|
|
Post by Somny on Jul 27, 2020 1:32:56 GMT
ArchdukeOfNaboo , there's been an issue with Samsung Blu-ray players in the news recently. Apparently, a fault in certain files transferred through their online service is causing the hardware to "brick" in many households. You may want to see if that's the matter with your player. I believe Samsung is offering a mail-in remedy of some sort. |
|
|
|
Post by ArchdukeOfNaboo on Jul 27, 2020 13:12:36 GMT
Somny It's a Sony player actually (BDP-S350). I got back in 2008-ish. I've never updated the firmware, as I recall an issue connecting it with my internet, but the lack of Blu-ray Live or up to date menus etc has never bothered me. I've also got to repair most of the buttons on the remote control, which have been unresponsive for a few years now, and made navigating the disc menus rather cumbersome.
What has most bothered me is the faulty optical port on my soundbar. The folks from the shop haven't been very helpful, unfortunately, and I haven't had it so long. There is nothing like watching Star Wars with proper sound.
So, as you can see, there's been quite a few things that have been preventing em from watching the PT as much as I'd like...
|
|
|
|
Post by Cryogenic on Dec 18, 2020 15:16:48 GMT
You may recall an earlier post in this thread where I bitched about the drab colours of the 4K transfers of the OT films. Well, it seems I was onto something. As I just posted about in the Miscellaneous Tidbits thread, two new videos commemorating TESB in its 40th year have just been released on the official Star Wars channel on YouTube. These videos are something of a revelation. They feature a generous offering of behind-the-scenes and outtake material in wonderfully plush quality (most of it never seen before): The quality of the new material is fantastic. I sat there watching the clips in amazement and frustration. It highlights how superior film can look when transferred correctly. I've no idea why the colours came out so metallic and dull-looking on the new transfers -- there's just no excuse. Yes, the transfers may have impressive sharpness, but there's much more to a good video presentation than that. Since a picture is worth a thousand words, I'll demonstrate with an example: First, here is the 2020 4K version:  And here is my 2020 4K enhanced version from before:  I did the best I could, but you may notice that there's still a muggy green-grey tint I was unable to get rid of without messing up the other colours. That speaks to the inferior quality of the 4K screen capture (seemingly true to the transfer) I was working with. But in the new videos, there's a shot of the above scene being filmed, and it shows you how good these films (from a naturalistic colour perspective) can look. First, for comparison, here's the 2020 4K version again: And here's the behind-the-scenes version from the commemorative video Celebrating 40 Years of Empire:  Yes, it's clearly softer than the 4K shot, but the colours are rich and dreamy -- exactly as TESB was intended to look. The flight jackets are a deep shade of orange, while flesh tones are warm and precisely maintained. Leia's waistcoat is a nice cream shade that contrasts well against her vaguely off-white jumpsuit. The yellow ladders at the side of the X-Wing are clearly, well... yellow. And instead of the cold, metallic tones that render walls and vehicular hulls a dull grey in the 4K shot, there are now various grey, brown, and olive tones in evidence, lending more of an organic, mottled look to the scene. You can watch the new videos and see many other examples. I've simply chosen one that stands out and matches the still captures I used before. Granted, not every behind-the-scenes shot looks that good (subjectively speaking), but colours are generally way better compared to the 4K release. Check out those beautiful shots of Luke on Dagobah and Luke fighting Vader on Cloud City. Way, way better! The 4K transfers may be impressively sharp and free of some of the flaws that blighted the 2K transfers, but they leave a lot to be desired where deep, rich, and faithful colours are concerned -- and for a series as visually sumptuous, and as transporting and evocative, as Star Wars, that's more than a minor shame. |
|
|
|
Post by thephantomcalamari on Dec 18, 2020 15:37:58 GMT
You may recall an earlier post in this thread where I bitched about the drab colours of the 4K transfers of the OT films. Well, it seems I was onto something. As I just posted about in the Miscellaneous Tidbits thread, two new videos commemorating TESB in its 40th year have just been released on the official Star Wars channel on YouTube. These videos are something of a revelation. They feature a generous offering of behind-the-scenes and outtake material in wonderfully plush quality (most of it never seen before): The quality of the new material is fantastic. I sat there watching the clips in amazement and frustration. It highlights how superior film can look when transferred correctly. I've no idea why the colours came out so metallic and dull-looking on the new transfers -- there's just no excuse. Yes, the transfers may have impressive sharpness, but there's much more to a good video presentation than that. Since a picture is worth a thousand words, I'll