Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Lucasfilm announces original, unaltered Star Wars trilogy on DVD

This is topic Lucasfilm announces original, unaltered Star Wars trilogy on DVD in forum The Afterlife at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=12;t=000491

Posted by Aaron Haney (Member # 747) on 05-03-2006, 10:51 PM:

From here:

quote:
Fans can look forward to a September filled with classic Star Wars nostalgia, led by the premiere of LEGO Star Wars II: The Original Trilogy video game and the long-awaited DVD release of the original theatrical incarnations of the classic Star Wars trilogy.

In response to overwhelming demand, Lucasfilm Ltd. and Twentieth Century Fox Home Entertainment will release attractively priced individual two-disc releases of Star Wars, The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi. Each release includes the 2004 digitally remastered version of the movie, as well as the original theatrical edition of the film. That means you'll be able to enjoy Star Wars as it first appeared in 1977, Empire in 1980, and Jedi in 1983.

See the title crawl to Star Wars before it was known as Episode IV; see the pioneering, if dated, motion control model work on the attack on the Death Star; groove to Lapti Nek or the Ewok Celebration song like you did when you were a kid; and yes, see Han Solo shoot first.

This release will only be available for a limited time: from September 12th to December 31st. International release will follow on or about the same day. Each original theatrical version will feature Dolby 2.0 Surround sound, close-captioning, and subtitles in English, French and Spanish for their U.S. release. International sound and subtitling vary by territory.

"Over the years, a truly countless number of fans have told us that they would love to see and own the original version that they remember experiencing in theaters," said Jim Ward, President of LucasArts and Senior Vice President of Lucasfilm Ltd. "We returned to the Lucasfilm Archives to search exhaustively for source material that could be presented on DVD. This is something that we're very excited to be able to give to fans in response to their continuing enthusiasm for Star Wars. Topping it off with a new interactive adventure makes September 12 a red-letter day for Star Wars fans."

That's also the day fans will be able to experience the LEGO Star Wars II: The Original Trilogy video game, the action-packed sequel -- filled with tongue-in-cheek humor -- to one of the best selling video games of 2005. To see the trailer to the new game from LucasArts and TT Games, click here!

Click here to order your copy today.

Personally, I'm amazed and delighted. I am sorry to see only one soundtrack mentioned for Star Wars, since as I'm sure everyone here knows, there were three different mixes created in '77: 70mm six track, 35mm stereo, and 35mm mono, all with slight differences in dialogue and sound effects (discussed in more detail here). It would be nice if all three were included.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-03-2006, 11:08 PM:

I'm still holding out for the Super 8 digest versions on DVD. Until Lucasfilm releases those, I refuse to purchase anything Star Wars related on DVD! [Moon]

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 05-03-2006, 11:22 PM:

quote:
attractively priced individual two-disc releases of Star Wars, The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi. Each release includes the 2004 digitally remastered version of the movie, as well as the original theatrical edition of the film

So if you already have that DVD box (yes, I bought it, and I admit it), you get the same version again along with the old ones? That makes a lot of sense. How about single disc releases of the OVs or a 3-disc box set? These could be much more "attractively" priced.

quote:
Each original theatrical version will feature Dolby 2.0 Surround sound

Huh?

Posted by Aaron Haney (Member # 747) on 05-03-2006, 11:42 PM:

quote: Michael Schaffer
Huh?

Yeah, that makes me wonder if this is just going to be a transfer of the old Laserdisc master.

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 05-03-2006, 11:45 PM:

Actually, that would make sense if they mean Dolby Surround 2.0 (=decodable to 4.0) but why not have a decoded 4.0 DD stream? Or a 4.1 stream based on the magnetic sound configuration with baby booms.

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 05-03-2006, 11:50 PM:

Brad, that's funny. I used to have the Super 8 versions of Star Wars and Empire when I was a kid. I watched them so many times, I can still play back the scenes in my head as I watch the full length versions of the movies.

I actually lugged my projector and the movies into school in 3rd and 5th grades to show them to the class. It was a big hit! [Big Grin]

Posted by Aaron Haney (Member # 747) on 05-04-2006, 12:02 AM:

Well, I wonder what these people are going to do now:

http://starwarslegacy.com

http://www.originaltrilogy.com

http://www.x0project.com

(edit: added another one)

[ 05-04-2006, 09:21 AM: Message edited by: Aaron Haney ]

Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 05-04-2006, 02:18 AM:

It'd be nice if they included a good-quality copy of the Star Wars Holiday Special with them, too.

Posted by Adam Wilbert (Member # 1184) on 05-04-2006, 02:36 AM:

cool. It looks like never-ever purchasing any of the star wars movies on DVD is finally going to pay off.

edit: okay, i clicked the link to purchase to see how much it was, but I couldn't find it on their site. What gives?

Posted by Brian Michael Weidemann (Member # 2243) on 05-04-2006, 03:04 AM:

The original Ewoks celebration song! Woo hoo. And equally cool, that means the original Jabba's Palace song, too! I just may get these editions.

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 05-04-2006, 05:03 AM:

quote: Adam Wilbert
cool. It looks like never-ever purchasing any of the star wars movies on DVD is finally going to pay off.

No. Because apparently with the OV edition you have to buy the newer versions too. Lucas is smarter than you.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 05-04-2006, 06:54 AM:

I'll have to check, but I think my Laserdisc fancy boxed set of the Star Wars Trilogy was in a 5.1 sound but it may not have been...its been a while since I played them. I just checked the box...it only proclaims "Digital Sound" and does not have the AC-3 designation that the 5.1 discs normally do.

If that is the case, I'm sure Lucasfilm is just going to use the mix that was used for this set. They pulled the best elements of the original mixes to create this mix, which is not bad at all if memory serves.

It would be nice to get an HD version of the film...I'll wager after Lucasfilm exhaust all potential sales for the films on regular DVD, he will come out with the new-new versions in some form of HD and once again release them in stages forcing one to buy multiple times if they want it NOW and want everything.

Posted by Mark Ogden (Member # 43) on 05-04-2006, 10:55 AM:

quote: Aaron Haney
Well, I wonder what these people are going to do now

Get lives?

