Original Star Wars on DVD... Sorta

An anonymous reader writes "The Original Star Wars is available on DVD. Sure it's more moola in Lucas's pocketsess (Gollum accent). But he did finally release the original version for a limited time. But which Original Star Wars, I bet Episode IV is in the opening titles. " Also apparently the original versions are basically non-anamorphic transfers from the laser discs. So basically, they look terrible.

Re:Will we ever get what we really want?

[jmauro]

According to LucasFilm the original originals were destroyed in the making of the "Special Editions". The laserdisk master is all that is left, this may be as good as it gets since Lucas doesn't want to release the "incomplete" originals.

Originals probably still exist

[davidwr]

You may be referring to the great print recall in the 1990s. According to this guy [thedigitalbits.com] high-quality prints still exist and so do the "original" interpositives. Granted the guy is speculating about the interpositives but he seems pretty sure about high-quality prints. If stored carefully these are probably better than the analog laserdisks.

Re:darnit

[yoduh]

That is more of a Family Guy [youtube.com] reference

Not THAT bad

[iamjoltman]

I just wanted to clarify something. They aren't transfers from LaserDisc, they are transfers from a 1993 LaserDisc master. Big difference there. And I think crappy is a bit harsh. Do they look as good as they could? No. Are they anamorphic? No. But are they better than the LaserDisc-ripped bootlegs? At the time, I think the answer is yes. Granted, once the X0 Project [x0project.com] gets completed, there might be some competition there. But for now, I think this is the best you're gonna see the legitimate non-SE original trilogy. (In other words, that doesn't include some where people integrated the 2004 DVDs with LaserDisc rips, while that's better quality, it's still not the same as a legitimate release)

Side-by-side comparison, and anamorphic vs. non-an

[Mr Z]

First: Here's a shot-by-shot comparison of the newly released footage to recent home releases. [starwars.com]

Next, here's a simple explanation of what "anamorphic" is all about. It originally comes from the cinema. An anamorphic lens stretches or shrinks the image along one axis. In the movies, they use it to shrink the image horizontally when they film it, and stretch it back when they project it. This is what allows theaters to fit a widescreen image on square cells on the film. Anamorphic DVDs work similarly.

See, the aspect ratio (ratio of width to height) of the Star Wars theatrical release is somewhat larger than TV's traditional aspect ratio of 4:3. Annoyingly, the video format that DVDs use is hard-coded to a range of fixed resolutions, all of which have 4 times as many pixels across as they have vertically. (Ok, I'm oversimplifying slightly, but not critically.) To fit content wider than 4:3 onto a 4:3 format, you have 3 choices:

• Shrink the image uniformally so that it fits width-wise. This gives unused areas at the top and bottom of the image. The resulting output is referred to as "letterboxed."
• Crop away the sides, adjusting camera shots to bring in the most interesting aspects of the scene. This is referred to as "pan-and-scan."
• Shrink the image horizontally so that it fits width-wise but fills the screen top-to-bottom. This uses all the available pixels but gives you the complete image. This is referred to as "anamorphic."

To display an anamorphic DVD on a regular-screen TV, the DVD player will still need to shrink the image top-to-bottom, otherwise everything will look tall and thin. On such a TV, an anamorphic DVD will not look much different than a letterboxed DVD. On a wide-screen TV, though, the DVD player can stretch the image side-to-side to fill the entire width of the display. This provides a direct benefit over simply enlarging a letterboxed DVD image: You gain vertical resolution.

--Joe

Terrible?

[Schnapple]

Also apparently the original versions are basically non-anamorphic transfers from the laser discs. So basically, they look terrible.

It's true they're non-anamporphic transfers from the Laserdiscs, but over at the forums on OriginalTrilogy.com [originaltrilogy.com] a number of people have bought them and say that actually, they're pretty good. These are people who have more or less every bootleg transfer on the Internet and still have their original laserdiscs, high-end setups, etc. And many are reporting that while yes, their video quality can't really hold a candle to the quality of the 2004 versions of the movies, they do blow away every previous LD bootleg transfer, look better than the Laserdiscs (not too surprising) and actually hold up well when zoomed in (as you would need to do on a widescreen set). I don't own the discs nor do I have a high-end setup so I can't really vouch for any of this.