demonstrate with an example: First, here is the 2020 4K version: And here is my 2020 4K enhanced version from before: I did the best I could, but you may notice that there's still a muggy green-grey tint I was unable to get rid of without messing up the other colours. That speaks to the inferior quality of the 4K screen capture (seemingly true to the transfer) I was working with. But in the new videos, there's a shot of the above scene being filmed, and it shows you how good these films (from a naturalistic colour perspective) can look. First, for comparison, here's the 2020 4K version again: And here's the behind-the-scenes version from the commemorative video Celebrating 40 Years of Empire: Yes, it's clearly softer than the 4K shot, but the colours are rich and dreamy -- exactly as TESB was intended to look. The flight jackets are a deep shade of orange, while flesh tones are warm and precisely maintained. Leia's waistcoat is a nice cream shade that contrasts well against her vaguely off-white jumpsuit. The yellow ladders at the side of the X-Wing are clearly, well... yellow. And instead of the cold, metallic tones that render walls and vehicular hulls a dull grey in the 4K shot, there are now various grey, brown, and olive tones in evidence, lending more of an organic, mottled look to the scene. You can watch the new videos and see many other examples. I've simply chosen one that stands out and matches the still captures I used before. Granted, not every behind-the-scenes shot looks that good (subjectively speaking), but colours are generally way better compared to the 4K release. Check out those beautiful shots of Luke on Dagobah and Luke fighting Vader on Cloud City. Way, way better! The 4K transfers may be impressively sharp and free of some of the flaws that blighted the 2K transfers, but they leave a lot to be desired where deep, rich, and faithful colours are concerned -- and for a series as visually sumptuous, and as transporting and evocative, as Star Wars, that's more than a minor shame. I've heard that some of this is a problem with the way non-HDR-compatible displays are making the HDR transfers look. I don't have HDR capability as of yet myself, so I can't comment. |
|
|
|
Post by Cryogenic on Dec 18, 2020 16:00:36 GMT
I've heard that some of this is a problem with the way non-HDR-compatible displays are making the HDR transfers look. I don't have HDR capability as of yet myself, so I can't comment. Yes, I think that was mildly suggested earlier in the thread. But I'm not convinced. Can anyone prove the colours look better? Why doesn't someone take a picture of their 4K HDR TV and then affirm the picture is a decent match for what their eyes see? Surely that shouldn't be too hard as far as the colours are concerned? Everywhere I look, I see the same dull, muggy samples everywhere. Clips were uploaded on a couple of YouTube channels and looked exactly that way. Several more channels used 4K OT clips in review/criticism videos (of the Disney films) and they looked equally bad. And now the official channel is using them (in those same aforementioned videos) and they look exactly the same. This screencap gallery (in its 4K section) site also shows them the same way. So, absent further evidence, the provided screencaps are seemingly close to how they look -- from a colour perspective, at least. Which is really off and quite shocking for this series of films in particular. Although the 2K transfers also had colour and saturation issues, colours were generally one of the high-points of that set of transfers. I'm not sure what is going on here, but the end result, every time I consult a source, is really fugly. This isn't how it's supposed to be! |
|
|
|
Post by Alexrd on Dec 18, 2020 16:15:51 GMT
Those are SDR shots, not HDR. The issue you're talking about can be seen here: caps-a-holic.com/c.php?go=1&a=0&d1=14082&d2=13936&s1=143206&s2=141420&i=3&l=0Color grading is not about how rich the colors are, and how much they pop or how they looked like when shot. Grading is done to bring balance and consistency across the footage and to convey certain feelings as well. The 2012 transfers are definitely more muted when compared to the 2004 transfers. Then again, the latter had arguably unnaturally vibrant colors. But I think that's just a result of time, George Lucas's preference and improvements made over the years. My problems with the new Disney versions are different and more petty. I don't like how they cropped the movies from 2.35:1 to 2.39:1. I also don't like that they forgot to change the font for "a long time ago" in the original trilogy. |
|
|
|
Post by thephantomcalamari on Dec 18, 2020 16:31:16 GMT