Posted by Adam Wilbert (Member # 1184) on 05-04-2006, 02:08 PM:

quote: Michael Schaffer
No. Because apparently with the OV edition you have to buy the newer versions too. Lucas is smarter than you.

I meant that by not having purchased in the past, I would not have duplicate discs. Yes, i would have one original version and one updated version, but most fans already own the current set and would be re-buying the new versions to get the old. If I already owned the current release, I'd probably pass on this set, but since I don't this seems like a good deal to me. (again, depending on price, which i have yet to find)

...after going back to the site again, its obvious that the "click here to order" link is referring to the stupid Lego game.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-04-2006, 05:47 PM:

Hmm. I remember a couple of years ago when some Lucasfilm person said the original movies did not exist anymore. Just more proof, you can never believe anything that comes out of that place.

I don't believe that "limited time only" crap either. Yeah, limited until sales slow down, and then the next "even specialer edition" will come out.

I'm still anticipating the announcement of Episodes VII, VIII and IX which I'm sure will happen as soon as they run out of ways to milk the originals.

Posted by Frank Dubrois (Member # 3042) on 05-04-2006, 07:02 PM:

Yeah just in time for BluRay. How many different copies of these 3 films must we buy to finance episodes VII, VIII, and IX? You KNOW he's working on Episodes I, II, III for some "dinfinitive" versions of those crap-fests. I apologize to the world for buying Episodes I, II and III...now I'm sorry I bought the box set of the definitive version. THANKS GEORGE! [fu]

Posted by Dennis Benjamin (Member # 1137) on 05-04-2006, 07:16 PM:

Let's see, I already have these three original films on Laser Disc. And I have already transferred them onto DVD.

Whatever! I guess this means I don't have to flip the discs over anymore............and change them out several times while watching one film........

Just wait till the 3-D versions come out - then Lucasfilm will getcha again. CHA-CHING!!!!

Posted by Frank Dubrois (Member # 3042) on 05-04-2006, 09:05 PM:

Those should hit DVD about the time the new 3D 1080p DLP TV's come out right? So i might as well get the 3D Star Wars movies at the same time. OMG my head is gonna explode.

Posted by Jim Leko (Member # 1287) on 05-05-2006, 09:57 PM:

I will end up buying these discs. With the exception of the Han/Greedo scene, I prefer the 2004 DVD editions of the movies, but I will still pick these up in order to compare them to all future versions of Star Wars that are released. You just know he will make more changes when the movies are released in Hi-Def.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 05-06-2006, 12:03 AM:

I can't stand the CGI Jabba that was added into Star Wars. It looks horrible, even though they redid it for the DVDs from the Special Edition version. Jabba just looks extremely small and extremely wrong.

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 05-06-2006, 06:39 PM:

Now that I'm getting pretty good with Final Cut Studio, I just might load in my laser disks, the THX edition laser disks, and the DVD special editions and make my own 5.1 anamorphic edit of the film using all of the best scenes, sounds, and dialog. Maybe I could even get some special effects software and fix all of those damn jump cuts and maybe even re-rotoscope the lightsabers properly in Episode IV.

Just thinking of all of the different cuts I have access to now, it could be a fun exercise in film making! [Big Grin]

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 05-06-2006, 06:55 PM:

Or you can try to get laid, I'd think that would be a better time spent! [Big Grin]

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 05-06-2006, 07:10 PM:

Trying to get laid isn't time well spent at all. I realize that you're probably speaking from experience, and I know this may come as a shock to you, but not everyone needs to spend their time trying.

[Big Grin]

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 05-06-2006, 09:49 PM:

Oh, oh! [Big Grin]

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 05-08-2006, 12:58 AM:

ALRIGHT! Great news.

I wonder if SW will have that silly 'Episode IV' title on it or if they're going to be REALLY the original versions?

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-08-2006, 01:47 AM:

Oh, there'll be some little thing wrong with them, so after a year or so they can release the REAL original super deluxe editions (on HD-DVD) and get everybody to buy them again.

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 05-08-2006, 03:17 PM:

Well, the story says you'll see the crawl with no Episode IV, but doesn't mention if you'll see it as part of the feature or as a bonus thing.

What I'm wondering is if the new version of EP IV that's a part of this set will have the stupid backwards music in the surrounds problem fixed. Or maybe, since that was a "creative decision", I wonder if they will be even more creative and flip the music track in the other two films too. [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 05-08-2006, 07:59 PM:

What is this "Star Wars" everyone is worshipping about? Is it some sort of parody of Thumb Wars?

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-08-2006, 10:07 PM:

I was worried about getting bent over on the Star Wars double dip thing. But they announced a 2.0 track for all these "original version" releases. They might as well have smeared the cases with camel shit. I'll happily stay away from those POS releases.

And that will get me focused back onto my Kill Bill dilema. Do I buy the two currently available separate releases, priced at around $14 each? Or do I just continue to wait for that super duper combined edition to surface? Murphy's Law says the new SE version of the Kill Bill movies will be announced immediately after I have already bought the outdated versions. The Weinsteins probably have a private detective on 24 hour surveillance of my house just waiting for the moment I cave and buy. Bastards!!!
[Mad]

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 05-09-2006, 03:31 PM:

Bobby, What about the region 2 version of Kill Bill Vol 1 , from Universal Home Video? [thumbsup]

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 05-09-2006, 05:01 PM:

Bobby, weren't the original mixes in 4.1? Sure, 2.0 isn't discrete surround sound, but it's at least better than if they had remixed them into 6.1. And really, most people haven't heard the 4.1 tracks for over 20 years. Is a little matrix decoding really that bad?

As for KILL BILL, I wholeheartedly second what Bill said. The Region 2 version of Vol. 2 is ever so slightly different as well. If you don't have a region free player, then go with the current American releases, because even KILL BILL Lite is better than no KILL BILL at all. [Cool]

And if your theory on Murphy's Law is correct, then please, for the rest of us, go out and buy the American versions RIGHT NOW. Don't walk. Run. Thanks!

Mike

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 05-12-2006, 10:26 PM:

quote: Aaron Haney
I am sorry to see only one soundtrack mentioned for Star Wars, since as I'm sure everyone here knows, there were three different mixes created in '77: 70mm six track, 35mm stereo, and 35mm mono, all with slight differences in dialogue and sound effects (discussed in more detail here).

