negative1
This user is offline.
negative1i guess this would apply to the SE versions too,
i haven't checked those yet.. but harmy, and catbus
have pointed out a lot of good thoughts about the
croppings in the movie..
it turns out, they are probably cropped even
more in the theaters!
if you've seen some of the recent sample frames,
you'll notice there is more information in the frame.
that was not supposed to be seen by the audience
when projected.
the top pictures are slightly corrected from an entirely
red reel, so they are still muted, and not accurate to
the true colors, the bottom image is the GOUT.
the thing that stands out is how much is cropped.
also, notice that smoke and effects look very different.
---------------------------
















----------------------------------------------------------
i'll post some stats and framed images next.
later
-1
[no GOUT in CED?-> GOUT CED]
CatBus
This user is offline.
A légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal.To be fair, I think the amount that was cropped off the edges by projection was variable based on lots of factors, but nevertheless the amount that was cropped off in a theatre in 1977 is surprisingly large, and all filmmakers knew that it would be when they made their film. This raises some questions about whether the outer edge has the same historical value if nobody ever saw it until it was on home video. Nevertheless this same question hangs around all movies from that period, and the answer that seems to be satisfactory to most people for other films is to show as much of the frame as possible and just forget about the cropping from projection.
Looking forward to the framed images. I was frankly shocked when I saw how much of Star Wars was never seen in the theatre to begin with!
negative1
This user is offline.
negative1CatBus said:
To be fair, I think the amount that was cropped off the edges by projection was variable based on lots of factors, but nevertheless the amount that was cropped off in a theatre in 1977 is surprisingly large, and all filmmakers knew that it would be when they made their film. This raises some questions about whether the outer edge has the same historical value if nobody ever saw it until it was on home video. Nevertheless this same question hangs around all movies from that period, and the answer that seems to be satisfactory to most people for other films is to show as much of the frame as possible and just forget about the cropping from projection.
Looking forward to the framed images. I was frankly shocked when I saw how much of Star Wars was never seen in the theatre to begin with!
you've seen most of the ones i'll be putting up already.
although now that we have a new batch
of shots now. i'll have to get around to comparing
those..
later
-1
[no GOUT in CED?-> GOUT CED]
none
This user is offline.
Here's the raw mthr sw boot source as a theater reference:


Seems to be somewhere inbetween.
negative1
This user is offline.
negative1good idea to check it against that.
i have that version also.
haven't looked at it in quite awhile.
thanks for the idea.
later
-1
[no GOUT in CED?-> GOUT CED]
TServo2049
This user is offline.
This space for rentI'd just like to point out, the mthr telecine has more vertical info than the GOUT, but it also has a good amount of cropping on the sides.
LexX
This user is offline.
Son of the SunsHow about compared to the DVD/BD editions? They are less cropped than the GOUT.
And in the time of greatest despair, there shall come a savior, and he shall be known as the Son of the Suns.
negative1
This user is offline.
negative1LexX said:
How about compared to the DVD/BD editions? They are less cropped than the GOUT.
really? haven't even gotten around to doing
screen shots from the bluray. i don't think anyone
has yet.
at some point..
later
-1
[no GOUT in CED?-> GOUT CED]
negative1
This user is offline.
negative1here are more shots from the
test reel, slightly corrected:
NOTE: the top is the print,
the bottom is the GOUT
==========================

















later
-1
[no GOUT in CED?-> GOUT CED]
silverwheel
This user is offline.
That's impossible, even for a computerdamn, I had no idea the GOUT was cropped like this. Stretchy faces galore!
"Somebody walks up and you say 'your number's 21-87, isn't it?' And boy, does that person really smile." - 21-87 by Arthur Lipsett
negative1
This user is offline.
negative1here are some actual pixel ratio's,
with the gout images overlaid
over the prints images:
====================

