I've heard that some of this is a problem with the way non-HDR-compatible displays are making the HDR transfers look. I don't have HDR capability as of yet myself, so I can't comment. Yes, I think that was mildly suggested earlier in the thread. But I'm not convinced. Can anyone prove the colours look better? Why doesn't someone take a picture of their 4K HDR TV and then affirm the picture is a decent match for what their eyes see? Surely that shouldn't be too hard as far as the colours are concerned? Everywhere I look, I see the same dull, muggy samples everywhere. Clips were uploaded on a couple of YouTube channels and looked exactly that way. Several more channels used 4K OT clips in review/criticism videos (of the Disney films) and they looked equally bad. And now the official channel is using them (in those same aforementioned videos) and they look exactly the same. This screencap gallery (in its 4K section) site also shows them the same way. So, absent further evidence, the provided screencaps are seemingly close to how they look -- from a colour perspective, at least. Which is really off and quite shocking for this series of films in particular. Although the 2K transfers also had colour and saturation issues, colours were generally one of the high-points of that set of transfers. I'm not sure what is going on here, but the end result, every time I consult a source, is really fugly. This isn't how it's supposed to be!Our old friend DrDre took some photos of his display and posted them on another forum. I'll just post the first one here for anyone scrolling by:  And here's a screencap I just took playing the movie on Disney+ on my computer:  Now obviously DrDre's photo doesn't represent what it will look like when you're actually looking at the screen with your own eyes, and I don't know if my screencap looks exactly the same to you as it does to me, but it does seem like there's a marked improvement here. |
|
|
|
Post by Cryogenic on Dec 18, 2020 16:44:01 GMT
Thanks for that screenshot and finding a match. Alas, going by that alone, it's impossible to tell what the HDR shot actually looks like. I'm aware of that. I'm also aware that these films looked better (in terms of tone/colour) before. I'm sorry, but we're in the digital era. There's no reason the films had to be mastered -- or, er, "graded" -- to look so muted and dull. Many other films as old or older than the OT look significantly better. I don't mind a more muted set of transfers (in theory). What bothers me, on the available evidence, is that the films have been almost bled of colour in some shots and now look kinda pathetic. Really, really pale. 35mm film doesn't typically produce results that drab. Even Polaroids look better. They also appear to have applied noise reduction to control grain; sometimes to a very noticeable and objectionable level. Or that's what stuck out to me in 4K uploads I looked at on YouTube (I know -- not the best medium for seeking fine detail in the first place; but I trust my eyes, even through the heavy encoding, and it seems to have been confirmed by some reviews). Yes, I think that was mildly suggested earlier in the thread. But I'm not convinced. Can anyone prove the colours look better? Why doesn't someone take a picture of their 4K HDR TV and then affirm the picture is a decent match for what their eyes see? Surely that shouldn't be too hard as far as the colours are concerned? Everywhere I look, I see the same dull, muggy samples everywhere. Clips were uploaded on a couple of YouTube channels and looked exactly that way. Several more channels used 4K OT clips in review/criticism videos (of the Disney films) and they looked equally bad. And now the official channel is using them (in those same aforementioned videos) and they look exactly the same. This screencap gallery (in its 4K section) site also shows them the same way. So, absent further evidence, the provided screencaps are seemingly close to how they look -- from a colour perspective, at least. Which is really off and quite shocking for this series of films in particular. Although the 2K transfers also had colour and saturation issues, colours were generally one of the high-points of that set of transfers. I'm not sure what is going on here, but the end result, every time I consult a source, is really fugly. This isn't how it's supposed to be!Our old friend DrDre took some photos of his display and posted them on another forum. I'll just post the first one here for anyone scrolling by: And here's a screencap I just took playing the movie on Disney+ on my computer: Now obviously DrDre's photo doesn't represent what it will look like when you're actually looking at the screen with your own eyes, and I don't know if my screencap looks exactly the same to you as it does to me, but it does seem like there's a marked improvement here. Well, you're right -- that is a marked improvement (in the top picture)! But is it sustained and is it really how it looks in-person? And was it achieved through a lot of image-tweaking (on the TV) or does it naturally resolve to that vibrant look even on mild/neutral settings? The colour pop is wonderful. It's really vivid. The strange thing to me is: Why isn't there a vivid version for non-HDR displays on Disney+? A lot of people must still be watching it that way. I just can't make it through Star Wars with the colours looking flat and all but dead in the bottom shot. There's good detail, to be sure. But I don't know of any other film losing so much of its lustre like that. |
|
|
|
Post by Alexrd on Dec 18, 2020 16:58:44 GMT
There is indeed DNR on the new OT masters. Not sure if it's a byproduct of the masters being meant for the 3D releases or if it's some sort of new remastering technique. The recently released Lord of the Rings trilogy in 4K is also affected by DNR. I think there's more to it than carelessness.