...and discussed in more and even better detail here.

By the way, over on the Home Theater Forum, there's a similar discussion about the upcoming "Star Wars" DVDs and the "only 2.0 audio" thing. Anyway, I found a post with about half of the article (literally hundreds of words) to which I just linked posted without any courtesy link or citations. Imagine how pissed I was upon seeing that! And finally my point: the poster was someone called "andySu" --- didn't think much of it initially until it dawned on me after reading a few other posts of his that it sure sounds like our favorite ex-film-tech dude, Andy Summers. What do you think...

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 05-12-2006, 10:45 PM:

Just rent it till it comes out in the super duper version, seems silly to get worked up over that. There's tons of other DVDs to buy.

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 05-16-2006, 01:46 AM:

Heenan,
To whom is your reply intended??? If me, your post makes no sense. If you were commenting on the original question and comments that kicked off the thread, then I think it would have been more effective for you, since you posted directly following me, to have copy-and-pasted the bit that prompted your reply.

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 05-16-2006, 12:17 PM:

Is that guy who sat in front of the theatre in Seattle going to start a line at the closest Best Buy?

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 05-18-2006, 09:16 AM:

The Digital Bits has revealed that these will be the same non-anamorphic transfers used for the 1993 laserdiscs. The one exception will be the opening crawl for STAR WARS, which will lack the "Episode IV" subtitle. Hmm...

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 05-18-2006, 03:24 PM:

I also just read that these will be 4:3 letterboxed, not anamorphic transfers. I guess we'll get a better transfer at some point in the future?

I'm assuming that the 4.1 is a reference to the 70mm sound format. What exactly was the 70mm format for Star Wars? Were all three released the same?

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-18-2006, 07:42 PM:

The audio format on 70mm prints of Star Wars and its other installments (episodes V and VI) was Format 42 (4.2 channel "baby boom" with mono surrounds).

I have no problem with a Dolby Digital 4.1 mix. A 2.0 mix simply will not do. However, I think it would be an insult to Star Wars fans to provide anthing less than a really good, anamorphic enhanced widescreen image on the DVDs.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 05-18-2006, 07:53 PM:

Lucasfilm is doing the best they can. If they could provide anamorphic transfers then they would, but they can't since George and Co. ordered all non-special edition prints DESTROYED since they didn't coincide with his "revised vision". In other words, they're doing the transfer the same exact way as every one else has... hooking up a LaserDisc player to either a DVD recorder or a computer and recording the S-video output (or even composite since LaserDiscs are not capable of true S-video... what a crap format) as well as the stereo audio via RCA connectors, which will keep the Pro-Logic matrixing perfectly intact.

If you have the LaserDiscs, save yourself the money and transfer them yourself. If you do it via a cool computer like a Mac with Final Cut Pro, you can even stretch the video for fake anamorphic!

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 05-18-2006, 09:08 PM:

I was replying to Bobby Hendersons earlier post about his "dilemna" about buying Kill Bill.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-19-2006, 01:39 AM:

quote: Joe Redifer
George and Co. ordered all non-special edition prints DESTROYED since they didn't coincide with his "revised vision".

You don't really believe they destroyed the original original, do you?

Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 05-19-2006, 03:15 AM:

Just know that no one can ever destroy the original Joe Redifer. Many have tried, all have failed. He is still here.

Dammit.

HA! [evil]

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-19-2006, 12:26 PM:

No, I heard he has been digitally modified.

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 05-19-2006, 12:34 PM:

I'm sure they tried to "Destroy" as many of the original versions as they could but there's still some in private collections

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-19-2006, 12:36 PM:

People are collecting copies (or shall I say "clones") of Joe?

Posted by Aaron Haney (Member # 747) on 05-19-2006, 04:48 PM:

In light of the news, I retract my "delighted" comment earlier. The Digital Bits made several good points in their commentaries. They are quite right that materials demonstrably exist which could produce a better transfer than what is apparently going to be on September's DVD. Lucasfilm is going far too cheap on this one. The important pieces of history they are sitting on deserve to be in better hands.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-25-2006, 11:04 PM:

Just wait a year. The "original" originals will be out in a Special Edition widescreen digitally remastered edition, as soon as everyone in the universe has purchased the September 2006 bullshit edition.

Posted by Kevin Wale (Member # 1851) on 09-12-2006, 01:17 AM:

Has anything indicated that unaltereds will be included in the big who ha mother of all box sets next year?

If they are, I'd be inclined to think that anamorphic transfers will be the order of that day....

The destoryed negatives rumor has been an interesting one indeed.... Theatrical prints were destroyed... the masters were not. At least, I certainly do not believe that for a minute. GL would be an idiot to do so. There is no way he would destroy such a potential source of extra income with the HD dvd format looming, and even bigger things than that in the more distant future.

Didn't he undo some of the 97 added things? If so, he had to have the original negatives to resplice.

All of us film people should certainly understand that a cut negative doesn't mean a destroyed one, and GL has only ever said cut. He's never said destroyed or lost that I can recall. Technobabble being used to the uneducated's disadvantage I would think. [Smile]

Since I don't have the Laserdiscs, I'll be buying this because I don't have any widescreen addition, other than a laserdisc copy that glitches during the Vader in the cave sequence on ESB. I'll give the special edition discs to someone who can't afford the box set. I bet it won't be too hard to find someone who would appreciate it.

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 09-12-2006, 02:08 AM:

Somehow I seem to think I saw an add for some new DVD edition of the original trilogy movies on TV last night, but I was in the kitchen and didn't really pay attention. I thought at first it was for yet another video game, but it appeared to be some DVD release. But I checked an amazon.com and there is nothing new listed. I don't really care very much, although I wouldn't mind having the untampered version of "Episode IV" for nostalgic reasons.

Posted by Andrew Peter Chobaniuk (Member # 3886) on 09-12-2006, 07:17 AM:

quote:
see Han Solo shoot first.

thats the only beef i have with the updated trilogy

han was badass when he shot first
now greedo just has awful aim

i saw a tv ad for them last night

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 09-12-2006, 04:38 PM:

Michael, they came out today.

