Complete Comparison of Special Edition Visual Changes — Page 33

 It looks like he is implying that the sub-title burn-ins were printed into the internegative. But he says other videos used the internegatives, and those were blank with electronic subtitles. Same with if they used the archival low-con prints.

So, number one where were they getting their prints, and number two if they were all blank too, then just when did the theatrical subtitles get printed in? In the release print printing stage at the very end?

I don't really know what is normal regarding subtitle printing processes so I can't say if this is usual or makes sense.

Also, it makes sense now knowing the 1993 print was different from the previous ones, and the ones made for the 1985 home video IP. I had no idea. It was a source that was brand new to home video! That's why it is so grainy compared to other ones. It wasn't the same print. It wasn't just that the transfer made the grain more apparent, these were just grainier prints that had never been used before.

But what totally contradicts this is that these are supposedly the original IPs! The earliest generation source possible. So that doesn't make sense. How could the earlier generation be grainier than later? But he even remarks at how grainy the prints are, almost like it was surprising. They had to use heavy DVNR machines as he said. So, why is the grain only a problem when they go back to the earliest generation source? It should be the least grainy of them all.

My theory is that maybe that print isn't what they thought it was.

Wouldn't the "clean" prints be made last chronologically? The english language ones were needed much sooner. (Is the gout generational grain or just dirty/ poorly done?)

Well one thing's for sure, they weren't lying when they said that existing prints are in poor condition.  If they were this bad in the 80's and 90's, just picture them these days . . .

Still, with folks like Robert Harris doing the work, and with the kind of restoration tools available now, it's not at all insurmountable.  They just can't be bothered.

I think this quote needs to be seen again:

"In this case, for all three films, we used interpositive elements that had been made directly from the camera negative. Other film transfers might be done from internegatives made from the interpositive, or from low-contrast prints, but we preferred the IP's for these transfers, because that's the earliest generation usable"

"One small difference from the original films is that in letterbox transfers we prefer to put any subtitles in the black border beneath the actual picture area. Thus we didn't use the same interpositive as the theatrical one, because that one contains subtitling already. In tracking down the elements, we found that the only ones in the vault were ones with subtitles- these clearly weren't the first generation off the camera neg because they had to have the subtitles burned in. So a massive search was undertaken and the first generation IP's were found in a special vault having only opticals in Los Angeles."

"A Mark IIIC with a 4:2:2 digital output [telecine] was used."

"[We used] a noise reduction and dirt concealment device made by Digital Vision, a company in Sweden. Their DVNR-1000 is a very powerful noise reducer for reducing film grain. Especially on the two earlier movies the film grain was very high."

So, let's take this apart based on what is said.

-Previous pre-1993 transfers did not use this "original" IP. They are theorized as using internegatives or print masters, which is probably true. There was also a new IP made for home video in 1985, I believe.

-These are not the theatrical IPs. The theatrical IPs have the English subs burned in.

-All the IPs/prints they could find in the vault had the subs burned in.

-The blank IPs used for the transfer were found in a vault used for storing optical elements in L.A.

So, there are a number of deductions and questions one can extract here. First is this:

-Is this IP actually a different lineage than the "theatrical IP" with subs? If it isn't that means the process of printing Star Wars went like this:

negative>IP (blank)>IN (blank)>IP (subs)>IN (subs)>release print (subs)

That's an awful lot of generational copying! This seems pointless. A more logical way to do it would be this.

negative> IP (blank)

negative> IP (subs)>IN (subs)>release print (subs)

In other words, make two branches. One is intended for theatrical release, with subs. The other is just a straight backup of the negative, blank. You can use it for video, or just as a backup. Maybe this is what foreign prints were made from, using the highly convoluted first process I listed. Maybe this is why foreign prints tend to look a bit rougher, because of the extra two generations? (or is that my imagination/poor storage?)

-It is noted that these IPs were excessively grainy. Is this just a lot of dirt because they were essentially lost in some warehouse in L.A. for a decade and a half?

-If these had been basically lost until they dug them up in 1993--then what the hell were the previous videos being made from? Because they are "blank" as well. One answer may be that they were the INs/print masters derived from this blank IP. All the vault IPs were subbed. But he doesn't say anything about the INs or low-con masters. Maybe they found blank prints that were internegatives or low-contrast print masters, but they were looking for the IP these were made from but couldn't find them, then finally discovered them in a separate warehouse.

-This doesn't answer the question of why they are so grainy. I don't believe it's just dirt, although they are definitely dirty too. Even the guy says grain was a problem, not dirt.

-If the earlier home video transfers used later-generation material derived from this (e.g. the IN and the low-con print derived from that IN)...then why does some of them, notably the 1982 transfer, not have that negative tear (the reason we got on this). If this 1993 transfer is from an original IP made before all the others, why does it have the tear while the 1982 one doesn't, even though that tear was there at some point in 1977? The fact that the 1982 print doesn't have the tear should indicate that that particular print is in fact the earliest one made, as it predates the tear. That print is also blank. So, that would mean that there actually is another blank IP from an earlier time (which also looks less grainy, from the captures).

Based on that, none of this really adds up does it? I do have one theory, which is perhaps unlikely. That theory is that the 1982 blank print is actually the original IP. So where did the blank IP they used come from? No idea. But maybe it was not actually original but was created at a later date from a later IP, which means it actually is the same as a positive release print: original lost IP>IN (used for previous videos)>IP used in 1993.