From my experience, watching a DVD or Blu-ray on a TV is different from watching it on a computer monitor. The 4K HDR might be more vivid by default, but I think we can get a similar effect by taking a picture to our TV in a dark room. Everything invariably pops more.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cryogenic on Dec 18, 2020 17:18:04 GMT
There is indeed DNR on the new OT masters. Not sure if it's a byproduct of the masters being meant for the 3D releases or if it's some sort of new remastering technique. The recently released Lord of the Rings trilogy in 4K is also affected by DNR. I think there's more to it than carelessness. Hmm. From the few clips I've seen, I thought I noticed it on the new LOTR 4K transfers, too! Maybe they think it looks more acceptable to most people with 4K TVs than if they leave the grain intact at that resolution. But it also defeats the purpose of 4K, really. A very good point. That's why I wish we could get some testimonials from people who own 4K HDR TVs and have seen a few films in that format. Or better yet: if I knew anyone with a 4K HDR TV who was also a Star Wars fan, I'd love to spend five minutes (or more) looking at the new transfers. |
|
|
|
Post by Ingram on Dec 19, 2020 10:16:53 GMT
Again, Cryo, and to anyone else on the fence, you guys are just gonna have to make the investment to give the hard copy (avoid Disney+ (for now) as it is but an added point of confusion) 4K set its due credit, if for no other reason than to make the best and most informed criticisms. If you can, try touching bases with a friend, neighbor, coworker etc. who has a setup and maybe ask if you can sample the films. You guys keep falling into the same bad habit of simply comparing online screencaps. I don't how else to put this: it simply doesn't work that way. You're not going to see all there is to see with stills pulled from the web, not even stills of someone's TV. With a proper UHD presentation of UHD transfers, there's a lot more going on than simply color versus lack thereof. For starters, you need the image in motion—in motion and in person so your eyes can take in the playback video as intended.
To be clear, doing so will not change what is with the latest color timing, but it will better justify said transfer on its own terms. But in the new videos, there's a shot of the above scene being filmed, and it shows you how good these films (from a naturalistic colour perspective) can look. First, for comparison, here's the 2020 4K version again: And here's the behind-the-scenes version from the commemorative video Celebrating 40 Years of Empire: Yes. I see the difference. But it's not exactly night and day, either. It's there but does it constitute an aesthetic offense outright? Eh. I think a lot of that depends on creed. And unless we subscribe to the dictum that color pop is the only valid standard or that it's universally superior to relative gray-scaling then otherwise at least consider that there is something native to the 4K viewing experience of the OT that can be appreciated in what it expresses, how it deals. Even on the issue of how the films are, or were, "intended to look", I dunno... I don't think there's an orthodox here, just a history of the trilogy and how its mildly-mannered madcap professor, a one George Walton, has constantly shifted the advanced settings from one iteration to the next, including the latest in question, by all reasonable conclusions.