Posted by Frank Dubrois (Member # 3042) on 09-12-2006, 04:50 PM:

I'm a big fan of the original movies, but even I wont run out and buy this crap. its quite obvious that George (may I call him that?) is doing nothing more than collecting income. Next, we will get a single DVD with just the original movie, THEN we might get HD or blue-ray in the next 2 years. MAYBE. I dont think George is in any hurry to get a nice pristime copy of his original trilogy out to the public anytime soon. It would be financially stupid.

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 09-12-2006, 05:00 PM:

What's on these DVDs? The original theatrical releases? What are the extras? The same ones as in the DVD box that came out last year or so?

Posted by Frank Dubrois (Member # 3042) on 09-12-2006, 05:17 PM:

They are 2 disc versions. One disc is the original 1977 release, while the other disc is the Special Edition 1997 version. The problem that a lot of people are having is, the original 1977 version has not been remastered, not anamorphic, and I believe is in Stereo with no additional extras. Its a complete waste of money. George will release the ORIGINAL version again...probably single disc, possibly remastered (but I wouldn't count on it). If you've seen the laserdisc version of Star Wars, thats essentially what your getting, just transferred to DVD.

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 09-12-2006, 05:30 PM:

George has you all right where he wants you. Hopefully by now, SW fans have caught on and will not buy this disc but sadly many will.

Posted by Frank Dubrois (Member # 3042) on 09-12-2006, 05:48 PM:

Yup...and many many will. Just read the reviews of this release on Amazon. Some kids yell and scream but say they will buy it anyway. Its sad. Unfortunately, by buying these DVD's, we (or you) are sending a clear message to George...

Dear George,

Please [sex]

us again.

Signed,

Fans of the movie

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 09-12-2006, 06:00 PM:

Not that it matters much, but is there a difference between the DVD edition released and the special edition which came to theaters in 1997? Maybe the bits where that idiot who played Darth Vader in the new movies is edited in, but apart from that?
On amazon it actually says this one is 1977 and 2004, but I already have the 2004 box set, so why would I buy this and duplicate this version just to get the 1977 version?
And this one looks like it contains just 1977, but in a full screen and a widescreen version. That doesn't make sense. Why would I want to buy a fullscreen version? OK, I know, some idiots would. Or actually many. But if I want the widescreen edition, why do I have to buy it in either a double pack with the 2004 edition or with the fullscreen version? That really is idiotic.
On top of that, it says in the reviews that this isn't even the original 1977 version, but the original Laserdisc release in which some details are different, too.

Oh, yes, no really new extras but a Star Wars Lego trailer! Wow!

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 09-12-2006, 06:31 PM:

I was looking at these in the store today and WTF, like you said the original versions are not enhanced for 16:9. They're plain old letterboxed 2.35-in-4:3. Screw them. I don't care about extras with the original versions, but since they've compromised on the video quality (and the audio?) in order to justify yet another "NEW & IMPROVED!" release later, I'm keeping my money. [fu]

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 09-12-2006, 11:29 PM:

Here's a nice little companion piece to go with those less than impressive new Star Wars DVDs: the new Bladerunner disc that hit store shelves today.

Unlike the SW films, the new Bladerunner DVD has a nice looking 16x9 enhanched video transfer. But that's where the good ends. The audio, strangely, is still puny 2.0 (instead of a 4.1 or 5.1 track more similar to the Dolby 4.2 mag mix on those 70mm prints of the 1982 release). The DVD has no extras at all.

Supposedly there is an "ultimate edition" of Bladerunner in the works for next year, which would be the 25th anniversary of its original release. Looks like I'll be waiting until then. I'm certainly not buying any of this fobbed off crap.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 09-13-2006, 01:00 AM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
Supposedly there is an "ultimate edition" of Bladerunner in the works for next year, which would be the 25th anniversary of its original release. Looks like I'll be waiting until then. I'm certainly not buying any of this fobbed off crap.

..and you think that they should (or,hope to) return the narrative script spoken by Harrison Ford in this edition if they are going to release this version as an anniversary package?

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 09-13-2006, 08:48 AM:

If someone could come up with interesting, new movies which appealed to a wider base of fans (and people who have gradually lost interest in movies anyway)... or, in other words, if someone were truly as innovative today as Lucas was 30 years ago, then a lackluster DVD release of a 30-year-old movie would be a complete, non-issue.

Complain all you want about how Lucas is just trying to squeeze money out of his loyal fans but, really, the fact that we've spent four pages of forum space on this topic says a lot more about the rubbish so many other filmmakers have pushed on us in recent years. Nobody's being forced to buy this DVD release. I'll probably buy it, despite the fact that I already have the 2004 DVDs. So... why would I do something so stupid? Because I'm tired of loaning my 2004 DVDs to my nephew and I'd rather let him watch Star Wars than a long list of other, more recent "family" movies. The price isn't going to kill me and it's about time I started acting like a cool uncle.

Maybe if the Fox executives had expressed more respect for Lucas in 1977... Maybe if the production hadn't ruined Lucas' health... Maybe if the DGA had behaved more civilly towards him... Maybe if his wife hadn't left him as this "original trilogy" came to a close... Maybe if Star Wars had won Best Picture that year... then maybe Lucas wouldn't have spent the next 20 years (and more) dreaming up ways to keep "improving" it.

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 09-13-2006, 08:58 AM:

I believe the new BLADERUNNER set is supposed to have 4 versions of the movie on it. I don't see last week's release as being a problem since they told the public in advance that there would be a new one next year. If I liked that movie as much as some people, I would've totally bought the remastered version so I'd have something decent to watch until next year's set came out.

As for the STAR WARS issue, they have made it quite clear that they consider the theatrical versions to be supplemental features on these discs. They are being treated as a historical curiosity. No one complained about the shitty 4:3 transfer of the Love Conquers All version of BRAZIL that was contained in the Criterion set. What's the difference here? I say this all the time, but film is not an interactive medium. People should watch the version of a movie that the director wants them to. That's just being respectful. I'm not saying whether or not Greedo should shoot. The fact of the matter is he does. If you want to debate how stupid that is, that's perfectly fine. And if you truly don't like STAR WARS in special edition form, don't watch it. But I don't believe random people should be able to alter movies to fit their own personal tastes.

