4K VS Blu-ray

I hear what you're saying. Moody can be good -- very good. And I don't have the luxury of watching material on a proper 4K screen. I've seen some 4K content in such a context, and it was pretty dazzling. However, based on the available clips, the colour palette leaves me cold. No pun intended. It's not just moody, in my opinion, but dour looking. From one extreme (the earlier DVD and Blu-ray transfers) to another. 


I agree that the latter is more grounded and sober. Even sombre. But Lucas was obviously operating from the inverse rationale before. The thing about Star Wars being a "long time ago", and from "far, far away", is that it also calls for a storybook approach: spectral beauty, intensity, vivacity. A bold presentational ethic: a sense of something "larger than life". The rich colour palettes that Lucas gave the movies formerly, when he approved the remastering process that led to the earlier DVD and Blu-ray releases, seemed to imply he wanted the viewer to be dazzled with light and colour, and completely pulled into a surreal-looking (if still "objective"-feeling) fantasy world. Much like the earlier Lucasfilm logo that glistened and cycled through a beautiful colour wheel. But now the movies have apparently been made to look "gritty" and "filmic", and sort of austere and cold -- heavy, weighty, serious. Not unlike the ugly, metallic, "vault door" replacement Lucasfilm logo. In the words of Anakin: "We lost something." And here is Ingram telling us: "Not to worry -- we are still flying half a ship."  

(I was going for playful more than snarky there. Hope that came across.)

I never read the fuller colouration of the earlier home-video releases as faulty. Yes, they obviously had their technical limitations, with a somewhat overzealous remastering/enhancement process, designed to maximise the visual impact of the films on inferior sub-HD and 2K non-HDR formats. And it seems they were also intended to create more of an even playing field between the PT and OT: to make all six films look like one hyper-colourful, glossy, gorgeous saga.

Frankly, I never minded the more buffed-up look they had before, and didn't see it as out-of-sync with the fantastical nature of the films, at all. Indeed, it could be argued that there was some restorative/scanning entity behind all the films: some mega colour-loving god-being who took those faint, flickery holographic documents, in their imperfect, hazy state, and thousands of years hence, made them all bright and shiny and full of enhanced Technicolor glory, then beamed the whole thing back through time.

In many ways, the way the films looked before was the end-point -- the proverbial icing on the cake -- of George Lucas' epic digital experimentation: lovingly enhanced star children cavorting within his vast technological emporium. It was the artist bringing to fulfillment what he saw in his mind's eye when he began his cinematic Hero's Journey. Here is a quote that suggests he was striving to have them look more than regularly filmic all along:

theasc.com/magazine/starwars/articles/starwars/behind/pg2.htm

"We were trying to get a cohesive reality. But since the film is a fairy tale, I still wanted it to have an ethereal quality, yet be well composed and, also, have an alien look. I visualized an extremely bizarre, Gregg Toland-like surreal look with strange over-exposed colors, a lot of shadows, a lot of hot areas. I wanted the seeming contradiction of strange graphics of fantasy combined with the feel of a documentary."

Here are the best, highest-quality examples I could find of the old transfer versus the new:






I'm repeating myself, but screw it:

The new one is really drab. I'm shocked at the difference.

Yes, I really prefer the brightness, the amped-up colours, and the angel-blue tonations of the earlier transfer, after the films were handed over to Lowry Digital.

That period, to me, was when Lucas buffed the films to perfection. He had them look exactly how he wanted them to. I don't actually believe these 4K versions are to his standards. I mean, they might be, but he essentially washed his hands of Star Wars after selling, and was pretty resolute that the movies were as he intended them to be on DVD and Blu-ray before. They were also enhanced when he was in full "prequel"-mode, when he was fully invested in his world, and fully immersed in his digital toolset: when, in short, he had rich colours and vigorous palettes fully on his brain. The greens of Endor are meant to lock hands with the greens of Naboo. Cloud City is meant to evoke Coruscant and Kamino with pristine interiors, grubby industrial areas that remain awash with colour, and deeply-saturated skies. Thankfully, his "Star Wars: Frames" book is also based on the earlier transfers. I don't think it would look nearly so good if it was based on these ones.


