• The new B5TV.COM is here. We've replaced our 16 year old software with flashy new XenForo install. Registration is open again. Password resets will work again. More info here.

Star Wars: ORIGINAL DVDs TO BE RELEASED!!!!

Can anyone find this "official announcement" on a Lucas Film website? The two sites linked here read the same, and do list Lucasfilm as the source, but it still sounds like a hoax to me. WTF is "Dolby 2.0 Surround"? The originals were in Dolby Pro-logic, but "2.0" means only two channels, right? That's not surround. Surely they would reprocess the pro-logic to be 5.1 surround. Sounds fishy to me.
 
Dolby 2.0 Surround is Dolby Pro-logic. The left and right speakers are in stereo and the Center and mono Surround effects channels are separated using matrix technology when the surround bit in the decoder is turned on. The Center and Surround effects channels aren't separated when the surround bit in the decoder is turned off.

tonformate-dolby-digital-2-0-ds-on.jpg
tonformate-dolby-digital-2-0-ds-off.jpg
 
The starwars.com domain is owned by Lucas. Do you really think they let some fan register that and keep it? It is the official site of the Star Wars series. If you go to the Lucasfilm site you won't find a press release about the new DVDs. That site only handles company news. If you want to learn about the Star Wars films you click on "films" and "Star Wars" and - lo and behold - you're taken to a link to www.starwars.com :)

That is the "official announcement"

And it certainly isn't a hoax. (It has been covered in USA Today, among other places.)

The original films were not in "Dolby Pro Logic", which is a home audio format. They were in Dolby Surround, and like most surround formats of the time it encoded all the sound information into two channels, from which sound would be steered to the different speakers when it was passed through a decoder.

Dolby Digital has nothing to do with multichannel sound. It is simply a compression scheme for digitizing sound. Dolby Digital can carry a number of sound formats from DD 1.0 (mono, no Low-Frequency Effects channel) through DD EX 7.1 (7 channels including two discrete surround channels, not the mono surround channel of DD 5.1, and an LFE.) DD 2.0 can be anything from a digital version of straight 2 channel stereo up through a 4 or 5 channel matrixed Dolby Surround track (without LFE) Also you have to remember that in 1977 the soundtrack on the 70mm prints (of which there were only about 100) was different from that on the 35mm prints. The optical soundtracks were limited by the space avaiable on the prints, so if I'm not mistaken the 70mm prints had a 4 channel (matrixed in 2 channels) soundtrack while the 35mm prints had a more conventional stereo track. (People forget that even major motion pictures well into the 70s were lucky to get stereo tracks, and many were still produced with mono tracks. The Oscar for best sound in 1976 went to All the President's Men, which had a mono track. So did Rocky, one of the pictures it beat.)

DD 5.1 is one of several systems that uses 5 seperate digital channels - left, center, right, left rear, right rear and the ".1" low frequency effects channel. Dolby Surround extract data from two channels and directs more or less sound to the 5 main speaker arrays. But they aren't isolated from one another. So even in a soundtrack that is clearly "surround", you'll get some bleed-through. The center channel speaker will carry the score, as well as the dialogue. In DD 5.1 the rear surround channels are actually matrixed from a single shared channel, and therefore not truly discrete - which is why Dolby Digital EX 6.1 and 7.1 and the 7.1 DTS format were later introduced. When I bought my first Dolby Digital receiver the guy at Sound Advice demonstrated the difference between Dolby Pro Logic (which is the home audio system used to decode various analog Dolby Surround formats) and true Dolby Digital using the laserdisc of The Lion King. Running the closing credits with Elton John singing "Can You Feel the Love Tonight?" in DPL he turned various speakers on and off. On all of them you could hear both the orchestra and the vocals, though more of the vocals in the center channel and more of certain instruments in the surrounds, for instance. Then he switched to Dolby Digital. Now all I could hear in the center channel was Elton's voice. It was completely isolated, just as it must have been recorded with him listening to the miusic playback in his headphones. Running through the right, left and two surround channels painted an aural picture of the studio the orchestra was recorded in. You could "hear" the position of the various instruments.

The Star Wars films were remixed in DD 5.1 for the Special Editions, but that isn't how they were originally presented. Even the 1993 THX laser discs, which did use digital audio (AC-3 for Audio Codec 3 as it was known back then) only encoded the original tracks digitally and "tweaked" them in a few places. (Excessively, in my opinion. The echo chamber effect when Luke and Leia swing across the shaft after he shoots out the bridge control is way over the top compared to what I heard in a 70mm theater in Paramus, NJ in 1977.) Still, the LDs were basically a digital presentation of the original analog movie matrixed surround tracks, not a full-blown DD 5.1 remix, and that is what the new DVDs can and should present. And DD 2.0 is more than capable of handling it.

Regards,

Joe
 
Okay, Joe, I'll take your word that that is an official release. But, after Lucas was so adamant, so often, that he wouldn't release the originals, you can hardly blame me for being skeptical. Such hoaxes have happened in the past.