This would better explain it's grain. But if that's the case...what happened to the original IP? If the only blank material in the vault is INs and print masters, what happened to the IP those were made of? And how convenient that they just happen to find a blank IP hidden at another location (thus giving their story credibility...there was no blank IPs in the vault because it had been stored at the optical warehouse). The only way this would make sense is if that original IP had been junked due to over-use. But if all previous videos were made from the INs etc, that means it was never used. So the only other answer is that it just disappeared. This seems a bit too convenient.

Hell, maybe it's just a case of the films being grainier than anyone realized. This stuff can drive someone mad.

Another worthwhile though is that he says all the "elements" in the vault had subs. By elements does he just mean IPs? If so, why say elements? This seems to imply that every copy of the film in their vault had subs. So again: where did the previous videos get their stuff from? Did these guys just not look in the right place? Wasn't there a record of where the print was for the video release made by the same company only a few years earlier? If they just weren't looking in the right place that would lend credence to the pre-1993-IP=clean-version, 1993-IP=grainy-version theory. But it's hard to believe they didn't have access to the previous film materials. But it kind of seems like he is saying that.

Since the orange rips or burns have come up again, put together a page to look at screen caps:

http://fd.noneinc.com/Glitch/starwars-tantiveorangeerrors/starwars-tantiveorangeerrors.html

and started a dedicated thread for when the conversation drifts too far away from this threads goals:

http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Star-Wars-Tantives-Orange-Errors-Rips-or-Burns-and-More/post/540013/#TopicPost540013

My understanding is that the negative would have been on A/B rolls, with the subtitles on a C roll. So they have to run it once without the C roll to yield that IP. So whether it's done before or after the one with it, either way isn't it a totally separate event, possibly done by different people, different day, different equipment even?  I remember James Cameron saying that part of the process was so wildly hit and miss he would make the labs sign a contract that the first answer print he was seeing really was first, because labs would fuck it up the first time and do it again without telling the client the negative had been handled more than he was told.

Other film transfers might be done from internegatives made from the interpositive, or from low-contrast prints . . .

The thing is, nowhere in that quote does it specifically say that they are talking about previous releases of the SW movies.  "Other film transfers" simply sounds as though he is referring to practises used on home video transfers of other movies altogether, and not the SW films at all.  So there's really nothing solid that can be inferred from this about where the previous releases came from, or why some were missing the burn marks or any of that.

@Hairy_hen: You are very right. This is why it pays to have second and third opinions.

@baronlandocalrissian: the way you describe makes sense. Now, I feel like I am even more confused! :p

Interesting that they would go to the effort to put another sound element. I wonder if there are any other alternate sound takes within the movie we haven't noticed.

Well, we do know for sure that the Leia/Tarkin-dialogue now uses different audio elements. All lines in that scene are now clear as day, whereas a lot of Cushing's lines had that "crappy ADR"-quality to them before.

They don't sound like different takes, though, and I doubt they were able to somehow mess with the original tapes - those lines have sounded tinny on every release up till now. I wonder if they were somehow able to clean up the original on-set dialogue?

FrederikOlsen said:

Well, we do know for sure that the Leia/Tarkin-dialogue now uses different audio elements. All lines in that scene are now clear as day, whereas a lot of Cushing's lines had that "crappy ADR"-quality to them before.

They don't sound like different takes, though, and I doubt they were able to somehow mess with the original tapes - those lines have sounded tinny on every release up till now. I wonder if they were somehow able to clean up the original on-set dialogue?

Interesting. I was under the impression they didn't really put that much work in the sound mix. I wonder how they cleaned the dialogue up...

doubleofive wrote: I'm missing a shot of the Cloud City furnace (a nice frame I think with Chewie's arm over it, maybe the wipe if if looks reredone),

2004..................................2011

The wipe looks the same.

 I liked having the choice of frames, but maybe they could be marked by scene, sometimes I get lost in the movies.

I wasn't envisioning those lightsaber shots as choices.  Those were the shots which stood out when doing the DIF comparison.

Example: The old blades match the new blades for the most part.  Luke's is a tad brighter.  Most shots DIF out like this: 

But for the shots provided, something else was happening as the light sabers dramatically show up.  Example:

(and amusingly they swap colors...)

from WG Splits 1977 top 2004 bottom: (didn't see it in the picasa page)

Yikes is all I say.

I guess the tally goes to 278 changes from 1997 to 2004...

^ the thing with this color timing is later shots of the table from a different angle are not as blue...   ...and who knows if the GOUT was tweaked...

Someone in another forums has been ranting about this continuity, so figured i'd bring it up.

Here is a variation on zombie's spreadsheet.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AtjXdIjRQo5NdHF4U2R6Q1prN3p4N1pzQWd4RlJiQWc&hl=en_US

The idea would be to list every shot, using the titles provided from the published script (there will be many to fill inbetween), then can use the criteria zombie set up, change, no change, minor change, invisible change, new shot and label each one in each version of the film.  using the number not a separate column.   and let the spreadsheet tally up the results.  this way we would get a total number of shots (COUNT function), and all the variation totals (COUNTIF function). [scroll to the bottom]  and could do some boring math to get percentages and then we would weight the changes and comes up with other Change Statistics which will bore people's minds!

I might be able to pull the script from the Starkiller website and dump into excel, sort by the numbers then split the cells so that the numbers are separated from the title.  then see if that can be done in google docs or if the excel can be shifted into gdocs with little effort.  But if not...

The other way I would see doing it, is someone takes 1-3 minutes.  fills in the data and then someone else checks it.  Probably wouldn't get done by the end of the year, but slow and well just slow.  but phun data at the end.

OR.  you all tell me, hey i've seen a spreadsheet like this it's over here. 

I'm surprised the fan editing community doesn't have something like this yet.  This would possibly help out Frink's fan edit change lists.