originaltrilogy.com
originaltrilogy.com home » forums » Star Wars » General Star Wars Discussion »
I think the O-OT WAS resotred
I think the O-OT WAS resotred
I think the O-OT WAS resotred
Darth Richard
This user is offline.
I am ready for the trials!
I think the O-OT WAS resotred
Ok so a while ago I was searching the company that resoted/remastered the SE's for the DVD and I found this link that led to something at the Apple computers website and i was reading about the struggles with remastering the the trilogy and what not. What struck me akward was they said that the trilogy was in horible artifacted condition becuase it was so old. Old what the heck the Se's are were only like 7 years old at the time, they also gave other hints in my opion. So I've come to the conclusion that the OOT was remastered to for maybe an eventual release. If someone can give me the name of the company then i'l search it agian and post the link and you can decide for yourself. If so COOL!!
skyjedi2005
This user is offline.
Jedi Knight
I think the O-OT WAS resotred
the company that did the special edition was YCM Laboratories, and the 2004 was by Lowry Digital Images inc.
YCM physically cleaned up the original negative by washing it, and fixing it frame by frame scanning it into a computer recompositing all the original film elements that were stored in the lucasfilm archives. Lowry did a digital restoration with their bank of g5 computers and their own algorithm program, but as they only had three months it was a rush job.
John Lowry in an interview explained that some many new prints had to be struck from the new masters created for the special edition in 1997 that the films were even further degraded, saying that the popularity of the flms led to their own detriment.
YCM physically cleaned up the original negative by washing it, and fixing it frame by frame scanning it into a computer recompositing all the original film elements that were stored in the lucasfilm archives. Lowry did a digital restoration with their bank of g5 computers and their own algorithm program, but as they only had three months it was a rush job.
John Lowry in an interview explained that some many new prints had to be struck from the new masters created for the special edition in 1997 that the films were even further degraded, saying that the popularity of the flms led to their own detriment.
"Always loved Vader's wordless self sacrifice. Another shitty, clueless, revision like Greedo and young Anakin's ghost. What a fucking shame." -Simon Pegg.
Darth Richard
This user is offline.
I am ready for the trials!
I think the O-OT WAS resotred
thank i wasn't sure and yes i was talkiing about lowary digital i jsut for got the name. Damn george if he had the originals resotred (which he proabaly did so he can say muahaha i have the originals in awesome quality and you don't lol)
Duke's alter ego
This user is offline.
Padawan Learner
I think the O-OT WAS resotred
As I have said many times, there is the complete unaltered restored original trilogy stored on some computer at Lucasfilm.
Don't forget: with Lacuna, you can forget.
Windexed
This user is offline.
I am ready for the trials!
I think the O-OT WAS resotred
^ I agree.
40,000 million notches away
Darth Richard
This user is offline.
I am ready for the trials!
I think the O-OT WAS resotred
^^haha so true
booah
This user is offline.
Padawan Learner
I think the O-OT WAS resotred
but as they only had three months it was a rush job.
That is so dumb to me. I'm sure there was a release deadline or whatever, but seriously, what was the freakin' rush? Why not just do it right the first time?
Lucasfilm is so sadomasicistic-- "Hey fans, here's faulty product!"
Fans: "That's faulty!"
LF: "Yes, we know!"
We don't have enough road to get up to 88.
Darth Richard
This user is offline.
I am ready for the trials!
I think the O-OT WAS resotred
In my opion the 2004 dvd NEVER should have come out and just wait til the mega super special archival editon boxset.
Number20
This user is offline.
Jedi Knight
I think the O-OT WAS resotred
Maybe they fixed the mistakes in the upcoming new release?
Or perhaps its going to be the reason to buy the upcoming 6 movie saga or HD-DVD/Blu-Ray edition.
But I would think that restoring the O-OT would be the first step before they would of inserted the SE junk.
Or perhaps its going to be the reason to buy the upcoming 6 movie saga or HD-DVD/Blu-Ray edition.
But I would think that restoring the O-OT would be the first step before they would of inserted the SE junk.
Darth Richard
This user is offline.
I am ready for the trials!
I think the O-OT WAS resotred
Yay i think that they had to have restored them first. Hmm maybe the saga boxset on blu-ray will include both versions. Hell maybe that was his plan all along and jsut wanted it huched up will we ever know ?!?!
skyjedi2005
This user is offline.
Jedi Knight
I think the O-OT WAS resotred
by the way YCM stands for Yellow, Cyan and Magenta a special dye tranfer that yield the best film prints for restoration.
"Always loved Vader's wordless self sacrifice. Another shitty, clueless, revision like Greedo and young Anakin's ghost. What a fucking shame." -Simon Pegg.
Gaffer Tape
This user is offline.
Imagination Princess
I think the O-OT WAS resotred
They're the secondary colors of light.
There is no lingerie in space...