And on that note, if George Lucas really wanted to do us a favor, he'd release a restored version of the theatrical cut of JEDI, since Marquand was dead before any changes were made, and he'd let Kershner go in and recut EMPIRE without any restrictions. That's what I want to see from Lucasfilm. That, and all 13 episodes of DROIDS on Blu-ray.

Posted by Frank Dubrois (Member # 3042) on 09-13-2006, 02:31 PM:

quote: Monte L Fullmer
..and you think that they should (or,hope to) return the narrative script spoken by Harrison Ford in this edition if they are going to release this version as an anniversary package?

With all the things you can do with DVD, including additional sountracks, why wouldnt they? Why not get rid of the Spanish, French and Chinese soundtracks?? Those countries have their own region DVD, we dont NEED them on a region 1 DVD. Give me both soundtracks (with and without the narrative, and a commentary), and I'd be very happy.

quote: Greg Anderson
Maybe if the Fox executives had expressed more respect for Lucas in 1977... Maybe if the production hadn't ruined Lucas' health... Maybe if the DGA had behaved more civilly towards him... Maybe if his wife hadn't left him as this "original trilogy" came to a close... Maybe if Star Wars had won Best Picture that year... then maybe Lucas wouldn't have spent the next 20 years (and more) dreaming up ways to keep "improving" it.

So this justifies this newest DVD release? WE the fans of this movie are supporting Lucas, not the studio, not his wife. If he screws the fans over, then he really will be S.O.L. because he wont have an income. The only reason Lucas was allowed to follow his dream was because of the fans. Crapping in the hand that feeds you doesnt right a wrong....

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 09-13-2006, 02:40 PM:

Speaking of Bladerunner, I've never seen the entire thing because everyone tells me that this verion is best or that version is best and that they are all so different and none of the versions are the one that was released in the theater. I don't know which one to watch and no matter which one I do, I feel like I'm getting the wrong experience of the movie.

So screw Bladerunner.

Fortunately I saw Star Wars in its original form and I know that's the correct version.

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 09-14-2006, 08:47 AM:

quote: Frank Dubrois
The only reason Lucas was allowed to follow his dream was because of the fans. Crapping in the hand that feeds you doesnt right a wrong....

Lucas has a lot of personal reasons to hate that original cut of Star Wars. (And I didn't even mention the fact that, at first, the only money he made from that movie was thanks to his "crazy" merchandising deal... not from actually directing the movie!) When it comes to pleasing his "fans," I wonder about that. The uninformed masses seem very supportive every time there's a new version of Star Wars out there. Meanwhile, his most vocal "fans" are quick to pick apart everything he does, accuse him of being "greedy" and post obscenity-laced tirades about Lucas on the Internet. Why would he bend over backwards to please those "fans"?

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 09-14-2006, 03:20 PM:

quote: Frank Dubrois
If he screws the fans over, then he really will be S.O.L. because he wont have an income.

Wakeup call to Frank: George Lucas can screw the fans repeatedly backwards and forwards and he will still have plenty of income, because there is an abundant supply of people who will buy whatever he puts out, crappy or not.

Even if he didn't have an income, he doesn't NEED any more money anyway.

Posted by Frank Dubrois (Member # 3042) on 09-14-2006, 09:17 PM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
there is an abundant supply of people who will buy whatever he puts out, crappy or not.

Exactly, and I think thats why he does what he does. Don't get me wrong, I am a huge Star Wars fan, but I think THATS the reason I am so critical. I saw the original movie in 1977 (all 3 originals actually) and THAT is the Star Wars I love and remember. That goes true with most of the fans. George then goes and "fixes" those movies going overboard with CGI effects on everything he does (some scenes look good, I'll admit), but what pisses me off, is him basically telling us to forget the original version, that wasn't the correct version...here's my super fancy enhanced version...THIS is the movie you need to like now. A lot of fans disapprove of the new versions of the movies for many number of reasons. I don't like the changed dialogue, I dont like the fact that they changed Anakin in ROTJ. Did anyone think that the extra 10 seconds of the Hoth ice creature showing 1 arm was necessary? We didnt need a fancy new Death Star explosion either. A lot of the little things he felt he needed to add...he really didnt. Would Citizen Kane be any better in color? Would fans and film critics tolerate it? No. As far as George releasing the the originals on DVD....I don't see that as doing a favor for the fans. Look at the quality of the end product! We all know what his other companies can do to improve movies, and he lays out this crap for us to buy? Of course were gonna complain about it...regardless of what some people accuse "us fans of the original" of, we did NOT ask for a substandard transfer of one of the greatest movies of all time. It may not be Georges favorite version, but it IS the version that made him rich and started his empire. It allowed him to finish his trilogy, it allowed him to move onto other projects. It allowed him to be an egotistical ass. I dont care if he updates his movies, thats his business, but I dont want to be told THAT this is the version I should like...I'll like the version I want to like, and thats the orginal. If George released BOTH versions at the same time, which one do you think would sell better? George did a disservice to himself, to his movies, and most of all to the fans. Anyone who thinks I'm alone in thinking like this, just read the reviews of the DVD release. The fans arent happy about it.

Posted by Mathew Molloy (Member # 666) on 09-15-2006, 12:17 AM:

The really frustrating part is going over to Amazon.com and reading the user reviews. There's a lot of misinformation in regards to aspect ratios and anamorphic presentations - among other things. One guy's post titled "Do The Math" is all over the map. I am getting these via Netflix in a few days and I'm looking forward to judging for myself. It has to be better than LD through a crappy S video output.

Posted by Frank Dubrois (Member # 3042) on 09-15-2006, 09:54 AM:

don't count on it......

Posted by Sam Graham (Member # 2889) on 09-15-2006, 10:14 PM:

I actually bought Ep IV because it is the first opportunity to have the first movie on DVD without getting two others I could care less about. It's the second copy I've owned (the first being a VHS tape from...oh...the 80's?)

The original version defaults to matrix surround, visually pops and jitters, and basically has all the flaws of watching it in a crappy Mall 3.