Of course. I always value reading your thoughts. Like I said before, maybe it's time to just roll with the changes. I mean, the films have been tinkered with and altered so much, what's one more set of master versions, amongst all the others? Perhaps, for all I've said, the 4K masters will end up growing on me. There's a lot of Cliegg Lars in me. But there's a good deal of Jar Jar in me, too. 

One more point I neglected to mention regarding Lucas' vision. Word is, these new transfers were struck from the scans he originally intended for 3D release. Some even perpetuate his involvement as being more recent and direct, to which I personally give little credence. And even if these are the product of said 3D prints, such does not exactly validate some newfound vision for the saga in its finality, as stereoscope post-conversion is something of a different beast altogether that often plays to a slightly different set of rules in how your picture is graded. I also believe as you have elaborated how the 2011 Blu-ray encapsulation of the saga indeed reflects a clear enough intent on Lucas' part to visually homogenize both trilogies closer together than ever before. But then, this is George Lucas, after all: Mr. Engine Block -- the tinkerer -- with a myriad of artistic inclinations, conceits, whimsies through which he seems compelled to scroll like some kind of mental Rolodex. Star Wars is almost seasonal in that respect. I don't know how much he approved of these 4Ks (or if at all) based on what he deemed merely acceptable from a detached commercial standard versus yet another slightly alternate inspiration for how the saga might be presented. At the end of the day, though, all I can do is side with my own partiality.      

That's interesting to know. I wonder what his angle was at the time, assuming it was anything outside-or-beyond the possible demands of an eventual 3D conversion. Perhaps he intended not to supersede the 2011 Blu-ray set but rather to accessorize with something parallel yet diverting. Goddamn Lucas. That SOB would fine-tune the Sistine Chapel six ways to Sunday if he could. He's the Doctor Manhattan of filmmakers.

Holy Sync Whole City, Batman!

You're right in a lot of ways, Ingram. Lucas is very much the tinkerer who never seems entirely satisfied. Imposing all these discrepant versions on the world is part of his mad genius. He surely knows, at this point, that every new version of Star Wars is an event unto itself. Although I sometimes wind up feeling a bit exasperated by it, like Threepio: "Will this ever end?"

Moving on...

(Albeit -- in true saga style -- backwards)



Right. But these still look (to me) shabby and unfinished. TPM very much retained its storybook palette for the 3D conversion. The one problem that beset that transfer, and that apparently still exists, was a very liberal application of DNR (Digital Noise Reduction). Some shots were practically smoothed out of existence. Not a hint of grain or even any fine detail remaining. Plus some scenes were a bit weak on contrast and painfully lacked deep, inky blacks. In other ways, however, that transfer looked great. Very modern, very capable. While I wouldn't call these 4K transfers terrible, they still strike me as inadequate. As far as big releases go, the OT movies have never appeared so washed-out. Not even "of their time", I put it to you, but washed-out.


Of course. You always articulate things fairly and brilliantly. However, I think what might have happened here, given the non-stop clamour for the "original theatrical versions" (to see the light of day in good quality), is that these "Lucas-approved" transfers were deliberately given a conservative look as a sop to all the moaners, to make it seem like they have (more or less) gotten their wish and been listened to. I don't dislike them on that front. I would even say those people had a point. But if you're going to make the original films look more "era appropriate", it shouldn't be an excuse to rush the films out in the highest quality format they've ever been released on, only to put them out with dull, faded colours. And there probably was some rushing. The YouTube generation has probably got Disney/Lucasfilm worried, with various "Despecialised" versions out there, and even cleaned-up 4K scans available, if you know where to look. So I think the mentality might have been along the lines of: "Let's throw these out quickly and make an easy buck." 



I'm not disputing the notion that the earlier DVD and Blu-ray transfers were overdone. They had a very bold look, but it was something of a cheat, and I can agree that the loud colours and other technical problems (black crush, overblown whites, smoothing, fake grain) went some way to sapping the films of their rugged, in-camera purity. That said, the then-new digital transfers still retained some sense of grubbiness and imperfection, very different to the way modern films look; even those shot on film, which are immediately scanned into a digital imaging pipeline, ensuring that many photochemical limitations of the past (which lend older films their charm) are bypassed. Still, this new 4K release clearly brings the filmic look of the OT movies out on a whole new level. And yet, as I've been saying, they put out transfers with a very tamped-down look to them. Old movies can look incredibly deep and vivid. I gave the example of "Lawrence Of Arabia" earlier. Another film from the same blockbuster era I mentioned earlier (for a fairer comparison) was "Close Encounters". These films both look excellent in 4K. Why not Star Wars?  

