TServo2049 said:

digitalfreaknyc said:


Why is it 25fps???
Sounds horrible.

and you've gotten aliasing artifacts as well.

 

Harmy does his work at PAL framerate. The actual release will be at the correct speed.

Don't know what's up with the aliasing, either...

Does it really matter? If Harmy wants to work at 25fps, let him work at 25fps.

As with DEED 1.0, the final version will be at 24fps and in sync with the existing soundtrack preservations.

TServo2049 said:

NTSC has 3:2 pulldown and the whole thing of not being a whole number of frames per second.

It's easy to take a PAL video source and convert it to 24fps - the frames just play back 4% slower, no pulldown or interpolation necessary.

It really doesn't matter, because the final 24fps version is going to be synched to the existing soundtrack preservations.

CatBus said:

bkev said:

I am curious as to why the decision was made to add it at all.

It was shakier in the theatre, but we don't have much in the way of usable references for that.  It's a best effort.  I'm not sure it's good enough either but I trust Harmy to make the call.

It was shakier in all pre-SE versions. The SE version either has a new shake effect, or we're seeing the original in-camera shake. Either way, the much more violent initial shake prior to the SE was done optically. Some frames were smeared (I assume by using a long exposure and moving the image during exposure), and some frames were repositioned off-center (which may be why the whole image was cropped differently in the original; I'm guessing the whole scene was blown up and cropped so that it could be moved around optically, and that for the SE they cropped the original camera footage to roughly match the '77 framing). Either way, it created the illusion that the camera was being jolted around more than it actually was in the original footage.

I think it could be better recreated, though. Rather than blending the frames together, perhaps each frame could be individually manipulated in Photoshop. I'm sure there are ways to smear images in PS, and perhaps if two images were laid on top of each other at 50% opacity, each frame could be positioned relative to the adjacent ones to match the optical shake effect.

I'll post frames from the '77 shake (and not the DVNR'ed GOUT) to show how it didn't look blurry in every frame.

You redid it already? Darn, I just grabbed the frames from Puggo Grande and was going to post them up to show which frames were smeared, which were repositioned, etc. :)

I still will, though. http://imageshack.us/g/109/shake001.png/

Go through them in order, and you'll see that some of them were optically smeared and repositioned, while others weren't. There was no blending of one frame with another - each frame is a manipulation of a single frame of the original footage.

No idea why they didn't try to recreate the effect in the SE; judging by the almost perfectly recreated optical wipes, I bet that a similar recreation of the shake could have been done.

Also, I don't think Ben Burtt's anecdote is referring to the burn marks. He said there was a jumpy spot when the Stormtroopers burst through the door. I think I can almost see a jump when the door explodes, but I can't tell if that's what Burtt was talking about, or if it was an intentional jump cut, or if it was just my imagination. (Maybe Mike Verta knows what the "jumpy spot" is Burtt's talking about?)

As for the burn marks, I wonder if they are connected to the optical "camera shake" effect. While going through the scene frame by frame, I notice that the artificial shaking ends right around the time the burns show up. I don't think they were introduced when the effect was done, because the 80s video transfers don't have them, and it doesn't look like the effect was recreated.

And the fact that the '77 shake was an optical effect may be why the scene was replaced in the SE. Since it was an optical, perhaps it was one of the scenes that was on CRI and was so deteriorated as to be unusable?

Longtime lurker here,

OK...I'm also in the "No Burn mark Camp"... the reason...

Harmy, did anyone say to you, "where is the burn mark in the opening 

scene on the Tantive IV, where R2-D2 and C3PO are walking in the 

hallway" after you released version 1.0? I don't recall seeing the 

burn marks when I saw Star Wars in the theater in '77. Granted, I 

don't recall keeping my eyes open during the whole movie, but I think 

I would have caught that in the opening several minutes of the film, 

after all, it was the first time I'd ever even been in a movie 

theater, and this was my first movie. I was nearly 16 years of age, 

and very impressionable.

I'm also one of those guys that remembers Luke throwing his (rope) 

line across the cavern twice, becasue he missed the first time, and 

no one will ever tell me that wasn't in the film...because it was in 

there, in the theater I saw it in.

I want to personally thank you Harmy for this entire project. All the 

hard work that you are doing, and putting up with countless issues 

that arise. 

Bless you! 

Harmy said:

Man, I can tell you this, I never noticed those burn marks in my old VHS of STAR WARS that I have watched so much that it got worn out and yet, they were there, I know because I checked the first time someone pointed them out in this forum.

Does this mean that you are going to find this "missed throw" clip somewhere and insert it to where it should be in the movie also...for the people who saw it in the theaters when it was introduced in May-July (or later) of 1977?

That would be great for all the fans that originally saw it, and know it was in there, in the summer of '77. Just pointing it out to you, here and now. wink!

dlvh said:

That would be great for all the fans that originally saw it, and know it was in there, in the summer of '77

I'm sorry, but it's been discussed inside and out on this forum how the scene doesn't exist, and why so many people remember it when it never happened.

dlvh really said:

That would be great for all the fans that read the novelization over and over after the film was no longer in theaters, and thus mistakenly "remembered" the scene being in the actual film.

In a time before video, when the only way to see a movie was when it was in theaters, these kind of false memories happened. (In fact, even after video, people still "remembered" seeing extra scenes in the theater, like the infamous, nonexistent closeup of Anthony Hopkins cutting into Ray Liotta's brain in "Hannibal.")

I'm sorry, but it has been proven that this scene was only in the novelization. It wasn't in any version of the film, it was never filmed, and it was never in any version of the script.

CatBus said:

dlvh said:

Does this mean that you are going to find this "missed throw" clip somewhere and insert it to where it should be in the movie also...for the people who saw it in the theaters when it was introduced in May-July (or later) of 1977?

That would be great for all the fans that originally saw it, and know it was in there, in the summer of '77

As soon as some hard evidence of the missed throw materializes, he'll be right on it.  However, it's not on any of the original 35mm reels anyone's ever gotten their hands on (badly faded, but usable enough to in/validate this claim), nor on any in-theatre video recordings, or anything else.

Top Men.

Did someone mention here, that there was "outtake video" of this instance? Or was it just talk that they decided NOT to put it in, do to time restraints, or what-not? My theater had it in, but perhaps My theater had a very early copy that later version s left it out...?