The redux version has overly heavy color saturation, an artificially punchy, yet muddy, soundtrack, and a bunch of stupid and pointless CGI creatures.

Guess which one I'll choose to watch again?

(At least until my television situation changes to where "anamorphic" actually means something...)

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 09-15-2006, 11:29 PM:

quote: Sam Graham
I actually bought Ep IV because it is the first opportunity to have the first movie on DVD without getting two others I could care less about.

What about THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK, which is like, you know, one of finest works of art ever produced? I mean seriously, are you OK? I'm concerned. [Wink]

As for the transfer, it's not so much that it's not anamorphic. The problems come more from the heavy video artifacting that is associated with most 13 year-old transfers. The picture is essentially one huge jagged edge. That being said, I got some sort of perverse thrill from remembering watching those LaserDiscs back in high school and thinking that they were the absolute pinnacle of video quality.

Posted by Frank Dubrois (Member # 3042) on 09-15-2006, 11:49 PM:

quote: Sam Graham
Guess which one I'll choose to watch again?

Based on your reviews, I would guess you'd watch the VHS again.

Posted by Charles Greenlee (Member # 3856) on 09-16-2006, 01:32 AM:

Back to the more technical side of things. A previous post referred to dubbing the laserdiscs to dvd, via the RCA ports. RCA ports are an analaog format, and some quality would be lost, though minimal on a high quality setup. Woulnd't it be more sound that they have a way of ripping the data off the discs in it's full digital format, and re-encode and burn it to the DVD? And someone mentioned Laserdisc possibly having a digital soundtrack. Yes and no. The sound is recorded on the disc as digital data, but only after being converted by a Analog-to-Digital conversion. Unfortunatly, this would still involve the sound being decoded back to analog during play, and possibly matrixed decoded to Dolby Pro-logic. If this was the case, you'd still get 4.0 surround, if the track was matrixed to pro-logic to begin with. When did pro-logic come out?

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 09-16-2006, 09:52 AM:

Don't quote me on this, but I think Pro-Logic was somewhere around 1991.

The other advantage that the new discs have over most homemade LD to DVD transfers is that there is no noticeable compression artifacting.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 09-16-2006, 10:30 AM:

quote: Charles Greenlee
Unfortunatly, this would still involve the sound being decoded back to analog during play, and possibly matrixed decoded to Dolby Pro-logic. If this was the case, you'd still get 4.0 surround, if the track was matrixed to pro-logic to begin with. When did pro-logic come out?

Matrixed audio is not at all 4.0. Just like most modern DVD packaging will tell you, Dolby Surround is very much a 2.0 only type of thing. You have only 2 discrete channels of audio with different phasing tricks used to artificially simulate more channels of audio.

This is also why it isn't correct to refer to Dolby Digital EX as a 6.1 thing. Even Dolby's own advertising guidelines stipulate it must be called a 5.1 format.

Some DVDs have truly discrete Dolby Digital 4.0 audio tracks. Edward Scissorhands is one such disc. A number of 1980s movies on DVD, such as The Abyss and Big Trouble in Little China have 4.1 audio tracks with the mono surround channel being summed across both RS and LS channels. I even saw a DVD for the 80's film Working Girl that had a Dolby Digital 3.0 audio track.

The original versions of the Star Wars Trilogy should have Dolby Digital 4.1 audio tracks based on the original mixes used for their 70mm Format 42 prints. I find the 2.0 treatment unacceptable. The non-anamorphic laser disc transfer is also unacceptable, especially when the DVD format is nearly a decade old and we have two new HD-disc formats duking it out.

With all of those odd packagings of audio layouts on DVD, I would be very much against it if film studios suddenly started playing fast and loose with audio terminology and calling 2.0 channel Dolby Surround audio tracks 4.0. You would have no way to know which DVDs had real 4.0 audio on them versus others with fake 4.0 without buying/renting the disc.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 09-16-2006, 10:48 AM:

The reason the transfers are so crappy is because they are included with the Special Edition discs. That way you'll be able to contrast and compare the two versions. Then you'll see how much Lucas and that Rick McCallum guy "improved" the movies. You will shit your pants, be blown away by the difference, see that the Special Edition versions are truly better and that Lucas was right all along.

This plan cannot fail!

Posted by Mathew Molloy (Member # 666) on 09-16-2006, 07:41 PM:

I just got the trilogy discs in from Netflix and I'm watching Star Wars now. I also have the Laserdisc running to swap back and forth to compare the picture/sound.

The laserdisc is the 1989 Special Widescreen Edition.

Here's how I'm viewing this...
DVD: Sony DVP NS-75H HDMI & Optical digital audio
LASERDISC: Pioneer CLD-D501 S-Video & Optical digital audio
PROCESSOR: Sony STR DG-800 HDMI in/out, S-video in/Component out
PROJECTOR: Optoma H78DC3 DVI in via HDMI to DVI converter, RCA Component in.
SCREEN: 4'x7' Gatorboard
Note the processor converts the S-Video in to Component out.
I'm listening to both in Dolby ProLogic IIx

I'm not hearing much difference in the audio and I can't yet explain the differences I am hearing.

PROS:
The difference in video is enormous. It's like the jump from a home-recorded vhs tape to CAV Laserdisc.

The dvd shows more stars, blacks are more deep & rich, colors are closer to being correct, whites are whiter, edges are much more sharp.

I'm pretty sure this is a different source than the 1989 Laserdisc as there's less dirt and scratches in the dvd source material.

The DVD is slightly underscanned compared to the LD but this has removed the annoying, visible splices of the LD.

The dvd has the "Star Wars" title and the LD has the "Star Wars Episode IV A New Hope" title.

Two more pro's over the laserdisc is 1) the lack of dropouts - of which there are a lot of on my disc... and 2) I don't have to change sides and swap discs!

Cons:
Despite the obvious lack of an anamorphic image and discrete audio - Greedo's subtitles are in the letterbox area and the lower half of his subtitles go missing on a 16x9 screen. Jaggies - although not as bad as the LD they're still pretty bad - sharpness leaves much to be desired. There's some weave but not near as bad as the LD.