Re:Side-by-side comparison, and anamorphic vs. non

[Mr Z]

Err, typo above. "4 times as many pixels across" should read "4/3rds as many pixels across." Carry on.

Re:Slashdot just can't be pleased

[Anonymous Coward]

> I'm looking for the original trilogy transferred to DVD cleaned up and pretty, not laserdisk or VHS quality on DVD media.

Actually, laserdisc can look better than DVD. The real issue is the quality of the film transfer - if they don't clean it up digitally like they did for the Special Editions, then it will be a very faithful reproduction of a dirty source.

Re:Will we ever get what we really want?

[Rico_Suave]

From The Digital Bits: ( http://www.thedigitalbits.com/mytwocentsa121.html [thedigitalbits.com] )

1) The original negatives are gone, destroyed as part of the process of creating the 1997 special edition versions.

We're inclined to believe this is true. Still, the original negatives are not the only viable elements that can be used to transfer the films for home video release. There are numerous interpositive prints. There are the separation masters. Worst case, there are a number of high quality release prints available. In short, other elements exist that can be used for this purpose.

2) The other existing original elements have deteriorated too badly to be used.

We'll come back to this one in a minute.

3) There are just no quality film elements remaining anywhere that could be used.

See our answer to #1. Even if it's true that Lucas and his staff destroyed all of the original negatives, it's unlikely in the extreme that they also destroyed all of the interpositives, all of the separation masters, and all of the release prints. In fact, we know that they didn't. Where, for example, would the anamorphic footage of the original 1977 opening text crawl from A New Hope - the footage that appeared in the Empire of Dreams DVD documentary - have come from if not from quality surviving film elements? Still, even if Lucas did destroy every single scrap of original film available in the Lucasfilm Archives... we know for a fact that high quality die transfer release prints exist in the hands of a number of archives and private collectors. While not ideal, any of these could be given a high-definition transfer, a bit of digital clean-up and color-timing, and could be presented on DVD in anamorphic widescreen in quality that would be superior to a 1993 non-anamorphic laserdisc transfer.

4) The 1993 laserdisc masters are the best source material that can be found for use on DVD after exhaustive searches of the Lucasfilm Archives.

See our answer to #3. This is flatly absurd. If this were true, Lucasfilm's archivists should be ashamed of themselves. We know of few professionals tasked with the preservation of film materials that would allow such critically important film elements as the original Star Wars films to be lost, to deteriorate or be wholesale destroyed. And again, even if Lucasfilm's vaults were so woefully incomplete, we know for a fact that quality elements exist elsewhere. Given 48 hours notice, we could track them down ourselves. Surely, with its significant resources and influence, Lucasfilm could do the same. If the 1993 laserdisc masters are really the best that Lucasfilm can do, it's disturbing. If not, a statement like "We returned to the Lucasfilm Archives to search exhaustively for source material that could be presented on DVD..." seems terribly disingenuous - the corporate PR equivalent of "I'm so sorry, but the dog ate my homework."

But let's get back to #2...

2) The other existing original elements have deteriorated too badly to be used.

It just so happens that one of our regular contributors here at The Bits, the author of our ever illuminating Yellow Layer Failure, Vinegar Syndrome and Miscellaneous Musings column, is something of an expert on the subject of film preservation and restoration. Robert A. Harris, in point of fact, is one of the world's best known motion picture archivists, and has does significant work in this field through his company, Film Preserve. Robert's experiments in color technology and more recent advances in the digital domain have set standards in the industry. His reconstruction and restoration efforts, primarily in the large format field, have brought back to the screen some of the most important films ever produced, including Lawrence of Arabia, Spartacus, My Fair Lady, Vertigo and Rear Window.