Of course I know pro logic is a home theater format, and Dolby Digital 5.1 is more or less the digital version, but discrete, and with the low frequency track. It's DD 2.0 that I didn't understand, until Kraig posted. The few DVDs I have in DD 2.0 are in mono, and their original sources were in mono. Just tonight, I watched the Australian DVD of the 1985 film "Bliss," in DD 2.0, and it was mono. So, I thought that sounded like SW would be in mono, or at best, stereo.

Although I certainly don't advocate any tweaking that includes echo chambers :rolleyes:, I should think that the original four discrete channels, left, center, right, surround, that they had to have made to do their various sound formats/mixes of the time, could be delivered to us discretely, somehow. I have no use for the LF track anyway, it is a pet peeve of mine that Lucas has made mono bass the standard of high-end reproduction. But, that's another rant. It seems to me that most analog stereo/surround films of the era, and later, are usually converted to DD5.1 for DVD, so, that's just what I expected.
 
Given that Blu ray players will be backwards compatible(able to play dvds) I'll probably get these.

If I have no other reason I'll get these so I no longer have to fast forward through the "improved" song in Jaba's palace during Jedi. I know Gredo shooting first annoys most people more, and with justification since that moment changes a major character, but that song is so hammer to the scrotum bad that it is easily the most painful change to me.
 
Given that Blu ray players will be backwards compatible (able to play dvds) I'll probably get these.
Click to expand...

There is no way in the world I'm paying upwards of $1,000 for a Blu Ray player or even $500 for an HD-DVD player. When the format war is over and I've got a better idea of what hi-def DVD really looks like in the real world I'll think about it. And there's no reason to think the Star Wars films will make an early debut in hi-def, either. Lucas kept them off stsndard DVD for years because the market wasn't big enough. (The first three films finally arrived in 2004, seven years after the format was launched.) The hi-def market is even smaller at launch because - unlike standard DVD - you need a special TV to take advantage of hi-def discs. So the entire universe of hi-def DVD is limited to those with HDTVs, then those who have a hi-def DVD player and then subdivided into those who own HD-DVD and those who own Blu Ray, since the formats are incompatible. Lucas has hits when he goes for the largest possible mass market (SW, American Grafitti, Indiana Jones[/i]) and flops when he tries for a quirkier niche audience (Howard the Duck, Tucker, Willow) I don't see him jumping on the hi-def DVD bandwagon anytime soon.

Regards,

Joe
 
I'm with Joe on the format wars stupidity, unless, Howard the Duck comes out on either! (not gonna happen. :D) The other caveat is PS3. That "could" give Blue-ray a large boost, if it ever arrives. Does anyone know what camp ( HD_DVD, BR) the studio Lucas is affifiated with is in? The need for Blockbuster titles that show off the technology and drive sales is enormous and Lucas is not above making a little extra cash. ;) so Star Wars, the firstish, is a possibility. I do admit a snarky glee that Serenity is one of the debut HD-DVD's. :devil:
 
The following studios have announced titles for Blu-Ray:

Warner, Paramount, Fox, Disney, Sony (Columbia/Tri-Star), MGM and Lionsgate. Universal-Vivendi announced Blu Ray games for PS3, but Universal Pictures only committed to HD-DVD. Sony, which is the leading hardware proponent of Blu-Ray, is obvioulsy going to be release films exclusivelyon Blu-Ray as long as the format is viable. Warner and Paramount are hedging their bets, comimitting to release films on both formats. (Despite the fact that Warner Bros. helped create the HD-DVD standard.) I'm not sure if Fox and Disney are going to be Blu-Ray exclusive or if they will (or even have already) announced support for both formats.

As far as Lucas is concerned: The Indiana Jones films were released by Paramount, so those could go either way (when they're eventually released.) The Star Wars films are released through Fox, which is Blu-Ray for now, but who knows by the time the films are released. (See my comments above re: Lucas delaying both SW and Indiana Jones movies off DVD until the market was big enough.)

PS3 is a wild card. My gut says that too many of the units are going to be sold to people who are gamers first, and movie or TV fans somewhere between 5th and 9th. :) If that's the case a lot of them will go to kids who don't even have HD-capable TVs and even those who do might not buy or rent many movies. (Hi-def or otherwise.) Throw in the competition from X-Box and I don't see how a console whose primary job is playing games and only secondarily does DVDs is going to drive a new DVD format. My sense from what I see around the web is that there isn't that much of an overlap between hardcore console gamers and home theater fans - and it is the latter who will make or break the new hi-def DVD formats. (I think HT people are more likely to play games on their computers than on consoles connected to their main HT displays. Personally I've never owned a console game system and pretty much stopped playing computer games years ago. There time and money that might have gone into those hobbies went into HT instead. I suspect the reverse is true for many gamers.)

