Certainly a shame it doesn't look like there'll be 35mm scans available, especially since, from what information I've absorbed about Star Wars film stocks, ROTJ film stands a much better chance of still looking really good (as by then they switched to better Kodak film stock that didn't have the notoriously bad fading issues).
Do you know if -1 at least has a copy of Jedi?
yoda-sama said:
Do you know if -1 at least has a copy of Jedi?
From what I could gather from this thread,
They are currently looking at some, and have previewed a few shots.
Thanks, I hadn't realized they put up a thread recently just for Jedi.
I'm fully expecting to get some 35mm sources for the next version but I expect Jedi v2.0 will be a fairly fast process, so I will reserve the wait for 35mm sources for the next version.
Harmy said:
I expect Jedi v2.0 will be a fairly fast process
Oh don't say that; you'll have people expecting it before the end of the month! :)
Well, any upgrade to RotJ with your current skill level would certainly be wonderful.
Where do you expect the RotJ v2.1 with 35mm sources to fall in your general timeline? Sometime after ESB v2.1, or something sooner (with this release just tiding us over and getting color timing discussions out of the way)?
I have no idea yet.
Sorry to go a bit off topic here but I need some technical help with interlaced video in AE. More here.
EDIT: Some of my words are being misconstrued as an insult and that was NOT my intent in any way shape or form, so i have edited them below. Edited comments are underlined.
I really feel battles need to picked and chosen carefully. The matted in eyebrows are very distracting. That's one change we can just let slide. It's not a big deal, but becomes a bigger deal with them matted in.
Certain other oddities about these are kind of perplexing. Why not show R2D2 with his true blue sections during the finale in Episode IV? Reverting to black is kind of silly (that is my own personal opinion). That is one issue about the original effects where they were forced to go black for R2 because of blue screen. Showing the true blue would be fine with me. It's not a horrid CGI change or some stupid creature matted in. It's a flaw that has been fixed. I don't object to those at all.
That being said, I bow down to the expertise it took to pull these off.
I'm finally burning all three of these to DVD DL and will show my nieces (ages 10 and 12) each film, one per Saturday... And it is their first time. They have yet to see a single STAR WARS film and know nothing about them.
Not even who Luke's dad is. So I'm pumped.
For the record, I for one would like Star Wars 2.5 as a 50GB Blu-Ray. Or even a 25GB Blu-Ray. Either would be a huge improvement of heavily compressed 720p (which still looks fantastic, so don't get me wrong).
Last thing... Why not leave PCM as is? I just don't buy into compressing it down. 16 bit LPCM cannot be beat and should be left completely alone.
Matt_Stevens said:
I really feel battles need to picked and chosen carefully. The damn matted in eyebrows are atrocious. For the love of Pete, that's one we can just let slide. It's not a big deal, but becomes a bigger deal with them matted in. It's terribly distracting.
Certain other oddities about these are kind of perplexing. Why not show R2D2 with his true blue sections during the finale in Episode IV? Reverting to black is kind of silly. That is one issue about the original effects where they were forced to go black for R2 because of blue screen. Showing the true blue would be fine with me. It's not a horrid CGI change or some stupid creature matted in. It's a flaw that has been fixed. I don't object to those at all.
That being said, I bow doen to the expertise it took to pull these off.
I'm finally burning all three of these to DVD DL and will show my nieces (ages 10 and 12) each film, one per Saturday... And it is their first time. They have yet to see a single STAR WARS film and know nothing about them.
Not even who Luke's dad is. So I'm pumped.
For the record, I for one would like Star Wars 2.5 as a 50GB Blu-Ray. Or even a 25GB Blu-Ray. Either would be a huge improvement of heavily compressed 720p (which still looks fantastic, so don't get me wrong).
Last thing... Why not leave PCM as is? I just don't buy into compressing it down. 16 bit LPCM cannot be beatand should be left completely alone.
I don't speak for Harmy, but it's been discussed to hell and back what his despecialized versions are: re-creating the original theatrical versions, warts and all.