The Empire Strikes Back on 4K has been chilled. Certainly. Evenly. Lucas, Kershner and Peter Suschitzky went cold with that movie. I know. Duh, right? But where this was plain enough in concept with all prior home video releases, here, the intent reaches ultimate fruition. You feel it. Ambient glow permeates yet is beholden to a wash of charcoal whites and grays. Hoth for instance is no longer amped bright arctic blue but darkened and ashen, emphasizing a lithographic quality to the matte paintings that I for one had never before taken into account—its potential. Dagobah is no longer boosted puke bluish-green but is pallid gray with such conviction that relegates any earthen colors we do see back to the Dark Ages, to the bogs of Morgan le Fay; in point, one might argue this movie has been restored to what it originally was, that of a British-crewed (Elstree Studio) fantasy production circa early 1980s and thus sharing similar persuasions with other works of the time such as Excalibur, Dragonslayer and Krull that likewise dealt in livid dreamworlds of mist or stone. (Note: Suschitzky was also DP for Krull). And I stress, you gotta appreciate the transfer in motion. The strobe effect of light as it's captured through moving UHD frames compensates for the drab look of online stills with a world of living, moving shadowcast and eerie vapor. The movie has never looked more, let me try, Macbethian...a little bit by way of Welles. It's also never looked more technocratic: the contrast between Luke and Vader in the floor-lit corridors at Bespin's core drive home the severity of climes for which Episode V is known. The hyperborea, the primordial soups and, in that scene, an arena of spectral gloom Vader has chosen. Even the the Falcon's approach to Cloud City in the Blu-ray looks over-sauced compared to the 4K that tones down the palette away from all-pink to a Venetian array of golds, whites and sky blue
The difference for me? Photochemically irradiated colors, or hot color crushed into magnetic tape, verses the sensation of projector light passing through stained celluloid and bouncing off white screen canvas; where a measure of color escapes the latter, in its place there is something more prima materia as a theater-going experience. Where color is lesser, bloom itself is stronger. I should also add how this aspect in ways I cannot yet quite penetrate with words conjures the Silent Film Era dimension of Star Wars.
But that's just me. I urge you all, give it a full sit-down viewing, if only once, when and where you can. Judge for yourself.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cryogenic on Dec 19, 2020 14:53:46 GMT
Again, Cryo, and to anyone else on the fence, you guys are just gonna have to make the investment to give the hard copy (avoid Disney+ (for now) as it is but an added point of confusion) 4K set its due credit, if for no other reason than to make the best and most informed criticisms. If you can, try touching bases with a friend, neighbor, coworker etc. who has a setup and maybe ask if you can sample the films. Friends? Neighbours? Coworkers? What are these things you speak of? I understand where you're coming from. When I bought "Man Of Steel" on DVD some years ago, and then pumped it through the plasma TV I had at the time, the difference -- compared to watching on my PC -- was really palpable. That movie has gorgeous cinematography, dominated by deep flares and bright beams, and the whole thing felt a lot more organic, alive, on the plasma screen, with far better brightness and contrast range than my crummy computer monitor back then (and now) could possibly deliver. And that was merely DVD on an outdated plasma display (second-hand from a family member). So yeah. I certainly hear ya. I dunno, man. I'm really sensitive to colour changes. I just hate it when something seems "off" to me. I don't have to dump a bunch of colour theory on you, but the popularity and subjective brilliance of artists like Rothko and Kandinsky (or Van Gogh or Monet) -- and the sometimes-intense reactions people have to their paintings -- suggests that colours and colour-scapes can have powerful effects on the human brain. Or just look how much some people adore 35mm street photography (raises hand); or the enjoyment people derive from owning rich coffee-table photography books, or the people who love outrageously bright home interiors, or what have you. Colours really matter to some people. So yes: it can be an aesthetic offence when drastic changes are made to the presentation of a beloved movie. Sure. You can look at it that way, or... Someone or other maybe got a bit pretentious and thought that dullness and gloom -- deliberately restraining colour palettes and keeping a tight lid on saturation values -- constitutes some kind of "high art" effect. It doesn't. Not here. Not with these films. Because, as artistically ravishing as they are, they're not high art. The whole point of them is that they're deliciously-vamped and carefully-crafted B-movies. It's not that they're meant to look trashy (on the contrary) -- but they're basically visual peacock affairs: they should pop (at least, to some degree)... after all... they are pop art. Linguistic gags aside: they are meant to be lush and opulent B-movie masterpieces. I just don't think dulled-down colours with grim palettes really fits the original intent. Lucas may like to tweak, but sometimes, honestly: it gets a bit much. I prefer Vader being silent when he saves Luke and kills the Emperor. There. I said it. I guess Star Wars is that thing that unites