Terrell

Maybe so! But Hunt lost any credibility he had because he obviously didn't take his head out of his ass long enough to actually watch the DVDs and compare them to the LDs. If he had, he would have known the DVDs look noticeably better than the LDs and much better than the bootlegs, despite the fact they're not anamorphic. Instead he bitched and moaned claiming that the bootlegs were as good as the transfers on the official release, and that's a bunch bullsh*t.

As for the new chick, she's the only good reason to watch the show. Nice eye candy!

Exactly! Too bad Bill Hunt didn't check them out before going on Attack of the Show. He made some good points, but blew it when he mentioned the bootlegs look as good as these. The official LDs don't even look good as these.

digitalfreaknyc

Does anyone know what rate the english 2.0 was put on the disc at?

MontyPythonFan

So what? That still doesn't make these aged transfers acceptable. This release is nowhere near DVD quality.

milo bloom

I think George Lucas lost any credibility he had when he released a 13 year old telecine on DVD, and anybody that defends these transfers because they're "better than the LD's/bootlegs" has absolutely no credibility in my book.

This is the year 2006, we may not have our flying cars we were promised all those years ago, but I sure as hell expect an anamorphic transfer on my DVDs.

sracer

I understand the desire to have the best possible quality, but to say that it is "nowhere near DVD quality" is just plain silly.

I'm not going to over-compensate for that hyperbole by saying that these are the best they could/should be... because they are not. But they are definitely DVD quality... whatever THAT means.

No one is defending them BECAUSE they are better than the LD's/bootlegs, we are trying to offer a reference for comparison. I could compare it to other films on DVD, but there are too many variables to make such a comparison worthwhile.

Dr. DVD

Returned mine to Wal-Mart and got a refund with no questions asked. Wal-Mart will accept just about any line you shoot them.

Jay G.

I'm don't think most people here are defending Lucasfilm's decision to use a 13-year old non-anamorphic transfer. That was a horrible decision, any way you slice it. I do think people are trying to defend the transfer itself, in that it's not as bad as some people are trying to claim it is, and it's really the best quality version of the OUT on video so far.

I think there are a number of people who would be pleased with this release as an upgrade to their VHS or LD copies who may be scared away from it by people claiming "it's worse than the bootlegs," or "it's crappy," or are listening to the unsubstantiated rumors that an updated, anamorphic transfer of these films is a real possibility any time soon.

I think it's important to keep perspective, and remember that these "bonus" DVDs, while far below current DVD standards and disrespectful of one of the most popular and successful film trilogies ever, is still better than any other version that has been released or possibly will ever be released.

Dvdlovr24

But it still sucks when you have a 16x9 TV.

milo bloom

Go back and read some of the part 1 of this thread, or check out some of the posts on the Star Wars forums (esp theforce.net), where people would post anything they could to defend Lucas' decision, most notably nonsense like "you can't do anamorphic enhancement on movies this old", or "making them anamorphic would change the movies, and you want the originals don't you", or as said by Joshua "massive tool" Griffin on Attack of the Show the other night, "watching these poor quality releases reminds me of being a kid, and that's what I want to share with my kids".

It's all hogwash, and I can't see there being any reasonable defense for it.

(And if they truly believe that about anamorphic enhancement, then I am doubly purposed to correct them.)


Here you go again with the "better than what we have" argument. I'm not going to accost people on the street and tell them they're idiots, and I have not directly flamed anybody on this site who said they're going to buy them. But I will not stand idly by and allow uneducated consumers to buy a subpar release without knowing what they're getting into. I'm reading plenty of posts here and other sites of people who have bought these and are reasonably satisfied with these, using all manner of zoom and scaling functions on their DVD players and displays. While the cynic in me wishes these had been truly crap-tacular, as it would have given me more ammunition for this battle; it's somewhat reassuring to know that even this half-assed release has something going for it.

milo bloom

Bravo. I have a pretty decent player, and decent 16x9 tv, but neither one has any sort of function to allow me to watch non 16x9 widescreen material in progressive scan. I can zoom it if I turn off the progressive, but then I'm losing the extra quality that comes from that. And I certainly don't want to watch a pillorboxed 4x3 letterbox image just so I can watch it in progessive scan.

I just feel I shouldn't have to plunk down a couple thou just to watch the goddamm Star Wars trilogy.