The layer change happens after "Terminate her, immediately!" and is pretty bad. Most layer changes on this dvd player are practically unnoticeable but this one - it's like a changeover done wrong.

After watching this dvd I decided I will be buying the dvd's even though I ALREADY HAVE the other versions on dvd. Oh well, I'll give those away.

Later tonight, when there's no ambient light in this room, I'll edit this to add some photos and perhaps comment further.

Posted by Frank Dubrois (Member # 3042) on 09-16-2006, 08:48 PM:

quote: Mathew Molloy
The difference in video is enormous. It's like the jump from a home-recorded vhs tape to CAV Laserdisc.

Well, the difference your seeing COULD be the fact that your using an HDMI cable for the DVD's and an S-VIDEO cable for the laser disc. Thats not exactly comparing apples with apples is it? HDMI gives a pure digital signal, while your S-VIDEO gets converted to analog. It is the same exact transfer as the laserdisc, they did nothing to it.....

Posted by Mathew Molloy (Member # 666) on 09-16-2006, 09:45 PM:

Frank- why so negative? Should I not have bothered?

S-Video is as high resolution one can get out of a laserdisc (afaik) and that's why I'm comparing the two the way I am. People keep saying "I may as well stick with the laserdisc if the image isn't any better".

In fact, when I previously stated the DVD "...has to be better than LD through a crappy S video output" you replied "Don't count on it." Really, I am comparing apples to apples it's just the one apple is 15 years older than the other.

I'm just trying to state some facts which seem to be missing in reviews of these dvds no matter where I search online. Everyone has their panties in a wad over these dvds but nobody is giving any first-hand experience.

NOTE: I just swapped the S-Video cable from the LD and into the DVD. The difference is still much, much, much better than I expected. I'd say again it's like going from a homemade videotape to, let's say, SVHS.

Don't get me wrong. I'm pissed these weren't released as they SHOULD have been but they're not as bad as everyone's saying.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 09-16-2006, 10:31 PM:

LaserDiscs aren't capable of true s-video. The video is stored on the disc in the horrible and unacceptable COMPOSITE format which everyone on the planet hates. The composite is split by the player into s-video which is then split again by your processor into component. The best test would be composite from both players (LD and DVD) straight into the TV.

Posted by Mathew Molloy (Member # 666) on 09-16-2006, 11:31 PM:

Thanks for the info. Joe. I remember you posted that elsewhere at one time and I forgot all about that. No wonder the DVD through S-Video looks so much better.

But honestly, I don't care to compare the DVD to the LD via the same output - that wasn't my goal or intention.

My point was to compare the newly released dvd, and the best quality I can expect from that format - to the previously released version on LD and the best quality I can expect from that format.

Again, people are writing that the dvd won't look any better than the laserdisc and of course it does.

Now if I can only figure out how to reduce the pixel size of the shots I took I could post the pictures. Silly macs.

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 09-17-2006, 12:24 AM:

The 1989 laserdiscs are too old. For a real "apples to apples" comparison you need the THX-edition laserdiscs from 1993 or the CLV versions which were released after that.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 09-17-2006, 12:38 AM:

Aren't those the Special Edition LaserDiscs?

Macs, as with PCs, need software to shrink an image down to 550 pixels wide. Try illegally downloading Photoshop. Macs have some free bullshit that comes with them called iPhoto or something like that. Try illegally using that.

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 09-17-2006, 12:53 AM:

Many "Special Edition" LaserDisc(s) are in the CAV format. A CAV LaserDisc has better resolution than a CLV disc. But what everyone seems to overlook is ALL LaserDiscs are recorded and played back in composite video.

The S-Video output is derived from the recorded (and played-back) composite video after being decoded.

It will never be as good as a DVD which is all digital until the final A/D converter.

Posted by Frank Dubrois (Member # 3042) on 09-17-2006, 12:59 AM:

quote: Mathew Molloy
I don't care to compare the DVD to the LD via the same output - that wasn't my goal or intention.

Then the comparison was a waste of time. I'm not being negative, but if you truely wanted to compare the video quality between the original laserdisc to the "new" DVD original, you have to be fair about it. As Joe said, composite video out on both would be the best route to take. Even going the composite route, I'm sure the DVD player has a more superior D/A converter than the laserdisc player does, so its still not going to be completely conclusive. All Lucas wanted to do was transfer this movie over and say "see, without my enhancements, the originals are crap, I told you its crap, now shut up and like the special edition". Do you really think Lucas would go through the trouble of partially remastering a movie? Even a half-assed job costs money. He'd go all out, or nothing at all...unfortunately, we got the "nothing at all" version.

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 09-17-2006, 01:01 AM:

"Star Wars" Domestic Widescreen-Format Laserdisc Releases

Catalog # 1130-85 = 1989 CBS-Fox CLV
Catalog # 0693-84 = 1993 Fox Video 9-Disc CAV (all three movies)
Catalog # 8763-85 = 1995 Fox Video CLV
Catalog # 410298501 = 1997 Fox Video 5-Disc CLV "Special Edition" (all three movies)

Mathew appears to be comparing the new DVD to the '89 disc which, as Greg pointed out, is a totally different transfer compared to what's on the new DVD, and the DVD rightfully smokes it in quality (though I was a happy camper to have that now-crappy LD when it was new). Greg referred to the '93 and '95 releases. Joe, I think, is asking about the '97 edition.

Posted by Mathew Molloy (Member # 666) on 09-17-2006, 01:33 AM:

Ah nuts. Well at least I answered my own questions so the comparison was not waste of time. Posting my notes here was. Wish some of ya would've understood my intentions... Honestly, I thought I would get a "thanks" out of it. No matter. Tho', to be fair, I didn't know there were LD releases after the '89 "special widescreen edition".

And Mr. Dubrois, if you are not being negative you must be a real kill-joy to be around.

Posted by Frank Dubrois (Member # 3042) on 09-17-2006, 01:45 AM:

Well, as you said,

quote: Mathew Molloy
Wish some of ya would've understood my intentions..

I just pointed out that your dvd to laserdisc comparison was faulted in several ways. Sorry it brought you down, but cmon, did you read your post on your first comparison? DVD with HDMI compared to laserdisc S-Video. It wasnt even close.