us, but about which no two people fully agree. You offer an incredibly eloquent defence -- of course. It's always a joy to see you wax lyrical about the bounteous charms of this righteous saga. But as brilliantly as you describe the UHD viewing experience (and I can hardly dispute all the charms of 4K viewing)... TESB, the ways my eyes see it, is now bleached of colour, and has apparently been made to look cold, austere, morbid. That, to me, is an offence to the "Flash Gordon" styling of the George Lucas Six. I can kind of accept a muggy, earthen look where, say, "The Last Jedi" goes; but it's a great deal harder for me to accept it as legitimately imposed upon films that were designed to burst with colour and to continually exude an otherworldly radiance. I mean, these movies used to start with the bright 20th Century Fox fanfare, and the Lucasfilm logo used to be a friggin' colour wheel! And while you began by telling me not to pay too much attention to screencaps, I see you can't resist bolstering your argument by referring to caps at the bottom. Well, shit. See? It basically goes back to the colour argument at the end of the day. I'll admit that the 4K version of the approach to Cloud City looks impressive. Some/many parts of the 2K Lowry Digital transfers are a bit OTT (OTT-OT). But I kinda like that. The black crush is annoying, as are the blown-out whites. It looks a bit too digital. But there's a part of me that's glad it does. It fully brought these films into the digital age and aligned them very nicely with the PT. More than that, the colours in the Lowry Digital transfers are utterly symphonic (if, again, sometimes a little fluorescent and a touch libertine). I return you to my earlier comparison videos concerning the asteroid chase: Earlier 2K transfer (uploaded in 4K): New 4K version: I really appreciate the difference between the two when the music surges after C-3PO protests: "Sir, the possibility of successfully navigating an asteroid field is approximately 3,720 to one!" For one thing, the explosion when that first TIE collides with the asteroid that crosses into frame from screen-left is annoyingly purple in the new version. I frankly think the whiter-looking explosion in the Lowry Digital 2K transfer looks better. Just one example. Conversely, there is much more colour in the explosion produced by the next TIE colliding a few seconds later in the 2K version. I guess I like the contrapuntal effect of those two explosions. It's hard to articulate all the differences and why I find the 2K version more beautiful. Shot-by-shot, you could argue the 4K version is better. But there's more balance in the 2K one. It ends up being more lush and exciting overall. To me, at least. And yeah: I prefer those more pumped-up flesh tones in the 2K version. I had started to get a bit bored and irritated by them... until I saw the 4K version. It's not even that the 4K version is drained of colour, actually. It's that colours come and go in odd furies. For example, as mentioned, the first TIE explosion is actually deeper-toned in the 4K version than in the earlier 2K one; while the second TIE exploding is more the reverse. Or, at least, there is deeper saturation the second time, in the 2K version. Another example of what I'm talking about is when Han is in the maintenance pit (before the chase sequence begins). The light panels around him are very green-looking in the 4K release, while they are a much more gentle green-blue in the 2K version. On the other hand, the metal floor panelling around him is very blue-toned in the 2K version, while it is dull and grey-toned in the 4K release: 2K 2011 release:  4K 2020 release:  Why does that difference irritate me so much? I think it's because the colours are ballsed-up. Han's shirt isn't meant to be canary-yellow. True, lighting causes it to vary a bit, but it's meant to be a mild cream/off-white. Look at production photos. The 2K version captures that much better. And then you have the light panels and the steam. The blue is a gorgeous shade and much more strongly alludes to his carbon freezing later on (and fits perfectly with the general ice/freezing theme of the movie). Green? Not so much. The colours are all over the place in the 4K version (when not generally seeming grubby and dull). It's just ugly-looking to me. I do respect the fact that it looks clammy and foreboding to you, however. There's nothing particularly "wrong" with either version in this regard. It's just personal preferences. Don't threaten me with a good time! Yeah, I like your final description there. Colours should be a touch restrained. But not as much as the 4K transfers appear to go about it. And they need to play properly off against one another. I am not going to sit here and say the 2K transfers are remotely perfect -- clearly, they're not. But they're much more to my tastes. I'd still like to watch the new transfers on a proper setup, but that about covers it. |
|
|
|
Post by Ingram on Dec 20, 2020 2:34:08 GMT
Again, Cryo, and to anyone else on the fence, you guys are just gonna have to make the investment to give the hard copy (avoid Disney+ (for now) as it is but an added point of confusion) 4K set its due credit, if for no other reason than to make the best and most informed criticisms. If you can, try touching bases with a friend, neighbor, coworker etc. who has a setup and maybe ask if you can sample the films. Friends? Neighbours? Coworkers? What are these things you speak of? I was going to include hostages/home invasions as well, but I didn't want it to get weird.