I shall now proceed to indicate the difference with a variety of stills that proceed in chronological order through the OT movies. 

Beginning where you began:

2011 version:



Yes, the colours are so extreme here, it's like an explosion of paint -- psychedelic, even. Although this still looks very fetching, I can agree that it's a touch overdone, and there's nothing wrong with craving a more subtle version. 

The 2020 version:




Here's where we run into problems. The colours are now exceptionally muted. In addition, the image has been pushed to look colder, and more blue-dominated. It certainly looks solid this way, with no colour bleeding or the noise/sharpening problems that plagued the 2011 transfers. However, it also deprives the film of its true vivacity, and is actually an injustice to the original lensing.

2020 enhanced version:



I've boosted the saturation here and changed the overall colour temperature of the image. I feel this restores a good deal of the lush "Flash Gordon" aesthetic of the original film (though, of course, the "Flash Gordon" serials were done in black and white), and that it's a good compromise between the 2011 and 2020 versions -- slightly louder and more vibrant than the official 2020 4K transfer, but not as crazy as the "disco-light" intensity of the 2011 2K transfer. 

A quick note before continuing:

I've limited myself to screencaps posted on blu-ray.com for the original "Complete Saga" 2K Blu-ray release in 2011 and screencaps posted for their reviews of the new 4K 2020 transfers for each of the OT films. The rest of these screencaps draw only from the 4K screencaps, with the upcoming exception of the shot of Alec Guinness/Obi-Wan on Mos Eisley (which you used yourself), which also includes a 2K Blu-ray screencap, to again illustrate the basic difference(s) in my approach. I will annotate accordingly.

2020 version:

 
This version looks so chill next to the 2011 version (break out your DVD/Blu-ray or watch clips on YouTube). There's quite a difference! But like before, too much of a difference. Relievedly, black crush has now disappeared, and colours are far more understated and natural. But there's again a bleak quality to the image, unrepresentative of the way it was originally shot. Star Wars was intended to look warm, but this image has a faded characteristic, more consistent with the way the original negative was said to have degraded in the 1990s before the Special Edition release. Here's how I think it should look:

2020 enhanced version:



I've given the image a decent lift (no pun intended) by boosting saturation (but like before, hopefully not too much), and I've also again shifted the colour temperature in a warmer direction -- without "strangling" the life, I hope, out of the original Technicolor aesthetic. The rebel soldier is, after all, supposed to have an earthen appearance, embodying the more "natural" ways of the rebels, versus the spartan, fascist purity of Vader and the Empire. That, to me, barely comes across in the official 2020 version. In addition, the red light above the escape pod behind the stormtrooper at screen-left is more vibrant, more as you'd expect a warning light to be in a non-diffused spatial environment. But most of all, I prefer the lusher look of my enhanced version. It's warmer and slightly more opulent, without running away with itself -- in my opinion, anyway. 

2011 version:

 
Just checking back in here with this one additional 2011 screencap. It is highly characteristic of an issue many complained about with the earlier DVD and Blu-ray transfers: Not only does it look a touch oversharpened, but there is a weird and slightly offputting magenta aspect to the flesh tones and the lighter parts of the image. It's by no means a terrible image, but it isn't all that accurate to the softer, more pastel-like look this scene had originally. Here's how the new transfer handles it:

2020 version:



This isn't bad, and the beige tones scream 1970s. But, to my eyes, the image still looks a bit watered-down and washed-out. It's liveable, but I decided to pump it up a little bit:

2020 enhanced version:



Okay. So now we have an image that has better saturation and slightly denser tones on Alec Guinness' face. The image remains free of the magenta shift plaguing the 2011 version. As such, the windshield looks more transparent, and R2 is more his "seen better days" self. The bottom half of Luke's hair also retains a nice sheen that's missing in the 2011 version, which flattened it down to a dull, muddy-brown texture. Perhaps Sir Alec's face is still slightly too saturated, but this is also, to me, the best the shot has ever looked. 