If I had a different rig like some of the people that can zoom or scale this, would I be singing a different tune? Maybe, but I've committed myself to this, and I'm not wavering.

sracer

I have a 16x9 TV, and a quality DVD player and it doesn't "suck". Have you actually played these discs on your setup?

ShaunoftheDead

if my Sony Wega has a 16x9 setting, along with 4:3 Letterbox and 4:3 Pan and Scan, does that mean I have a 16x9 tv that you all speak of?

Jay G.

I have an HDTV that zooms in 480p, plus I have a DVD player that will zoom in non-anamorphic images as well. Each were well underneath "a couple thou." In fact, I think my Samsung upcoverting DVD player can be had for under $100 now.

Also, you said you can zoom in on your TV, just not when the DVD player's outputting a progressive signal. It's unfortunate that you can't have the best of both worlds, but saying you have to "plunk down a couple thou just to watch the goddamm Star Wars trilogy" is a bit of an exaggeration.

Jay G.

Not really. What shape is your TV? A 16:9 TV will have a wider screen than the standard 4:3 TVs that have been around for decades.

caligulathegod

Your TV has 16x9 enhancement, but is not a 16x9 TV. If your DVD player is set for 16x9 then anamorphic DVDs will look stretched out. You then engage the Wega's 16x9 mode and it concentrates the scan lines in the center of the screen and letterboxes the image, so you get a true 16x9 enhancement on a 4x3 screen. These DVDs won't need to have the 16x9 mode engaged for the OUT. It will just show up as a letterboxed image. On Widescreen TVs, it will show up as letterboxed and pillerboxed (that is, letterboxed on all 4 sides).

bunkaroo

Here's a fun hypothetical:

So the current "bonus" discs are the equivalent of DVD-quality circa 1997-1998 for many studios.

If Lucas had released these in 1998 by themselves without doing any work, do you think fans would have praised him for it, given they would have met the standards of the time (more or less)?

If he had did it this way, he would have thwarted the bootleg market pretty early, and he could say "I already gave you these on DVD". There are still many films on DVD that have not been re-released since the early days (True Lies).

Surely people would be looking for remasters of them by now if it had happened that way, but that doesn't mean he would have felt obligated to do it.

I guess my point is it probably wouldn't be as hard to swallow if we had lived with these discs for 8 years, rather than get something today that barely met DVD standards 8 years ago.

gutwrencher

Wow. Now I know that I've been out-of-the-loop the past 4 or 5 months(btw, thanks for the constant emails and well wishes) and I realize that kayaking whitewater and rivers has become my new summer mistress....but I'm to understand that the new OT's are 4:3 letterboxed? So....it's going to be just like the original Planet of the Apes release...."widescreen in a box"?

No sale, kids. Not even if you held a magnum to my skull.

And don't worry all those concerned....my library and films will once agin be my nasty slut once winter arrives.

Philip Reuben

Yes...

...if he hadn't said that the VHS release a few years earlier was the last chance to own the originals.

milo bloom

Yep. An old 4x3 letterboxed, meant for laserdisc transfer. Admittedly, a lot of folks are saying it's decent quality, so it's up to you.

milo bloom

If you'll find the part one of this thread, I say pretty much what you're saying. I think Lucas could have kept a lot of this bitching at bay if he had released something, anything in 98 or so, or whenever he did the SEs on LD and VHS.

And yes, I know he doesn't have to do anything he doesn't want to, but you gotta admit it would have been awful nice of him to do something like that.

gutwrencher

Thanks, milo. Decent quality or not....I'll take it when it comes anamorphic. I just now saw Empire on a WS set. "In the box"....looks like hell. Stretched a little in fake mode....still looks like hell.

No way, George.

outcastja

Did you get the set with the graphic novels? If so were you able to keep them and just return the DVDs?

Brooklyn

Not even close. Take a look at some scenes in Star Wars where a lot of sky is
shown, like the lead up to Mos Eisley. The center of the picture is yellowed with
age. These don't look good at all. I just don't understand these defensive
comments when they look this bad. Maybe if they're watching them on a
PSP

Peep

I've been trying to keep up with the discussion, but may have missed some replies. Does anybody have pointers to bit-rate discussions? Are the original transfers on single or dual-layer discs?

milo bloom

I read somewhere else the movie files are about 7 gig, so that's an automatic dual layer.