C3PX said: Gaffer is like that hot girl in high school that you think you have a chance with even though she is way out of your league because she is sweet and not a stuck up bitch who pretends you don't exist... then one day you spot her making out with some skinny twerp, only on second glance you realize it is the goth girl who always sits in the back of class; at that moment it dawns on you why she is never seen hanging off the arm of any of the jocks... and you realize, damn, she really is unobtainable after all. Not that that is going to stop you from dreaming... Only in this case, Gaffer is actually a guy.
Hardcore Legend
This user is offline.
I am ready for the trials!
I think the O-OT WAS resotred
Some have argued that the DVD release was done for two reasons: to increase interest in ROTS to also increase revenue, but more than likely to pay for ROTS to be made. If you read the making of book, there is this constant theme of not wasting digital shots, not falling behind timetables so extra workers don't have to be hired, just an overall theme that LFL (with the opening of new facilities on the horizon) was getting strapped for cash and certainly couldn't a)lose control of the film to financers and b)couldn't push back the release date.
The Jedi are all but extinct.......
MeBeJedi
This user is offline.
Jedi Master
I think the O-OT WAS resotred
"by the way YCM stands for Yellow, Cyan and Magenta a special dye tranfer that yield the best film prints for restoration."
More specifically:
Yes......I am a geek.
(Although I find the "color reference" to be a bit laughable, seeing as how much it helped in the final colors of the official DVD.)
More specifically:
DYE TRANSFER
A NEW OPTIMISM
Mention “dye transfer” to most anyone in the publishing industry and they’ll tell you it’s obsolete. Ask commercial printers about it and they’ll declare it passé. Raise the subject with a group of fine-art photographers and printers—even Hollywood filmmakers—and you’re likely to get a different opinion.
At least that was the conclusion at an autumn weekend retreat in Vermont hosted by fine art photographer Luke Powell. Over 30 past and present dye printers and photographers from all over North America, Germany and Australia took Powell up on his invitation. A typical conversation-starter was, “Where were you when you heard…?” The question concerned Kodak’s abrupt decision in 1993 to pull the plug on the manufacture of dye transfer products, leaving some 500 photographers and technicians without a source of the materials they depended on for their livelihood.
That decision is still keenly felt among practitioners. The intensity of their response is remarkable, even more so considering the investment dye transfer requires—and not just in terms of money. The process, also known as dye imbibition, starts by creating tricolor separation negatives from a transparency. Exposing each negative onto a specially-coated film creates three bas-relief images called matrices, the degree of relief proportional to the exposure they receive. The matrices are soaked in complementary acidic dye baths and rolled in register onto special photographic paper secured to a pin-register board. The pH difference between the dye and the paper aids the transfer of the dye. It’s a painstaking process that takes years to master.
So why, in this age of instant gratification, would anyone cling to this technology? For one thing, it gives enormous control over color density and balance. And it yields an archival print of spectacular richness and longevity. Bob Pace, a respected authority on color print processes for two generations of photography professionals, is a fervent believer: “I have made over 25,000 dye transfer prints and nothing I have seen in all this time has shaken my feelings about this process.” And Kodak’s dye transfer guru Frank McLaughlin, who taught the process over the phone to generations of image-makers until his retirement in 1986, states simply, “The dye transfer product is the most manageable, most color-pure, most true-to-life photographic product ever invented.
----------
Dye transfer printers are elated at recent indications that Technicolor—the cinematic version of dye transfer—is returning to the big screen. The re-release of Giant in 1996, the first American-printed Technicolor feature film in 21 years, has heightened interest in its revival within the film industry.
Technicolor is also called IB printing (for “imbibition”, after the photographic term “dye imbibition”). Technicolor, Inc., ended IB printing in the U.S. in 1974. Technicolor London closed its operation in 1977, but not until they’d made five IB prints of Star Wars for George Lucas.
The restoration of the Star Wars trilogy brought IB printing back to the forefront. According to Leon Briggs, who worked with Lucasfilm on the restoration for over two years, the original negatives had faded only 5 - 15%, well within normal range. But he explained that George Lucas wanted the original color in the restored version. Lucasfilms technicians were able to accomplish this goal for Star Wars, but only because they had an IB print to use for color reference.
A NEW OPTIMISM
Mention “dye transfer” to most anyone in the publishing industry and they’ll tell you it’s obsolete. Ask commercial printers about it and they’ll declare it passé. Raise the subject with a group of fine-art photographers and printers—even Hollywood filmmakers—and you’re likely to get a different opinion.
At least that was the conclusion at an autumn weekend retreat in Vermont hosted by fine art photographer Luke Powell. Over 30 past and present dye printers and photographers from all over North America, Germany and Australia took Powell up on his invitation. A typical conversation-starter was, “Where were you when you heard…?” The question concerned Kodak’s abrupt decision in 1993 to pull the plug on the manufacture of dye transfer products, leaving some 500 photographers and technicians without a source of the materials they depended on for their livelihood.
That decision is still keenly felt among practitioners. The intensity of their response is remarkable, even more so considering the investment dye transfer requires—and not just in terms of money. The process, also known as dye imbibition, starts by creating tricolor separation negatives from a transparency. Exposing each negative onto a specially-coated film creates three bas-relief images called matrices, the degree of relief proportional to the exposure they receive. The matrices are soaked in complementary acidic dye baths and rolled in register onto special photographic paper secured to a pin-register board. The pH difference between the dye and the paper aids the transfer of the dye. It’s a painstaking process that takes years to master.
