years if you have no broadband

Originally posted by sweersa
Yes. I have seen stills and a clip of SW in 1080p. Looks amazing. I am not sure what the source was. But it works.

http://www.pauliesworld.org/swhighdef/

If the link doesn't work copy and paste it into your address bar.

The detail on Yoda is amazing.

The image comparison is interesting, but I can't honestly say the 1080 image is better.
The picture looks brighter in an unnatural way. The blacks in the previous image look darker & more cinematic - better contrast. Extra details & sharpness? Don't see it.

Originally posted by roughrider
The image comparison is interesting, but I can't honestly say the 1080 image is better.
The picture looks brighter in an unnatural way. The blacks in the previous image look darker & more cinematic - better contrast. Extra details & sharpness? Don't see it.

Look at Yoda's ears, you can see the material they used for the puppet. Focus on eyes and especially Princess Leia's skin. You can see every skin pour in detail.

Click on the seperate images to get it actual size...then do the comparison...you should see a huge difference.

Originally posted by coolmovies
it will take you years if you have no broadband

lol I feel bad for dial up users.

Originally posted by sweersa
Yes. I have seen stills and a clip of SW in 1080p. Looks amazing. I am not sure what the source was. But it works.

http://www.pauliesworld.org/swhighdef/

If the link doesn't work copy and paste it into your address bar.

The detail on Yoda is amazing.

You can see all the make up.

Originally posted by roughrider
The image comparison is interesting, but I can't honestly say the 1080 image is better.
The picture looks brighter in an unnatural way. The blacks in the previous image look darker & more cinematic - better contrast. Extra details & sharpness? Don't see it.

...ditto. I like the dvd ones better.

This is something I've noticed a lot, looking at demonstrations of HD & Blu-ray discs at the stores. The picture is quite sharp & clear, but it doesn't look film-like. It's so digitized it makes me think more of video games, looking at the colours.

I have an HDTV. But because I wasn't yet sold on Plasma or LCD, I went with another option called Slimtube. It's a regular CRT TV that got reduced in size by a third, but expanded out to 16:9 ratio. It actually has certain advatages over Plasma or LCD, in that it shows deeper blacks & natural contrast better than other HD technology, and still being a glass tube in a box, has justs one light source. You can watch it from any angle and the picture doesn't disappear. Only a few companies made them (Samsung, Sony, Panasonic), and no picture was bigger than 40 inches because the sets got extremely big & heavy. Anyway...
my HD picture with my HDMI DVD player still looks quite film-like. I'm still not willing yet to plunge into Blu-ray, while I have a choice.

I actually have never watched Episodes IV - VI on DVD. I had the laserdiscs on the Special Editions for years, and have managed to hold out. This new box set coming in November - maybe now I'll plunge.

i think it looks pretty amazing myself.

Originally posted by queeq
You can see all the make up.

I can imagine back in the 70's-80's they didn't really expect such high res video thus they didn't confiscate for that. But it still looks fine to me.

About the brightness and contrast some of you bring up, that is more than likely the TV not the Blu-Ray source. TVs have different contrast/brightness settings. Examples excluding custom settings would be "standard" "vivid" "movie" etc.

Well, the special edition DVDs are pretty good.

Well...

Originally posted by queeq
Well...

Most schools have special edition classes.

the make up was crap in those days just like arnie in termintor

And yet, Terminator was great despite the make up.

Indeed. A worthy HD film, filmed in non HD, Dirty Harry in Blu-ray is amazing and its older than Star Wars... go figure...

With HD you can see even every pore. Thus my fantasies about the characters are ever more so realistic.

Originally posted by Jedireaper
Indeed. A worthy HD film, filmed in non HD, Dirty Harry in Blu-ray is amazing and its older than Star Wars... go figure...

Errr...non-HD???? Mind you, the resolution of HD is high, but the resolution of film is infinite... It's the digital scan that makes it HD or not.

Originally posted by queeq
Errr...non-HD???? Mind you, the resolution of HD is high, but the resolution of film is infinite... It's the digital scan that makes it HD or not.

Is it really infinite? Doesn't it get grainy?

they try to remove the grain first

Originally posted by coolmovies
they try to remove the grain first

ummmmm

Thats what they did to the OT before it came out in 04. ANH had more grain then Citizen Kane

Originally posted by coolmovies
Thats what they did to the OT before it came out in 04. ANH had more grain then Citizen Kane

Really?

yes it took a whole month to clean all three. Now they have to make the image six times sharper so people can buy star wars again ! in Blu Ray

Originally posted by sweersa
Is it really infinite? Doesn't it get grainy?

It is infinite since it's analog. It's the size of the negative and the quality of the scanner that will determine it's crispiest outcome.

Originally posted by queeq
It is infinite since it's analog. It's the size of the negative and the quality of the scanner that will determine it's crispiest outcome.

Interesting. If this is true than why are some people quick to get rid of anything analogue?