My two cents on the theory that Lucas' Star Wars, as a work of color cinema, should only ever gleam with a comic-strip order of magnitude... it's a good theory, on paper. I'm still leaning a bit more towards flexibility, though. I think story comes first. With these "Flash Gordon" space chapters writ mythic, the latter of that equation has its say as well. Myth, fable, chimera. Wraith, even. I never really looked at The Empire Strikes Back as being a fixed aesthetic statement of retro-pulp principles first and a storied journey through ice worlds, swamps, dreams and techno-labyrinths second. I went with the flow of all prior treatments of the movie -- whatever the crayola factor -- pretty much because each succession generally proved superior in whatever the latest home video formatting and image resolution, and thus it was all mostly relative anyways. But I don't ever remember engaging any prior 'new' presentation of the movie with a preset standard in mind for a color tone quota outside the storied context, uniformed with the rest of the idea of Star Wars; to me it was always, in the most ape-braned sense, the "darker and colder" Star Wars installment. And now? Well, it still is—but now more than ever before as a point in and of itself. I suppose, then, the homogeneous home viewing of yesteryear Star Wars has now been tilted towards a thing of divergency and contrast. Or disharmony. Or straight up chaos. "Dogs and cats living together - MASS HYSTERIA!"
Then again, when watching the 4K transfer, you're locked into that presentation; you're not doing an online cross-reference analysis. Just sayin', when that eventually happens, don't be surprised if some of these hangups maybe fade out a bit. Einstein's relativity and all + the undeniable uptick in picture def and HDR = benefits outweighing the costs, pros outweighing the cons....maybe? I mean, let's not all at once throw the hair dryer in the bathwater with the baby (that's how the saying goes, right? No? Fuck it. Whatever.)
If nothing else, picture settings on these 4K TVs border on color grading software all their own. One can always Cherry 7Up the transfer in question with results ebbing closer to a happy medium, if not a state of perfect nirvana.
Also, did I mention how much I love the 4K transfer of Return of the Jedi?
|
|
|
|
Post by Cryogenic on Dec 20, 2020 3:58:19 GMT
Friends? Neighbours? Coworkers? What are these things you speak of? I was going to include hostages/home invasions as well, but I didn't want it to get weird. Sounds like a quiet Saturday night at home. 
Ah! Why not both, though, at the same time? There's your dogs and cats living together!
But seriously:
I guess Episode V -- uniquely in many ways -- was always straddling a line between those creative and stylistic dimensions. Maybe the identity of Star Wars and even its sub-components is still in a state of flux, which this latest release is but one of the more recent expressions of. So maybe I'm coming round -- maybe I'm just fighting what I already know.
*Ingram holds fiery saber in a firm horizontal lock*
Remember them. See them.
Yes, I suppose you're right: having some diversity in the way one consumes media, even media one thinks oneself familiar with, is surely a good thing, all things considered.