later
-1
[no GOUT in CED?-> GOUT CED]
none
This user is offline.
^ What is the software which helps create these pics?
CatBus
This user is offline.
A légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal.I think one showing how much was cropped in projection would be good, too, just to show the GOUT cropping wasn't bad at all relatively speaking.
TServo2049
This user is offline.
This space for rentAll projections were not cropped the same. If you're thinking of the Senator screening, that was cropped considerably to hide platter scratches on the edges of the print. The film would not have been cropped that much on a 2.35:1 screen in '77.
Mike Verta could explain more about the nuances of projection aperture and cropping.
As an anecdote, I just saw a screening of Fantasia where basically the entire picture area was positioned within the semi-translucent screen border - during loud parts, I could sometimes see the edge of the soundtrack through the left border. I could also vaguely make out the edges of the sprocket holes through the right border, and a teeny sliver of the previous frame through the top border.
CatBus
This user is offline.
A légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal.Ah yes, I knew it was variable, but I was thinking of the Senator screening as an "average" amount of cropping, not as an extreme edge case. Good to know.
negative1
This user is offline.
negative1CatBus said:
I think one showing how much was cropped in projection would be good, too, just to show the GOUT cropping wasn't bad at all relatively speaking.
harmy posted this about the theatrical cropping:
That's a really interesting idea. And even more interesting results:

And that's only compared with the 2004 master, which is already cropped!
harmy
--------------------
later
-1
[no GOUT in CED?-> GOUT CED]
TServo2049
This user is offline.
This space for rentAgain, that image is based on the Senator screening, which Mike Verta said was "overly-cropped, by a long shot." According to him, that print has platter damage on the edges, so the Senator projectionist probably cropped the image closer than normal to hide them. He also said that about 90% of the image on the print is expected to make it onto a theater screen.
negative1
This user is offline.
negative1none said:
^ What is the software which helps create these pics?
nothing special.. just used paintshop pro. ha ha!
the calculations were done with calculator, that's it.
by the way, good resources about projecting:
-----------
1
http://hsvmovies.com/static_subpages/formats/anamorphic_format.html
2
http://hsvmovies.com/static_subpages/formats/aspect.html
3
http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/lbx.htm
later
-1
[no GOUT in CED?-> GOUT CED]
negative1
This user is offline.
negative1tservo: right, i didn't repost your comments yet!
here's pictures from the empire strikes back
compared:
===========================










later
-1
[no GOUT in CED?-> GOUT CED]
TServo2049
This user is offline.
This space for rentSomething I forgot - not all theater screens are the same aspect ratio. If a 2.35:1 film is being projected on a screen with a ratio closer to 2.20:1, then more will be cropped off the sides.
Also, I've always loved that Letterbox Lunacy article.
negative1
This user is offline.
negative1again, using the official screenshot comparisons,
here are the ratios for cropping compared to film:
-----









later
-1
[no GOUT in CED?-> GOUT CED]
TV's Frink
This user is offline.
Likes Lens FlairsI opened this thread on my phone.
You owe me one phone.
negative1
This user is offline.
negative1TV's Frink said:
I opened this thread on my phone.
You owe me one phone.
don't you know by now,
a lot of my threads are data-bombs!
it's a TRAP! mwhaaaa ha ha ha!!!
later
-1
[no GOUT in CED?-> GOUT CED]
captainsolo
This user is offline.
Tauntaun herder-Damn Fool Idealistic CrusaderIt kinda makes sense:
New IP made around '85 or so-Digital tape transfer-Overporcessing, sharpening, DVNR,-final resize to 4:3 letterboxed 2.35:1.
There's bound to be some cropping in there and definite resizing. Theatrically you're bound to lose some here and there unless you're a brilliant projectionist with a pristine print and great equipment or Stanley Kubrick pops up in Kansas to tell you that you're mis-projecting Full Metal Jacket...;)
VADER!? WHERE THE HELL IS MY MOCHA LATTE? -Palpy on a very bad day.
"George didn't think there was any future in dead Han toys."-Harrison Ford
My review blog: thehificelluloidmonster.wordpress.com
RU.08
This user is offline.
Nice pics -1. The cropping seems fairly consitant throughout (obviously with shot-by-shot ajustments for keeping the action center).