3b28a31f   
   XPost: alt.fan.starwars   
   From: your.name@isp.com   
      
   In article , "C'Pi"   
    wrote:   
      
   > Duggy wrote:   
   > > On Nov 16, 5:56 pm, Sandman  wrote:   
   > >> In article <4ce1d50d$0$1612$742ec...@news.sonic.net>,   
   > >>   
   > >> sgor...@changethisparttohardbat.com wrote:   
   > >>> In rec.arts.sf.starwars.misc Sandman  wrote:   
   > >>>> I can understand the kind of sheer work that would have to go into   
   > >>>> restoring the originals and why he would focus on the versions he   
   > >>>> actually prefers himself as a director.   
   > >>   
   > >>> This presumes that it would be expensive to do so. Heck, if he   
   > >>> simply re-released the already-existing laserdisc masters (that   
   > >>> were used for the 2006 bonus disk) with the anamorphic switch set   
   > >>> to "on", a lot of people would be thrilled. That would cost   
   > >>> absolutely nothing.   
   > >>   
   > >> I didn't know the laserdisc edition of Star Wars was digital 1080p   
   > >> video.   
   > >>   
   > >> Laserdiscs had 425 lines resolution of analog video. I have a hard   
   > >> time assuming that the supposed master for this low-resolution format   
   > >> would be suited for a bluray release. And said master would also   
   > >> probably still be analog, so the same thing applies.   
   > >>   
   > >> I read somewhere that the Bluray release will be the first   
   > >> all-digital restoration of the original trilogy (SE, that is) and   
   > >> that the DVD release was a mostly analog restoration and then   
   > >> transfer to digital. I can't remember where I read it and I could be   
   > >> mistaken, of course.   
   > >   
   > > Well there you go with your facts.  Facts are just going to anny him.   
   >   
   > He's going to sprout red hair and start singing?   
      
   Maybe Duggy meant Anny Skywalker, i.e. the whiney little brat.  ;-)   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)