Star Wars Colortiming & Cinematography (was What changes was done to STAR WARS in '93?) — Page 12

msycamore said:

A few pictures taken inside a theater in '77, posted a few years ago by Belbucus in the The XØ Project thread:

The pictures above where all taken with the same camera settings, which suggests that the scenes in the canyon appeared quite dark.

here's our versions:

===================

later

-1

What in God's name is the point of posting thumbnails if you post the full-size ones right after?

bkev said:

What in God's name is the point of posting thumbnails if you post the full-size ones right after?

those aren't full size.

look again, they're clipped.

later

-1

negative1 said:

bkev said:

What in God's name is the point of posting thumbnails if you post the full-size ones right after?

those aren't full size.

look again, they're clipped.

later

-1

Hi Negative1

been browsing this thread with amazement for a while-----thanks for posting all these pics------forgive me for being unfamiliar with the context of these fotos----- but have you aquired a complete 35mm print?

danny_boy said:

negative1 said:

bkev said:

What in God's name is the point of posting thumbnails if you post the full-size ones right after?

those aren't full size.

look again, they're clipped.

later

-1

 

Hi Negative1

been browsing this thread with amazement for a while-----thanks for posting all these pics------forgive me for being unfamiliar with the context of these fotos----- but have you aquired a complete 35mm print?

we have 2 prints of star wars:

1 six reels - lpp spanish

2 five reels - english red faded + extra reel 5 (10 minutes)

3 six reels - english empire strikes back pink faded + extra reel 3

==============================================

http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Making-our-own-35mm-preservation-my-crazy-proposal/post/586221/#TopicPost586221

later

-1

The quality on these is just great, soo much better than the messed up SE, wonderful natural detail and vibrancy! Have to love real 35mm film. :)

This is going to make a big splash when it comes out. 

The average Joe on Youtube will see Star Wars like he's never seen it before....

Well---I am one of the few average Joe's who owns a Sony 4k 1000es projector-----and the SW blu ray's look amazing----here are some screen shots from projectorreviews.com.

http://www.projectorreviews.com/sony/vpl-vw1000es/image.php

On the above is the 35mm original from negative1's print  and a different frame but the same scene from the Blu Ray(upscaled on a Sony 4K) below:

none said:

danny_boy wrote: I am one of the few average Joe's who owns a Sony 4k 1000es projector-----and the SW blu ray's look amazing-

No one's debating the amazingness of a blu-ray disc.  Is 'one of the few' still territory of the 'average Joe'?

The two pics share a resemblance.  But they remind us of what the threads about.

 

Well---you might wanna call me a "slightly above average Joe"! lol!

Just to clarify----I did not mean to come across as antagonistic---I love 35mm/70mm----and I respect and admire the painstaking work that Negative 1 is doing.

But i aslo don't subscribe to the 35/70mm is great and digital is crap crowd either----hence the comparison.

So you decided to post a comparison between an amateur digital scan of a 35mm 4th generation print and a professional digital scan of the original 35mm negative with over-extensive cleanup, where the latter has worse colours than the former? What did you want to show with that exactly?

it's ok to post comparisons..

however, video samples are more promising

for this project in comparison..

i've been putting a few in 720p here,

although they're not fully color corrected..

------------------------------------------------------

http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/cleaning-up-dirty-frames-for-scenes/topic/14044/page/2/

the 1080p ones, look better than those too..

later

-1

some shots of darth vader

and the emperor..

==========================

later

-1

jero32 said:

So...how does George Lucas get away with claiming he can't restore the original version again?

The Lynn Hale quote was much more honest that he did not want to devote his money and time to the process.

Because they don't represent his vision.  But since then he has put his foot in it by not just having a company spokesperson but he himself has said "its an oxymoron to include the original version on the blu ray.  The part that has been restored is the digital version so we put that on the blu ray"

When nothing has really been restored since the negative and all existing materials are rotting in a vault a digital version is no restore if there are no new negative copies made of the so called saved version of the movie.  And usually it would be of the original release also not the same here.

Which is why we are where we are with fans having to do the work because a belligerent media mogul/cgi technocrat does not want us to have our cake and eat it too.

KazolOrajia said:

I'm sorry if this is a dumb question, but I couldn't find the answer. When negative1 posts pics and calls them 'our versions', what project is he referring to?

post 280 up the page describes more.

(scroll up).

part of the recent developments here:

----------------------------------------------

http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Making-our-own-35mm-preservation-my-crazy-proposal/post/580190/#TopicPost580190

basically the 35mm version

later

-1

the last set of images from

the trailer:

========================

later

-1

the wampa puppet arm frames

---------------------------------------

later

-1

TServo2049 said:

The film frame scans are bluish because 8mm projectors used tungsten lamps. When you project the print, it will look like it does in the photos taken off of the screen. (The colors in the pic of 3PO and R2 fall somewhere between Mike Verta's photo of the IB Technicolor print with the 70s projector bulb, and his photo of the same scene with a modern xenon bulb.)

IB Technicolor with 70s light source:

IB Technicolor with xenon light:

8mm print projected:

here's our take on it.

----------------------------

later

-1

msycamore said:

Wow, what activity. :)

I like that you mention the warm and golden quality of Star Wars as that is exactly how I remember it, especially the scenes on Tatooine, slightly old fashion. I also think that sometimes people may mistake the warm 70's look for very saturated colors, this frame is a perfect example of that nice 70's look. Those pics of the Derann print also display it, very nice.

Haven't seen this one before, was it posted on his site? Another thing that stands out to me about this frame is the darker blue on R2-D2, see how far removed the look of R2 seen in modern transfers is compared to this, even compared to some earlier transfers to some extent.

here is our version:

(these are all raw non-corrected frames)

===============

TServo2049 said:

That picture was originally posted by Mike in the Despecialized Edition thread.

Here are the other images from the screening which he posted there:

 

Mike's original posts are in pages 122 and 123 of the thread. He explains more about the screening, how warm projector bulbs were in the 70s, and how the same print projected with modern lighting looks different:

http://originaltrilogy.com/FORUM/topic.cfm/Harmys-STAR-WARS-Despecialized-Edition-HD-AVCHD-DVD9-and-NTSC-DVD5-AVAILABLE-see-1st-post/topic/12713/page/122/

http://originaltrilogy.com/FORUM/topic.cfm/Harmys-STAR-WARS-Despecialized-Edition-HD-AVCHD-DVD9-and-NTSC-DVD5-AVAILABLE-see-1st-post/topic/12713/page/123/

 

and the other two:

===============

later

-1

LexX said:

I just wanted to put this somewhere, I love the colors of this shot, I bet it's from the original film/negative/whatever.

that's a great shot..

ours:

==============

later

-1

The colors look great, but the last image of Han, Leia, Luke and Chewbacca looks ... soft? The faces look "plasticy" for lack of a better word. Is this what we should expect in terms of detail, or it this just the side effect of resizing/compressing?