So why, in this age of instant gratification, would anyone cling to this technology? For one thing, it gives enormous control over color density and balance. And it yields an archival print of spectacular richness and longevity. Bob Pace, a respected authority on color print processes for two generations of photography professionals, is a fervent believer: “I have made over 25,000 dye transfer prints and nothing I have seen in all this time has shaken my feelings about this process.” And Kodak’s dye transfer guru Frank McLaughlin, who taught the process over the phone to generations of image-makers until his retirement in 1986, states simply, “The dye transfer product is the most manageable, most color-pure, most true-to-life photographic product ever invented.
----------
Dye transfer printers are elated at recent indications that Technicolor—the cinematic version of dye transfer—is returning to the big screen. The re-release of Giant in 1996, the first American-printed Technicolor feature film in 21 years, has heightened interest in its revival within the film industry.
Technicolor is also called IB printing (for “imbibition”, after the photographic term “dye imbibition”). Technicolor, Inc., ended IB printing in the U.S. in 1974. Technicolor London closed its operation in 1977, but not until they’d made five IB prints of Star Wars for George Lucas.
The restoration of the Star Wars trilogy brought IB printing back to the forefront. According to Leon Briggs, who worked with Lucasfilm on the restoration for over two years, the original negatives had faded only 5 - 15%, well within normal range. But he explained that George Lucas wanted the original color in the restored version. Lucasfilms technicians were able to accomplish this goal for Star Wars, but only because they had an IB print to use for color reference.
Yes......I am a geek.
(Although I find the "color reference" to be a bit laughable, seeing as how much it helped in the final colors of the official DVD.)
MeBeJedi: Sadly, I believe the prequels are beyond repair.
JediRandy: They're certainly beyond any repair you're capable of making.
MeBeJedi: You aren't one of us.
Go-Mer-Tonic: I can't say I find that very disappointing.
JediRandy: I won't suck as much as a fan edit.
JediRandy: They're certainly beyond any repair you're capable of making.
MeBeJedi: You aren't one of us.
Go-Mer-Tonic: I can't say I find that very disappointing.
JediRandy: I won't suck as much as a fan edit.
Seiji
This user is offline.
Padawan Learner
I think the O-OT WAS resotred
Originally posted by: Hardcore Legend
Some have argued that the DVD release was done for two reasons: to increase interest in ROTS to also increase revenue, but more than likely to pay for ROTS to be made. If you read the making of book, there is this constant theme of not wasting digital shots, not falling behind timetables so extra workers don't have to be hired, just an overall theme that LFL (with the opening of new facilities on the horizon) was getting strapped for cash and certainly couldn't a)lose control of the film to financers and b)couldn't push back the release date.
Some have argued that the DVD release was done for two reasons: to increase interest in ROTS to also increase revenue, but more than likely to pay for ROTS to be made. If you read the making of book, there is this constant theme of not wasting digital shots, not falling behind timetables so extra workers don't have to be hired, just an overall theme that LFL (with the opening of new facilities on the horizon) was getting strapped for cash and certainly couldn't a)lose control of the film to financers and b)couldn't push back the release date.
That's what I was thinking, they probably rushed it because they needed funding for ROTS or other projects.
skyjedi2005
This user is offline.
Jedi Knight
I think the O-OT WAS resotred
theres footage of the restoration on the longer documentary on the making of the special edition trilogy, and the magic and the mystery. Theres articles in back issues of star wars insider, star wars galaxy magazine from topps, cinefex back issues and american cinamatographer back issues.
by the way the original technicolor for the first star wars was beautiful I have a copy of the old vhs full screen somewhere. why old george had to recolor the new dvd? it just boggles the mind.
by the way the original technicolor for the first star wars was beautiful I have a copy of the old vhs full screen somewhere. why old george had to recolor the new dvd? it just boggles the mind.
"Always loved Vader's wordless self sacrifice. Another shitty, clueless, revision like Greedo and young Anakin's ghost. What a fucking shame." -Simon Pegg.
Darth Richard
This user is offline.
I am ready for the trials!
I think the O-OT WAS resotred
deos anyone no why in the 1997 SE's that in the mos eisley (SP?) spaceport that everything had a weird pink haze
skyjedi2005
This user is offline.
Jedi Knight
I think the O-OT WAS resotred
no clue i'll have to dig out my tapes and check on that one. Only guess I have is it was poor color correction, or trying to make seamless new digital cgi with footage that was almost 20 years old.
"Always loved Vader's wordless self sacrifice. Another shitty, clueless, revision like Greedo and young Anakin's ghost. What a fucking shame." -Simon Pegg.
Members reading this topic:
None
originaltrilogy.com home » forums » Star Wars » General Star Wars Discussion »
I think the O-OT WAS resotred
I think the O-OT WAS resotred