We asked Robert what might be done with the original surviving elements of the Star Wars films in order to rejuvenate them and present them in high quality on DVD

Re:Originals probably still exist

[imahawki]

I believe the guy that originally called BS on the lack of original prints and interpositives was Robert Harris. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_A._Harris [wikipedia.org] When he made his statement originally it was pretty big news on home theater forums/movie forums because he basically called GL to the carpet. He stated something to the effect that if GL would give him permission and someone would pay for it, he had enough PERSONALLY known sources to do the restoration.

Re:George Lucas' Fear of Failure

[Anonymous Coward]

Akira Kirosawa's anime Samurai 7, while clearly based on his original Shichinin No Samurai (AKA The Seven Samurai), is about 50% or so new plot, and in a different setting (high-tech futuristic vs historical). The Magnificent Seven is actually closer to The Seven Samurai than Samurai 7 is. And Kirosawa did a lot of new material in between.

Watching Episode IV right now

[Beebos]

As I had not bought any previous DVD version, I bought the Widesreen Limited Edition of Episode IV yesterday. Upon seeing this discussion, I popped in the original version so that you could have the opinion of someone who had actually seen it. I am not a video buff, so I don't know all the jargon, but I am a photographer and have spent a lot of time looking at images. I'm using a 27" Trinitron CRT, so those of you with fancy, schmancy plasma screen may may have a different experience.

Overall, I would NOT say that it looks terrible, though if you want to find things to complain about you can. A couple scenes look somewhat muddy. Some scenes have some dust specks here and there, a few scenes have quite a bit of dust, others have none. But all in all the contrast, brightness and color are pretty good. If you sit up close you can see a fair amount of film grain, but sitting 10 feet back you cannot. What does seem to be missing is what I'll call the "ghost boxes" around the ships in the space scenes.

It does appear to be the original version. The title screen only says, "Star Wars", no "Episode IV: A New Hope" Han shoots first. There are no really bad CG characters added. The Death Star explosion is not enhanced. I'm not enough of a Star Wars nerd to know what else to look for.

I suppose it depends on what you are looking for. If you want to be a video geek and complain how its not that great, you can do that. If you want to have fun and remember how you felt as a 12 year old boy in 1977 seeing something that was completely unlike anything you had ever seen before, this is the way to do it. It still brought a tear to my eye when Han zooms in at the last minute and saves Luke.

Do I think Lucas is a prick for not at least cleaning up the dust specks and giving us the option of 5.1 sound? Yes, yes I do.

So there you are Slashdoters. I hope you are all happy that I ruined my first screening of Star Wars in 10 years looking for things not to like and jumping around looking for "enhancements".

Re:Not THAT bad

[elrous0]

The "TR47" anamorphic bootleg releases are the best DVD's of the originals ever produced. I would venture to guess that they absolutely blow this crappy Lucas edition away. They were so good that people even compared them to the commercial anamorphic SE releases.

-Eric

Re:Opening Credits?

[camperdave]

This [starwars.com] is what the poster is referring to.

Re:The Defense of I, II & III

[lightspawn]

Generally, great CGI, great effects, great eye candy, shallow story. If I wanted that, I could as well play a game.

May I recommend LEGO Star Wars [legostarwa...eogame.com]?

Re:Not THAT bad

[Eunuchswear]

-1 uninformative

LaserDisc video is analog. (Sound is either analog or digital).

Re:The Defense of I, II & III

[b1ad3runn3r]

Now, name ONE SciFi movie that is named when it comes to numbering the greatest SciFi movies of all times that consists basically of a love story.

Gattaca

Re:The Defense of I, II & III

[Blondie-Wan]

No, the original May 1977 release (and the '78 and '79 reissues) did in fact say just "Star Wars" at the beginning, with no "Episode IV: A New Hope." The first release of Star Wars - Episode IV: A New Hope with that title was in April of '81, eleven months after the release of Star Wars - Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back.

"Episode IV A New Hope" is NOT in the main cpu...

[thx01138]

I have watched (some of) Episode IV, and I can assure you that the text "EPISODE IV / A NEW HOPE" does not appear in the scroll-up. Simply "STAR WARS" followed by "It is a period of civil war...". I was flabbergasted -- I've never seen that before, although I had heard that's how it appeared in 1977. Apparently by 1978 or so it had been added.