If i were Sony, I wouldn't be counting on PS3 to save my Blu-Ray bacon - especially since both new products have been plagued by repeated delays. Blu-Ray was supposed to debut this month and has been pushed back to June at the earliest. Nobody even has an estimate on when PS3 is going to show up. Like I said, I wouldn't count on it.

Regards,

Joe
 
I don't really disagree with anything you said, Joe. One thing you didn't mention though, is that there are more big name hardware manufacturers in the Blu-Ray camp. Given what I've read about their capabilities, I'm hoping Blu-Ray wins out, but it is much too soon to guess. Did you know that they have developed what they describe as a virtually unscratchable coating for Blu-Ray discs? When there is an affordable unit, preferably with recording, I'll buy which ever format seems the strongest at that time. Some folks speculate that BOTH formats will continue, and manufacturers will make players that play both formats. Who knows what will happen?
 
Blu-Ray is supposed to have a better coating - but then it needs such a coating because it is much more fragile (because of the greater data density) So it is hard to tell if they're actually going to be any more robust. Several hardware manufacturers are also hedging their bets and releasing both kinds of player. (I suspect that Sony is going to reject any suggestion that manufacturers build players that will handle both formats, at least for as long as possible.)

As with DVD itself (and CD before it) I don't see recording as being a major issue. There is a well-established history of high-quality, playback-only audio and video formats in this country - begining with the long-playing record, and none of them has ever been held-up by an inability to record. Laser and other early video disc formats flopped or remained niche products because they were competing with a new technology (video tape) that was already replacing the 8mm camera and projector and also - almost as a bonus - allowed users to play back prerecorded Hollywood movies at near-broadcast resolution. Just as early DVD and CD adopters already had tape recording options available to them, so hi-def DVD early adopters will already have DVD recording (and HD hard drive recording with HTPCs and hacked DVRs) to them when they start. So even if it takes a few years for recording to appear, and another couple for it to become affordable, I don't see this as being a major stumbling block. I suspect that one format will have emerged as the winner before economical hi-def DVD recorders emerge. And I expect that one format will emerge victorious, just because that has been the pattern up until now. The market just doesn't seem to have room for two formats in certain areas.

Regards,

Joe
 
I think you're probably right, lack of recording won't hinder the adoption of one system, or another. But, if one comes out with affordable recorders before the other does, that could have an impact. I really meant that for me, recording in HD is important. Also, you're probably right about it taking a few years before recorders become affordable. I have read that they have the tech down, and have made recordable discs. I guess I should just break down, and buy a DVD recorder, since they are getting so cheap. I hate to keep making SVHS tapes of the few things I want to save, that will probably never be available again. In fact, I'd like to dump a lot of my rarer SVHS stuff onto DVDs, before they get too old. Considering their storage capacity, if I had a Blu-Ray, or HD-DVD recorder, one disc would hold quite a bit of dubbed SVHS!
 
I have read that they have the tech down, and have made recordable discs.
Click to expand...

The hold-up will be, as usual, appeasing the studios and coming up with anti-piracy measures. Don't forget, the studios were mightily paranoid about DVD itself, for fear of perfect, infinitely-replicable digital copies floating around - fears which turned out to be justified in large part. How much more are they going to worry about better-than-HD-broadcast standard copies being made available. (Better because less compressed than your typical OTA, cable or satellite HD channel.)

Regards,

Joe
 
Yeah, you're right. The studios ARE paranoid about every new format that comes along, and they have more reason than ever to be worried about HD recording. Since Sony owns software, i.e. films, it may not make recording hardware right away, but would that really stop the manufacturers who make hardware, but have no financial interests in the software? Besides, I thought they had already agreed to copy protections for Blu-Ray, and HD-DVD, since there are other ways to copy them, and copy protection is first a software protection issue.

Okay, I see Toshiba's first player is listed at $499 US. Sony's new player is expected to be almost twice that, but their new Blu-Ray game player is supposed to be $499, when it comes out in November. Why does a player have to cost more than the game thing? (Sorry, I don't remember its name, even though it is discussed in this thread. I don't play computer games.)
 
Yeah - PS3 is the new Sony game platform that is expected to have an MSRP of around $500. But there are rumors they'll lose money at this price, trading profits for market share and hoping to make it up on the back-end through games and license fees. That may explain why a Blu-Ray player with a game console attached costs half what a Blu-Ray player by itself does. It also suggests that Sony sees the two markets as completely separate and is employing the strategy in each it thinks mostly likely to succeed. (In the home entertainment arena, a lot of people are still willing to pay a price premium for the Sony name, whereas the game market is a lot more cut-throat and subject to price pressure.) Either that or the PS3 is going to be a limited or lousy Blu-Ray player and Sony knows it and is pricing it accordingly. :)

Regards,

Joe
 
The $500 buck version is gimped. They say $600 will be the full final product price. On the other hand the same unit will sell for 600 Euros in the UK.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 417 (members: 0, guests: 417)

Share this page

Back
Top