Star Wars Blu-ray Release Date Set for Sept. 16

[chriskrum]

Where's the edit button? Need "know" to be "no"

 

[kesgreen]

Ha ha dgingeri, you made yourself look a right Charlie xD. I can't believe people are still confused about film to HD transfers. Also, if you can't tell the difference between SD and HD then maybe you need a bigger screen or better eyes.
As far as Star Wars goes, original theatrical release or GTFO.

 

[f-gomes]

[citation][nom]dgingeri[/nom]um, no. 35mm film of that era is far lower picture quality of even DVD. While it didn't have pixels, it still had particles of crystals of various chemicals that gives a very similar mechanism as digital resolution, but not set up in a grid array. They had a roughly equal picture quality as a computer screen at 320X240 in the late 70's. chemical advancements in the early 80's led to Return of the Jedi having a quality about equal to a computer screen at 800X600. mid to late 90's films were at about equal to 1024X769 resolution when filmed on 35mm film, or about double that when filmed on 65-70mm film. Moving these films to Blu-ray won't improve picture quality at all. Films of that era simply didn't have the initial picture quality to gain anything from Blu-ray.[/citation]

I'd like to try some of whatever you just smoked.

 

[maestintaolius]

[citation][nom]chriskrum[/nom]Facepalm.Obviously this poster has know idea of the difference between 35mm film and VHS tape as he just posted the stats for VHS tape as if they were 35mm film.And as far as the quality of 60s film vs. digital here's the coup de grace: "Lawrence of Arabia" shot in 1962 in 65 mm has image quality that far, far exceeds anything that can currently be produced in digital.Sadly, people like the poster above have only seen it on VHS and naively believe that's what 60s film looks like.But none of this is relevant to "Star Wars." If Han doesn't shoot first it sucks no matter what format it's in.[/citation]
I did what now?

 

[distanted]

[citation][nom]dgingeri[/nom]um, no. 35mm film of that era is far lower picture quality of even DVD. While it didn't have pixels, it still had particles of crystals of various chemicals that gives a very similar mechanism as digital resolution, but not set up in a grid array. They had a roughly equal picture quality as a computer screen at 320X240 in the late 70's. chemical advancements in the early 80's led to Return of the Jedi having a quality about equal to a computer screen at 800X600. mid to late 90's films were at about equal to 1024X769 resolution when filmed on 35mm film, or about double that when filmed on 65-70mm film. Moving these films to Blu-ray won't improve picture quality at all. Films of that era simply didn't have the initial picture quality to gain anything from Blu-ray.[/citation]
Wow. A whole paragraph dedicated to made up facts. If you want to learn why none of what you say is true, look up: http://www.secrethistoryofstarwars.com/savingstarwars.html
Here is a quote: [citation][nom]Michael Kaminski[/nom]This is another undoable element of the prequels--filmed on 1080p HD, they have, at the most, less than half the resolution of the 35mm original trilogy, with some arguing that 35mm resolves 5000 lines, meaning they have just under 1/5 the resolution[/citation]

 

[chriskrum]

[citation][nom]maestintaolius[/nom]I did what now?[/citation]

You stupidly posted your comment in place where when I hit the quote button with the intention of quoting the person above you I instead, quoted you.

Obviously, the error is entirely yours and you owe me a apology...

It's possible others might see it differently but that's not what the internet is about.

 

[Guest]

I just watched the Blu-ray of Tron (1982), if Star Wars looks anywhere near as close it's going to be amazing.