Seems everything these days are doing from that to digital.

people want the best picture and sound possable thats why HD is the best you can get

Originally posted by coolmovies
people want the best picture and sound possable thats why HD is the best you can get

The best that I know of currently. But there is always something better that isn't the norm.

A few weeks ago, I watched Warren Beatty's REDS for the first time. Very good film, but what astounded me was the picture quality for a regular DVD. The film came out in 1981 & did win Best Cinematography, but the restoration work was so amazing, the film looked like it had just been released. On my HDTV with an upgrading player, it looked as good as any Blu-ray disc could be. That's just putting the necessary work into restoring something.

In the end projection from a first print off a 35 mm film apparantly beats any HD showing.

Originally posted by queeq
In the end projection from a first print off a 35 mm film apparantly beats any HD showing.

Cool, I would love to see this. Unfortunately it seems some theatres around here have bad film equipment though. Things always looked washed out..blurry, or off center.

You always get to see a copy in a theatre. HD allows us to get close to the first print experience.

Originally posted by queeq
You always get to see a copy in a theatre. HD allows us to get close to the first print experience.

Yeah, if you watch it at a good theatre it looks amazing!

Eh, not all that impressed. The face-detail of the characters improves, but everything looks really washed out and like roughrider said, less cinematic. I don't want my Star Wars looking like the CNN anchors do on my HDTV.

Originally posted by SnakeEyes
Eh, not all that impressed. The face-detail of the characters improves, but everything looks really washed out and like roughrider said, less cinematic. I don't want my Star Wars looking like the CNN anchors do on my HDTV.

Have any of you actually see Star Wars in HD for yourself?

Make sure it is good media on a good display, you can't possibly be put down by it.

Originally posted by sweersa
Cool, I would love to see this. Unfortunately it seems some theatres around here have bad film equipment though. Things always looked washed out..blurry, or off center.
This is something I've noticed since the new wave of movie theatres got built in the mid 1990's onward. With all the stadium seating & nice leg room, the picture on the bigger screens looks a little grainier; even blurry in the corners sometimes. This is the 35mm film frame being blown up even more. Go to an older, smaller theatre, and the frame on screen looks a bit sharper(if the projector is using enough light.)

Originally posted by roughrider
This is something I've noticed since the new wave of movie theatres got built in the mid 1990's onward. With all the stadium seating & nice leg room, the picture on the bigger screens looks a little grainier; even blurry in the corners sometimes. This is the 35mm film frame being blown up even more. Go to an older, smaller theatre, and the frame on screen looks a bit sharper(if the projector is using enough light.)

I see, that is interesting. Yeah, at the theatre I was referring too it is grainy...blurry, washed out and even the edges have the bad blur like you said.

We have another theatre, a bit farther to travel to get to, but it is totally digital, I do not know much about it technically just that they use digital projectors, and everything looks crisp and sharp, I just wish it were closer than the crappy old theatre.

Transfers from digital to film are not always a succes. It also depends on the quality of the projector of course.

Originally posted by queeq
Transfers from digital to film are not always a succes. It also depends on the quality of the projector of course.

I suppose, I am sure Lucas has Top Men working on it. Hehe.

That's reassuring.

Originally posted by queeq
That's reassuring.

Of course.

Indeed.

So you guys are gonna buy the OT in HD Again ??

If it comes, yes.

Looks like the record well be broken again for the fastest selling blu ray just like dvd

Originally posted by coolmovies
So you guys are gonna buy the OT in HD Again ??

I will buy it.

Sure.

need to start saving up

Me too, but first for a full HD tv and a BluRay player.

You mean 1080p tv I still have my old 28'' tv

Originally posted by coolmovies
You mean 1080p tv I still have my old 28'' tv

I am currently happy with my 19' Philips 720p display...my PC monitor's res is 1680 x 1050 so that is pretty close to "full HD."

I almost always watch HD material on my computer. No reason so put it on any of my HDTVs yet.

Any? You have a lot then?

Originally posted by queeq
Any? You have a lot then?

Two. My larger one is a little out of date though, it is 1080i and 720p, no 1080p.

Ah.

Originally posted by queeq
Ah.

I think technically 720p is considered technically superior over 1080i becuase the interlaced would divide the 1080 in half resulting is far less lines than 720p at any given time with the whole progressive vs. interlaced thing.

Yeah, the picture will be sharper in 720p, motion will be smoother in 1080i...

Originally posted by queeq
Yeah, the picture will be sharper in 720p, motion will be smoother in 1080i...

Really? I thought moving objects look bad on interlaced signals becuase at any given time you are really only give half the picture.