It's funny you frame it that way. It'll ruffle some prequel feathers here, but that's actually the way I've been looking at the saga/franchise since the release of TROS. Star Wars has an underlying chaotic and scatological aspect ("Icky, icky goo") only barely disguised by its stuffy formalism and pious thematics. You start to perceive that now it's all under Disney. Maybe this is something pretty subliminal, just rising to conscious awareness (like a fleet of rising Star Destroyers breaking through a huge ice-field), and is one element in the larger fractal disdain for the Sequel Trilogy. I dunno. Just riffing.
I like me some disharmony and I'm okay with a degree of divergency and deviancy. Aren't we secretly all? I can certainly respect that Star Wars has a bit of a morphological and essentially Protean characteristic. "I think he's a she. And I think she's a changeling." It's only fleetingly glimpsed, but if you're Anakin sliding around on a moaning airspeeder, high up above an amber-toned industrial district, you get to see it. Let's all be Anakin. Let's all be all the characters. I am all the characters.
Yep. Very true. You're a good Star Wars fan, Ingram. And you're a much wiser man than I am. Hair dryer in the bathwater with the Wookiee. Pretty sure that's how that saying goes.
Hmm. Maybe that's why they did it the way they did?
Perhaps the user is being afforded more and more interactivity with, and control over, a formerly comparatively (but never truly) inert product? You did now! And I'd expect nothing less. In fact, I was watching some of the 4K clips for ROTJ earlier. I'd seen them a couple of times already, but after my last post, I was reviewing them again. To be honest, I felt a little bad, because I was actually enjoying the new presentation (even on YouTube). That film maybe comes across the best of the three in this new set of transfers. Wonderful sharpness and delineation, and something of an austere and cerebral feel in the Death Star scenes. It's positively technocratic now. And the speeder bike sequence is an enjoyable flurry of tawny browns and chillaxed greens intermixed approvingly with Luke and Leia, the Skywalker twins, decked fetchingly in camo gear, riding coffee-stained hover lawnmowers ( that's what those things are, right?). It really cooks now. So, yeah, I... er... Hey, wait! Did you just perform a Jedi Mind Trick on me? Into the Great Pit of Carkoon, immediately! |
|
|
|
Post by Ingram on Mar 16, 2021 10:13:20 GMT
All things considering, I had a pretty good day. June 8th will be even better.
 |
|
|
|
Post by Cryogenic on Mar 16, 2021 14:49:22 GMT
All things considering, I had a pretty good day. June 8th will be even better.
What is this imitation, half-breed Star Wars schlock?   Truth be told, I hope they do a great job.  |
|
|
|
Post by Alexrd on Mar 17, 2021 11:25:00 GMT
All things considering, I had a pretty good day. June 8th will be even better. I hope that they eventually release the remasters on Blu-ray as well. Although, knowing Paramount, the chances of that happening are slim to none. |
|
|
|
Post by Ingram on Mar 17, 2021 22:05:00 GMT
All things considering, I had a pretty good day. June 8th will be even better. I hope that they eventually release the remasters on Blu-ray as well. Although, knowing Paramount, the chances of that happening are slim to none. I'm going to buy you a 4K player/TV, Alex. I'm going to buy everyone, currently lacking, a setup, in fact. This business has gone on long enough.
Now, let me just start organizing my finances...
*breaks open piggy bank* |
|
|
|
Post by Alexrd on Mar 18, 2021 10:23:17 GMT
I'm going to buy you a 4K player/TV, Alex. I'm going to buy everyone, currently lacking, a setup, in fact. This business has gone on long enough. Ha! I'm an idiot that should have learned his lesson from the DVD days. After the investment I've already made on Blu-rays, I'm really hesitant about jumping into the new format, specially when it requires a new TV. Blu-ray, to me, is the sweet spot between quality and versatility. |
|
|
|
Post by Somny on Mar 18, 2021 15:41:40 GMT
I'm going to buy you a 4K player/TV, Alex. I'm going to buy everyone, currently lacking, a setup, in fact. This business has gone on long enough. Ha! I'm an idiot that should have learned his lesson from the DVD days. After the investment I've already made on Blu-rays, I'm really hesitant about jumping into the new format, specially when it requires a new TV. Blu-ray, to me, is the sweet spot between quality and versatility.
Don't feel too bad. The system wants to bilk us. It's stylistically designed to be that way.  |
|
