"Oh, this is suicide!  There's nowhere to go."  present on the mono folddown.

Hmm, I think you might be onto something interesting here Trooperman.

However, Luke says "You're lucky you don't taste very good" on the mono folddown instead of "You were lucky to get out of there" apparently on the 70mm mix.

I am perhaps mistaken.

Hmm... C3PO only says "Hello?" once when he thinks he hears an R2 unit AND the troop's voice is different....

Holy crap!

That is true, but if I'm not mistaken we are mostly just assuming what is in the 70mm mix based on hearsay and what is in the Special Edition...

When R2 is being loaded into Luke's X-Wing, C-3PO says the word "and" more audibly before saying "do take good care of yourself."present

C3PO has an ADDITIONAL LINE (not documented elsewhere) at the beginning of the carbon freezing scene.  "Oh dear, what now?  I don't like the look of this."

bilditup1 said:

Trooperman said:

Cold, digital clarity does not help you focus on the content- it draws attention to its perfectness. 

 - they represent an alternative and in some way much more authentic experience of viewing the films, at least if you're trying to approximate how it was experienced originally, which straight pristine video of course doesn't really allow you to do.

I actually disagree with both of you.  The original theater experience was with pristine sharp clean prints, often in 70mm, and often with stereo or surround sound.  That's how I remember seeing SW in the theater in 1977.  The dirty look came months or years later, when the prints had gotten so worn out they looked like PG and PSB.

For me, Harmy's is the closest to the theater experience I remember, and the filmic look doesn't have anything to do with being dirty and scratchy.  The PG and PSB are valuable as research material, since they are actual films from the year the movies were released, respectively.  I'm still a bit surprised that people actually enjoy watching them, but that's a cool bonus.

I wasn't expecting all of this intrigue over the sound mixes.  I guess I just didn't pay much attention to them other than synching them up.  This is what I meant by them having value as research material.

Yoda training scene

35mm:

"Ehh...run!"

70mm mono fold-down:

"YES...run!"

Mavimao said:

Hmm... C3PO only says "Hello?" once when he thinks he hears an R2 unit AND the troop's voice is different....

Holy crap!

AND the droid's "Eh chuta" sounds like a different take!

Han screaming when he is getting interrogated is MUCH louder in certain spots during the Vader/Lando conversation. 

This is a really, really, really great find!!

I'm going to start just editing this post now (also edited to reflect that this seems to be not necessarily the 70mm mix, but instead a 3rd mix- the "ESB mono mix."

-Right after the magic tree scene, 16mm features the classic TIE sound effects from "Star Wars".  The 35mm does not.

-Right after Luke puts the charge into the AT-AT and blows it up, the very next speeder Veers' AT-AT shoots down has an airplane sound effect in the 35mm which is mixed much, much softer in the mono.

-Music is generally mixed much more prominently, with much punchier brass and violins, in this mono track.  For a good example see the Hoth base scene right after the power generator is blown up. The music is inaudible in the 35mm and only fades in when 3PO appears- the missing music is not only audible, but very prominent in the mono 

-For instance, in that very same scene, right before Leia falls down, she screams twice in the mono mix.  No extra explosion before she falls.

-And as C3PO is climbing up the ramp, the most prominent sound in the mono mix is the flutes and the swooping strings.  In the 35mm, it's C3PO footsteps on the ramp, and the ramp sound effect- only to have to dial the music back up for the next scene (Vader).

-The shot after the Falcon escapes Hoth, the X-wing flyover is not nearly as prominent in the mono-music is

-The asteroid field sequence- all the sound effects are drastically muted and some are entirely missing in the mono mix.  Focus is on the music.

-The scene right before the big Han/Leia kiss on the ship...much louder computer sound effects on the mono.

-Right after Leia screams seeing the Mynock out the window...audio of her footsteps on-set much more prominent.

-Yoda: "Consume you it will...as it did Obi-Wan's apprentice."  For the mono mix, a different, less aggressive take of "as it did Obi-Wan's apprentice" has been spliced in.

I'm now especially glad I included the 35mm mix - probably makes it a LOT easier for you to do these wonderful comparisons.

Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:

bilditup1 said:

Trooperman said:

Cold, digital clarity does not help you focus on the content- it draws attention to its perfectness. 

 - they represent an alternative and in some way much more authentic experience of viewing the films, at least if you're trying to approximate how it was experienced originally, which straight pristine video of course doesn't really allow you to do.

I actually disagree with both of you.  The original theater experience was with pristine sharp clean prints, often in 70mm, and often with stereo or surround sound.  That's how I remember seeing SW in the theater in 1977.  The dirty look came months or years later, when the prints had gotten so worn out they looked like PG and PSB.

For me, Harmy's is the closest to the theater experience I remember, and the filmic look doesn't have anything to do with being dirty and scratchy.  The PG and PSB are valuable as research material, since they are actual films from the year the movies were released, respectively.  I'm still a bit surprised that people actually enjoy watching them, but that's a cool bonus.

So the 16mm prints were only for home or something? That's not what I understood earlier; I thought that a good amount of people saw SW in 16mm in smaller theaters that couldn't afford 35 or something like that.