Progressive tends to strobe more than interlaced. Interlaced shows more pictures in a second. It's actually not that much different from a movie projector. The shutter opens and closes twice on the same movie frame. So interlaced kinda replicates that but by showing the half the lines at a time within a frame. Now, one second consists of 25 (Pal) or 30 (NTSC) frames, (24 in cse of US film, 25 in case of European film) so your eye won't detect it so quickly. But progressive is sharper since it shows the whole picture, but unlike film projection or interlaced video you only get to see 25 (Pal) or 30(NTSC) frames. In film you get to see 48 frames (2x24) and in interlaced you get to see 50 (or 60) fields(=half a frame). So it's not that hard to conceive progressive is a bit more strobier than filmprojection or interlaced.

But let's face it, with 1080i you get over 500 lines per shot, already a lot more than DVD. Both'll look nice.

reveals half of the picture and then the other half that shows half a frame

you get 1080 lines not 500

Originally posted by coolmovies
you get 1080 lines not 500

With interlaced you technically get 500+ lines at any give time. This saves on CPU usage or whatever TVs use.

Originally posted by queeq
Progressive tends to strobe more than interlaced. Interlaced shows more pictures in a second. It's actually not that much different from a movie projector. The shutter opens and closes twice on the same movie frame. So interlaced kinda replicates that but by showing the half the lines at a time within a frame. Now, one second consists of 25 (Pal) or 30 (NTSC) frames, (24 in cse of US film, 25 in case of European film) so your eye won't detect it so quickly. But progressive is sharper since it shows the whole picture, but unlike film projection or interlaced video you only get to see 25 (Pal) or 30(NTSC) frames. In film you get to see 48 frames (2x24) and in interlaced you get to see 50 (or 60) fields(=half a frame). So it's not that hard to conceive progressive is a bit more strobier than filmprojection or interlaced.

But let's face it, with 1080i you get over 500 lines per shot, already a lot more than DVD. Both'll look nice.

reveals half of the picture and then the other half that shows half a frame

That all makes sense. Thanks for the excelent explanation. Yeah, I would take 1080i over DVD (standard) any day.

But you would take 1080 progressive over interlaced right?

Well, with 1080i you do get 1080 lines per frame. But interlaced means the frame is divided in two separate fields of 540 each that follow each other.

And I don't know if there's a choice. about resolutions. In the end you get the set with the best picture. Resolution alone is not the only criterium.

Originally posted by queeq
Well, with 1080i you do get 1080 lines per frame. But interlaced means the frame is divided in two separate fields of 540 each that follow each other.

And I don't know if there's a choice. about resolutions. In the end you get the set with the best picture. Resolution alone is not the only criterium.

I understand the frames, but it seems atleast around here people look at 1080p as being superior. I see fewer newer 1080i sets and more 1080p.

so how many lines do i get from 720p tv?

Originally posted by coolmovies
so how many lines do i get from 720p tv?

720. Because the P means Progressive. So with 1080i (interlaced) you get 540 lines at any given time. For 1080p you get 1080 lines becuase it is progressive.

There is no such thing as 720i. I would always go with Progressive if possible.

Originally posted by sweersa
I understand the frames, but it seems atleast around here people look at 1080p as being superior. I see fewer newer 1080i sets and more 1080p.

1080p is the best then.

Originally posted by queeq
1080p is the best then.

Yeah, 1080p is theoretically better than 1080i becuase Progressive formats like 720p, and 1080p make the lines of resolution sequentially single pass or frame, which creates a smoother, "cleaner" image, especially with sports and other motion-intensive content.

As opposed to tubes, microdisplays (DLP, LCoS, and LCD rear-projection) and other fixed-pixel TVs, including plasma and LCD flat-panel, are progressive in nature, so when the incoming source is interlaced, like 1080i is, they convert it to progressive scan for display.

1080p is best with an HDMI cable. Without it, it appears the same to the untrained eye...

The untrained eye cannot see the difference between VHS and Blu Ray... and since most tv viewers have untrained eyes...

Originally posted by queeq
The untrained eye cannot see the difference between VHS and Blu Ray... and since most tv viewers have untrained eyes...

lol Beta Max > all other formats!

I think you will like this Queeq.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UHDV

Interesting. Sounds like a b!tch to work with but for a replacement of film, this is prolly the next stage. I doubt it's very much use for home use unless you insist on having an immense screen in your house and want to see it crisp sitting 2 metres away.

Originally posted by queeq
Interesting. Sounds like a b!tch to work with but for a replacement of film, this is prolly the next stage. I doubt it's very much use for home use unless you insist on having an immense screen in your house and want to see it crisp sitting 2 metres away.

Yeah, I can't see how it would be very useful in a home environment. It would take a serious computer, or physical media capacity and a sweet player to do this.

I think it would be more popular for the cinema.

Indeed. Large projection would benefit greatly from this technology, as well as integration with CGI.

Originally posted by queeq
Indeed. Large projection would benefit greatly from this technology, as well as integration with CGI.

The nice thing about CGI is it is scalable in some respects. The 3d models I work on are unless you use a texture based on an image rather than a material.

I didn't quite get that.