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 09-17-2006, 03:23 AM:

quote: Mathew Molloy
Ah nuts. Well at least I answered my own questions so the comparison was not waste of time. Posting my notes here was. Wish some of ya would've understood my intentions...

I think your intentions were understood by everyone...and I think everyone appreciated your effort. I see no reason to believe you wasted your time.

I can't comment on behalf of the others, but I suspect everyone who "criticized" your comparison was doing so only to offer additional information thought to be relevant to the comparison or to point out that you were not approaching it from an "apples to apples" standpoint.

By the way, at what theatre in Monterey do you work, if I may ask? I used to reside in Monterey. (I grew up an Army Brat; parents stationed at Fort Ord.) In fact, I saw the movie that is the subject of this discussion at the UA Regency during its summer 1978 re-release.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 09-17-2006, 04:44 AM:

Michael, you cited catalog numbers in a previous post. What catalog is this? Dillards? JC Penny? Why are the numbers so inconsistent? If they are not consistent, what is the point of the catalog? Two discs could theoretically have the same number. And yes, I was talking about the 1997 version. The whole 90's decade was a blur for me.

Someday after I replace all of my dozen or so LaserDiscs with something better, I will catapult it away as far as I can. It's one of those with AC-3 "RF", switches sides on its own, plays DVDs, and is overall very annoying. You have 1 guess what company it is made by. I think it would be impossible to guess wrong.

Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 09-17-2006, 08:38 AM:

quote: Joe Redifer
I don't know which one to watch and no matter which one I do, I feel like I'm getting the wrong experience of the movie.

Exactly, I feel the same way about Bladerunner. One sad thing is that this will be the same feeling for many new viewers of Star Wars because I think re-releasing anything with changes is a way of admitting fault with the original, an original many of which may have been fond. The same crap happened with E.T. Some of the most-loved parts of classic movies were not original intentions by the director. They did a great episode of South Park about Lucas and Spielberg screwing with Indy. Thankfully that has yet to happen, but beware in '08 when the new one comes around.

Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 09-17-2006, 09:40 AM:

My main player is a Pioneer DVL-909 which I've had for 8 years now and I still love it. I still haven't upgraded to a 16x9 TV yet, when I do I'll have to get a more up-to-date DVD player. (I've also got a cheapo Chinese player for playing PAL discs, a PS2 which has extreme 'chroma bug', and a Philips DVD recorder which really sucks at playback.) My Pioneer is fixed for region-select and no Muckrovision though. It can play dual-layer DVD+Rs too. The only thing I hate about it is that "spinning disc" graphic it shows while switching sides on LDs.

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 09-25-2006, 02:34 PM:

quote: Charles Greenlee
When did pro-logic come out?

Dolby Surround: 1982
Dolby Surround Pro-Logic: 1987

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 09-25-2006, 05:28 PM:

Really? 1982? I have one of the first consumer decoders by "Surround Sound Inc." It was the "Dolby MP Matrix" decoders. All it decoded was the surround channel and not too cleverly but it did have delay and a modified Dolby B filter...in fact it bore the Dolby logo.

Steve

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 09-25-2006, 08:00 PM:

quote: Chad Souder
The same crap happened with E.T. Some of the most-loved parts of classic movies were not original intentions by the director. They did a great episode of South Park about Lucas and Spielberg screwing with Indy.

There is a very critical difference that separates the revisions made by E.T. over Star Wars: The 2-disc DVD release of E.T.: The Extraterrestrial featured both the original theatrical release cut (with the cops holding guns in their hands) and the special edition release with added footage (and cops' guns replaced with walkie talkies). Basically both purists and paranoid parents were left satisfied.

On top of that, the original theatrical cut of E.T. on DVD had Dolby Digital 5.1 and DTS 5.1 audio tracks. And that's despite misleading packaging notes that didn't mention the DTS track. There was none of this moronic 2.0 bullshit purists have to put up with on the Star Wars and Bladerunner discs.

Overall, I think the special edition 2-disc release of E.T. was handled pretty well.

Posted by Ron Curran (Member # 3631) on 09-25-2006, 08:09 PM:

The curious thing about the ET release in Australia is that the original (avec guns) was rated G and the re-cut version (sans guns) was rated PG by our wise minders.

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 09-27-2006, 02:48 PM:

quote: Steve Guttag
Really? 1982? I have one of the first consumer decoders by "Surround Sound Inc." It was the "Dolby MP Matrix" decoders. All it decoded was the surround channel and not too cleverly but it did have delay and a modified Dolby B filter...in fact it bore the Dolby logo.

It isn't clear to me if you're suggesting the 1982 date is too early or too late. My source on this info is the 1996 Dolby company chronology.

quote:
December 1982
First licensed decoder with Dolby Surround circuitry introduced by Surround Sound Inc.

quote:
January 1987
Firt Dolby Pro Logic directional enhancement surround decoder shown at CES

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 09-27-2006, 04:25 PM:

Not suggesting anything...just really trying to remember when it was. The time frame sure seems right. I also used the odd CP50 in my home system every once in a while too.

I still have that SSI unit around somewhere. Probably next the Pioneer VP-1000.

Steve

Posted by Charles Greenlee (Member # 3856) on 09-28-2006, 08:40 PM:

quote: Frank Dubrois
I just pointed out that your dvd to laserdisc comparison was faulted in several ways. Sorry it brought you down, but cmon, did you read your post on your first comparison? DVD with HDMI compared to laserdisc S-Video. It wasnt even close.

I'm not sure about his original intent. I read differently. Not that the media, or the transfer resulted in a better product, but that the equipment playing the movie, including the connection technology, has progressed so far between the two players makes the difference. Thus his comparison is really more about the playing technology than about the media itself.

Take lenses. If you play a film on a lens that isn't high quality, you picture won't be as good, no matter how good the media is. Play it with a high quality lens, and the film is able to show to it's full potential. As I mentioned before, maybe the laserdisc media is capable of more than the player playing it. Maybe on a professional player, with the current hookups, it's comparable. Hence why I think that they aren't dubbing via analog connections from DVD, but rather rippping the laserdisc master digitally, reencoding it for DVD, and burning it to DVD.