I didn't mean to imply that there was something inherent in the film format such that even if you had a pristine print it would look cruddy. Even on relatively new prints, you'll notice some minor flaws that simply won't show up on digital, and I think that's part of what Trooperman was referring to. 

But anyway, I thought the prints of popular films got worn out, reprinted, and worn out again, and often enough that's what people saw. That is an experience that is today disappearing. Of course large format 70mm stuff is spectacular in a way the 16mm and a transfer of a 16mm print can never be. I personally don't know if I've ever seen a 70mm film, truthfully. 15-70 IMAX, yes (TDKR just recently), but 70mm - dunno. That's part of why I'm so keen on seeing 'The Master'.

I didn't mean to imply I got this sent by Puggo. Sorry if I caused confusion for anyone. I got my spleen checked with the first Zip tool and it seems to be ok.

bilditup1 said:

So the 16mm prints were only for home or something? That's not what I understood earlier; I thought that a good amount of people saw SW in 16mm in smaller theaters that couldn't afford 35 or something like that.

That would probably have been VERY late in a film's run, or only in the tiniest hole-in-the-walls.  Back in the 1977, most theaters that could afford Star Wars would have been showing it in 35mm, with the very best theaters showing it in 70mm.

Even on relatively new prints, you'll notice some minor flaws that simply won't show up on digital, and I think that's part of what Trooperman was referring to.

Yeah, but nothing like is on PSB or PG.  I got to see 2001 in 70mm shortly after it was printed for the revival (and BD scan).  It was the single most pristine image I've ever seen on a screen - not a hair, scratch, or even the slightest wobble.  Better than the best digital image I've ever seen.  The colors were also considerably richer than I had ever seen.  The BD of that movie is made from that print - have a look at it if you don't think film can reach the level of perfection as digital.

I heard that several years later, after doing the arthouse tour, that print became very worn and the experience wasn't quite as memorable.

I personally don't know if I've ever seen a 70mm film, truthfully.

I was rather young and didn't appreciate that many of the movies I was seeing were 70mm.  In retracing the films I saw and the theaters in which I saw them, I'm pretty sure I saw 2001 (in 1968) and SW (in 1977) in 70mm. The theater where we usually went had at least one 70mm projector, so I likely saw many others in 70mm as a kid.

Later when I knew a little more, and went to that 2001 showing in 2001, it had probably been 20 years since I'd seen a 70mm film.  I was a more critical viewer and for the first time could really appreciate what film has to offer.  Too bad 70mm is basically dead now - people don't know what watching a film really means anymore.  They assume it's all grunge and mouse droppings.

So the 16mm mix is unique for 16mm?  That in itself is quite interesting, and apparently a new discovery.

Is it a completey new mix, or is it the 35mm mix with extra things layered on top of it?

'have a look at it if you don't think film can reach the level of perfection as digital.'

I'm sorry if I implied that film was inherently lower fidelity format for shooting on or exhibiting, or something like that, than digital - not really what I was going for. I haven't ever seen a truly flawless presentation of a film print, but I can appreciate the colors/detail and such are way different. The difference is stark enough in still photography, too...

And on reflection, you're right, of course, that PE and PSB don't exactly have that worn out quality. I don't quite know what it is then that draws me to it. Maybe I just have an affinity for this kind of grunginess? It's the closest I'll get, I think, to watching Star Wars at the Kent (Brooklyn's dirtiest, cheapest, ugliest hole in the wall)

Aside: all this wonky talk of the sound mixes reminded me of Scofield. Now that I understand a bit more about what it takes to properly sync sound to PE/PSB, I can better appreciate what it is we were asking of you and wouldn't dream of pestering you about it...

' I haven't ever seen a truly flawless presentation of a film print, but I can appreciate the colors/detail and such are way different'

IMAX TDKR may have come close though. I thought the picture was a bit dim but there were barely any scuffs/scratches...it was certainly an experience. Wally Pfister is awesome to experience in such a large format

I'm pretty sure I grabbed rsortor's audio too.  If there is something in particular you folks would like me to look for I could do that.  I could also probably just make it available.  Although I'm not planning to sync it - I'd rather sync the Scofield.  If it turned out to be something significant, like a 70mm folddown or some such (ha!), then yeah I'd sync it.

There's one thing that I didn't mention in the "making of", that I probably should have.  Since the film has the 3:2 pulldown bit set, I can't even use the capture directly to sync with the audio.  I have to do a temporary pulldown and sync to THAT.  That's a bit of a pain, because after doing the sync you can't really go back and add/delete any frames, without major re-synching.

Oh, and you might have noticed that the fanfare at the beginning is incomplete.  That's how it was on the film.

Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:

Is it a completey new mix, or is it the 35mm mix with extra things layered on top of it?

It sounds like a completely new mix to me, based on the very different treatment of the music all the way throughout.

I'm pretty much done listing changes for now, but I know there are lots now.  Thanks again to Puggo for making this available!  New dialogue in ESB..that is really exciting:)

-TM