2020 version:



A really nice, solid, sharp image. Tones are very controlled and Lucas' exceptional framing (as on all these images) is strongly apparent. However, we are again in a situation where this transfer is playing it conservative. C-3PO is meant to be a golden tin man. The wires in his mid-section barely show any colour, and his eyes barely appear to be turned on (I know this is inconsistent in the actual movie and part of the film's rusted charm, but images like this exacerbate the problem). So I decided to go to work and tried to spruce it up:

2020 enhanced version:

 
In the words of Obi-Wan: "There. That's better." I like the finished result. Threepio in all his glory. Yet it's possible I overdid the saturation a tad. After all, this isn't an exact science, and I'm not being paid or using calibration tools. It's very much a subjective process. Nevertheless, a persistent issue with all the screencaps I looked at and worked on, in my opinion, is a noticeable dullness in colours and saturation. I think I also gave this image a small shift to a warmer colour temperature -- another consistent issue with the 2020 transfers as they presently exist. They end up being sort of bleachy-looking and metallic in their overall effect. That, to me, isn't Star Wars. 

In all cases, I was looking to give the images a boost in colour, primarily; and where I felt it appropriate, to sweeten up their underlying warmth. Again, this is Star Wars: a rich, operatic space adventure serial. You basically only have one shot to get it right. Or to put it another way, which perhaps better encapsulates what I mean: These images and environments are all fleeting,. This glimpse of a fantastical world is over in something like 3,000 shots (all three OT movies combined). So you had better make those shots count and be properly saturated and look appealing -- not overcast, not metallic, not dull. 

I will now present the remaining shots from TESB and ROTJ without attendant commentary. The shots are simply meant to give a flavour of the difference -- a measure of how far these transfers, based on what I've seen already, appear to fall short, by doing an injustice to the photochemical brilliance of the movies and the delectable imagery they were designed to convey. Obviously, your mileage may vary:

2020 version:



2020 enhanced version:



2020 version:



2020 enhanced version:



2020 version:



2020 enhanced version:



2020 version:



2020 enhanced version:



2020 version:



2020 enhanced version:



2020 version:



2020 enhanced version:



2020 version:



2020 enhanced version:



2020 version:



2020 enhanced version:




------------------------


Perhaps I still overdid saturation on a few, but the enhanced versions are more in line with what I would expect from a top-of-the-line 2020 4K release. These are, after all, three of the most iconic films ever made, and they have netted their copyright owners billions of dollars in revenue. In my opinion, they can do better than faded, substandard versions which now sit as the "premium" way to watch these much-beloved movies. 

You could pick out moments where the bolder colors of the OT DVDs helped certain scenes, but this new Special Edition trilogy is the first release of the OT where you can't really say there's anything wrong with it. I can't stick my nose up at that.

The only thing I didn't like with the Raiders remaster was the matte lines on some shots, which are now more noticeable since they weren't adressed in the new scan. For instance: See the plane's tail

But other than that, it's a great remaster.

I'm warming (pun intended) to the rather subdued nature of the new OT color grades. I was initially impressed with the general image improvement but some observations here gave me pause soon after. However, I'm now back on the bandwagon! It's my finally spending quality time with the OT in such pristine quality and high resolution (thanks to my new 4K-capable setup!) that's responsible for this revival of enthusiasm and my falling in love with the OT all over again. Also, Cryogenic's highly agreeable notion that each of the three trilogies has its own unique identity allows me to sleep at night in the shadow of the all-too-familiar "What should have been..." fanboy rodeo.

Based on what I've seen of them, on YouTube, the transfers do look still look pretty nice -- and I can certainly understand the appeal if you have a 4K television.

I also think video uploads don't put across 4K content too well. Sometimes, yes. But when HDR is involved, the colours, brightness, and contrast get all messed up, and the result is a subdued-looking picture that isn't faithful to the original source.

The trilogies definitely all have their own look and feel. Even the individual episodes are strongly delineated from one another in a variety of ways. And yet, pleasingly, they all fit together into some wider aesthetic/architectural scheme. Quite an amazing accomplishment.

