BuddhaMaster said:
May I be very rude.
You definitely can. I'm just going to say this: Harmy knows a lot about color grading, and a lot about every single shot of Star Wars. Although it may give you some satisfaction to try to point out the shortcomings of his efforts at some length, I don't think it's necessary. He knows them very well.
BuddhaMaster said:
May I be very rude.
Eventually being rude could be a route to take, but hardly the foot I'd lead with...
I hate to admit, but the muted nature of your quick mockup is decidedly less jarring to look at. It looks a little more natural, and the color of the sky blends better. Heck, the shadows even look more realistic, with that hint of green/yellow dialed down... Perhaps the color grading of this scene does need another look... (not that it looks like "shit")
Of course what looks "natural" to the individual and what is historically accurate may be two different things.
That shot looks a little wonky to me too. But I don't have original prints, mattes, etc. to use as an authoritative reference. The purpose of Harmy's project is not to make everything look natural and pleasing.
"For Star Wars to return to its roots it must be based more on emotion than explanation." -- J.J. Abrams
Nocturnaloner said:
Harmy knows a lot about color grading, and a lot about every single shot of Star Wars. Although it may give you some satisfaction to try to point out the shortcomings of his efforts at some length, I don't think it's necessary. He knows them very well.
Of course. He probably knows a million more things than I do and is an absolute expert. That considered, it's even harder to believe why this exact shot looks so totally off with the whole movie.
I know the goal restoration is to restore everything with even their faults, Star Wars is an old movie full of flaws (and charme). May I know where Harmy did his sandcrawler shot reference from?
To be truthful, it looks like the correction was based on an old photograph, taken itself by a bad scan. That is not necessarily to be reference material.
In general, he based his color timing off of a fade free 1977 I.B. Technicolor Print, though he likely used a good amount of his own judgment throughout. There's a lot of crazy that was done to the colors during the shameful restoration done for the DVDs (with Blu-ray using the same dated master), so, many times even if most of a scene is made to match the reference colors, there could be subtle stuff that's still oddly color shifted he has to catch (I still take issue with what I swear is a green tint in the background of part of the droid cleaning / Leia projection scene).
For the Sandcrawler scene in question, I believe it is a particularly special case, as I think it is one he had to recreate from multiple sources... Correct me if I'm wrong, probably a custom matte from a film cell scan and an upscaled Sandcrawler imposed from the GOUT (2006 DVD). He probably tried to stay close to the I.B. reference on this scene, but the limited quality of the sources can drastically affect how it looks against the rest of the film. It likely took a lot of work to get it as close as he managed. I can't attest to how it originally was intended to look, but the more I look at the shadows, I do think the green/yellow tint there could stand to be diminished.
yoda-sama said:
In general, he based his color timing off of a fade free 1977 I.B. Technicolor Print.
So is this the print that Mike Verta is working with? For the longest time I assumed he was working with frames from negative1's LPP.
http://savestarwars.com/technicoloribscreening.html
As far as I know, no member of this community has that print though.
Nobody sang The Bunny Song in years…
Actually, I thing MV has it. But yeah, I used a low-res scan of that print (or one like it) graciously sent to me by MV, as a reference to time the whole movie - it was the closest thing I had to an accurate reference (although I've recently learned that the scan isn't necesarily perfectly accurate to what the actual print looks like) and this shot is indeed very green and grainy there - although it's not quite as blown out and the sand is less yellow but like yoda-sama says, it was quite difficult to deal with because of the quality of the sources. Could I do it better now? Hell yeah but it's too late to cry over spilled milk ;-)
Danfun128 said:
http://savestarwars.com/technicoloribscreening.html
As far as I know, no member of this community has that print though.
The sandcrawler scene in harmy's release does match up a lot with the Senator Print. I've seen those pictures several times and never get away the feeling that does pictures itself are a) a proper reference b) way too overbright. A lot of detail seems lost in the bright levels and it looks wrong to me.
The sandcrawler scene matches nicely up to the look of those. Don't tell me thats what SW is supposed to look.
Those "scans" of a original print simply look like someone turned a light-bulb on 200% and thats wrong. I strongly even prefer the look of muted GOUT
I'm trying to say the picture is result of the screening, not the image-source itself. The resulting look will be caused by the equipment used. But a digital projector (monitor, screen) is not a canvas. So making it to look like canvas is wrong in the beginning.
Harmy is supposed to "match" the I.B. print. But not "literally".
Those are not scans, they are photos taken off a screen - I'm actually amazed they look as good as they do, both resolution and color-wise.
Yeah but hear. The picture is obviously a top-reference and the way to go, but don't actually "literally" match the photos taken by those screenings right?
Your version is supposed to look like the reference material that print is, not how it will look when screened on canvas
So, what's your point? I didn't use those photos at all.
And also yes, it's ideally supposed to look exactly like what the print looks like when screened (which those photos probably don't because taking a photo of the screen is usually very inaccurate).
BuddhaMaster said:
Your version is supposed to look like the reference material that print is, not how it will look when screened on canvas
I'm not sure I agree with that.
"Close the blast doors!"
Puggo’s website | Rescuing Star Wars
Is that the SE corridor?
yoda-sama said:
Is that the SE corridor?
Nope, just a rare shot where the perspective actually works correctly.
Harmy. Which sources did you use for the sandcrawler scene?
BuddhaMaster said:
Harmy. Which sources did you use for the sandcrawler scene?
-
No, I just seriously don't understand what you're trying to accomplish here?
BuddhaMaster said:
I'm not trying to prove anything
uh huh.
BuddhaMaster said:
I know, you will just completely take me as offensive ;)
The best explanation for these continuing posts would be that you don't understand that. Yet here you acknowledge it and post anyway.
Maybe start 'Buddahguy's Rude and Obsessive Sandcrawler Perfection Thread' instead of continuing to post in a thread where no one cares.
In the future, you'll probably find your ideas and opinions better received if you present them as SUGGESTIONS as opposed to CRITICISMS.
Preferred Saga:
1/2: Hal9000
3: L8wrtr
4/5: Adywan
6-9: Hal9000
Well, I wouldn't say that no one cares to have a slightly better Sandcrawler scene, but there's certainly no reason to be as abrasive as Buddadude is about it.
If Harmy sees reason to make another release, at that point it should be discussed further, until then, he's not going to make a new release just for this one issue (or the green background I swear is an issue in the droid cleaning scene).
But... Now there are two of them! :-P
Preferred Saga:
1/2: Hal9000
3: L8wrtr
4/5: Adywan
6-9: Hal9000
Hey now.