It's a shame that TPM still has those DNR issues. At times, I was a little taken out by the experience when I saw the 3D version in 2012. Some shots are extremely waxy-looking. Why? Film has a lot of underlying detail. It almost speaks to a bizarre lack of quality control.

The film's colour palette has never been accurately captured on home video. It is best represented by the Story Featurette. Pause at various points when film clips are used and compare to screenshots at StarWarsScreencaps. There's not the same degree of lush, pastel magic. I don't know what happened to TPM. Theoretically, it's the best-looking Star Wars movie, but it continues to get a raw deal -- in more ways than one.

I'm glad you posted those screenshots -- means I don't have to!

"Lemon meringue" is a good term. I originally had a longer comment, in which I described it as green-gold. But I like yours better.

You're right about the sets and costumes already leaning in that direction a tiny bit. Sometimes, however (and yes: this is all subjective), I think the lemony tones produce a better result. For instance, the first shot you selected:


The big window in the background has a much warmer and sunnier tone in the featurette. Sorry to say, but the magenta version on the Blu-ray looks a bit fugly to me. It doesn't seem motivated by any of the lighting or set dressing; it's such a drastic difference, compared to the other colours, which are mostly holding their tone between the two versions, that I have to wonder if it was altered digitally. I guess I can pretend Amidala has a few big punnets of strawberries behind her, which the sunlight is hitting and then bouncing onto the walls. It's a little weird, though. I also think some of the soft, diffused light bathing Amidala and the other characters may have been crushed through some kind of image enhancement on the latter. The original, in other words, has more of a magical, fairy-tale touch. Of course, it's hard to talk of a direct comparison, given that the source of the former is way softer, and a touch conservative in terms of contrast and brightness.


The wall behind Amidala at screen-left is way more blue and a little "hot"-looking in the Blu-ray still. It again lends the strong impression of some aggressive post-processing. All in all, the Blu-ray has a more frigid and digital look.


To me, there's better delineation between Sebulba's podracer and the ground in the still from the featurette. His paint job is a really deep orange in the featurette, and the purple energy beam between the engines is, well, a lot more purple in the earlier shot. The ground is almost glowing gold in the earlier shot. For some reason, the whole podrace has a slightly bleached-out look to it on the Blu-ray. There's a certain dulling of saturation and a milkiness to midtones and darker areas that's quite obvious.


Gorgeous saturation on the Blu-ray. This also appears to be one of the sharper shots in the whole movie. The Jedi Council scenes -- or these night-time ones, at least -- are some of the best-looking in the movie, I think. When the Blu-ray is on form, it's really on-form. But it does seem to vary. And I do sort of miss the softer look of the earlier transfer, judging by the featurette version. Though, again, it's hard to tell, because the featurette is obviously incredibly soft throughout.


As above. The Blu-ray gives a strong performance here. Though saturation is arguably pumped too high with too much magenta. Skin tones are more restrained and natural in the featurette version. Look also at the purple in the sky, and at the edge of the grey pillar. It's getting a bit strong and bordering on a blotchiness on the Blu-ray.


The lemon tone does wonders for the pearl ornament in the background. Also look at the rhomboid object in the middle of the ovoid table (TPM is a battle of rhomboids and ovoids, didn't you know? -- "Always two there are"). It looks very grey (slightly blue-toned) in the Blu-ray version, but is a very rich aqua-green in the featurette version. Same with that mermaid/fish-looking statue in the background to the right of Palpatine. The awesome sun tones bathing the characters in the featurette version are very pleasing to the eye (to me, at least) -- even if it's arguably a tad too much. The sky, for example, is maybe a bit too saturated in the featurette version, but it helps give the scene a "falsely happy" feel (Palpatine's mood?). Reds are also closer to red in the featurette version and not adulterated with blue/purple. The Blu-ray again looks very cold.


Yes, nice shot, so wholesomely "geisha" and Japanese, but what the ham-heck is going on with the reds in the background on the Blu-ray? The red vertical panelling, the person in red robes, and even the sofa on Amidala's left side all exhibit signs of colour bleeding. Oddly, Amidala's face is ashen-white on the Blu-ray, where there's otherwise red-overload occurring; while on the featurette version, some subtle redness in her cheeks is evident beneath the face paint. I like the featurette version again. Fetch me some lemon meringue!