Because we don't have these versions that many people grew up on and were products of their time, Harmy is painstakingly trying to put them back together. If he were to let slide any "fixes" then it just becomes a slippery slope of each individual's preferences. If they bother you (or anyone else), you (or anyone else) are completely entitled to making your own version with your own personal adjustments. I'm sorry, but asking Harmy to let SE changes remain is like asking Adywan to make his Revisited versions look more like the original.
I agree that the matted eyebrows stick out a bit in version 1.0, but 2.0 looks like it's going to correct that, along with higher bit-rate video and audio. The end product should be a 25gig bluray (the MKV of ANH 2.5 and ESB 2.0 are already compressed to this target medium)
Also, the majority of the audio in the new 2.0 despecialized are losslessly compressed, so there is absolutely NOTHING lost sonically in the conversion.
What’s the internal temperature of a TaunTaun? Luke warm.
THANK YOU! Please regular posters, feel absolutely free to speak for me, whenever one of these ever-repeating questions comes up. It gets really very tiring, typing the same stuff like two times a week, so I'm very happy, when someone steps up like this a answers for me. And then, if I have anything to add or amend, I will. In this case, I don't - couldn't possibly have said it better myself.
OK, so I finally got around to trying out the 1080p to 720p script AntcuFaalb sent me a couple of days ago. It took me a while to figure it out, because I was getting some errors and then I had to figure out how to use VirtualDub, but that was pretty easy and it was well worth it, because the results are nothing short of amazing! Seriously, can you f*cking believe this?:
Matt_Stevens said:
For the record, I for one would like Star Wars 2.5 as a 50GB Blu-Ray. Or even a 25GB Blu-Ray. Either would be a huge improvement of heavily compressed 720p (which still looks fantastic, so don't get me wrong).
As has been covered before, there would be little to no advantage to encoding these higher than 720p, which is what the Blu-rays practically resolve at.
Harmy has said that there will eventually be Blu-ray builds for these, they will be sourced from the MKVs.
Jedi is still in 1.0 AVCHD version, so it has more heavy compression applied to it than either Star Wars 2.5 or Empire 2.0 MKVs (although the AVCHDs for both of those are also distinct improvements over the AVCHDs for 1.0).
“That’s impossible, even for a computer!”
Agreed, re: above. Leave black R2 and all other "flaws" alone. This is a theatrical reconstruction so people can experience Star Wars in its original form, with the 1977, 80 & 83 technical limitations intact.
I'm also fine with the 720p (those scans are mind blowing). SW and Empire look fantastic, and better than the official BD's on my 50" plasma.
My suspicion is (and this is purely a guess) that if Disney indeed is planning on releasing the OUT in BD, they'll still have minor corrections like the Blue R2 in there, so hopefully for those who want an "improved" OUT, they'll get it one day.
As far as the questions from people unfamiliar with the project Harmy, patience you must learn. :) I'm sure there are a lot of people checking this place out considering the recent publicity you've gotten. ;)
Nick66 said:
My suspicion is (and this is purely a guess) that if Disney indeed is planning on releasing the OUT in BD, they'll still have minor corrections like the Blue R2 in there, so hopefully for those who want an "improved" OUT, they'll get it one day.
I wouldn't have a problem with that as it would be an official release. Minor corrections are fine if they don't go beyond the extend of Blade Runner: The Final Cut. Until then, it's simply impossible to leave R2 blue because there is no such version.
Oh, no! "Minor" corrections like those in Blade Runner FC would be absolutely unacceptable for an OOT release - it would destroy the historical integrity of the movies and while it would be the same cut, it wouldn't be the same original version - I've said it a million times before but I guess I'll have to say it again - if you say some fixes could be made, then it is up for debate, what's still acceptable and what is not and you'll get a million different people with million different opinions - some would draw the line at matte-lines, some at blue R2 and others at expanded Cloud City windows, whereas, if you say the original version warts and all, there's nothing to debate - the goal is to restore the movie as close as possible to the way it looked on opening day.
Oh, and talking about Blade Runner, some of the new composites in the Final Cut actually look worse than the old ones and you don't have to go far into the movie - the 1st shot will do:
http://s25.postimg.org/nsyjfoaa5/Blade_Runner.jpg
The top is the original, bottom is the FC - now it is not quite as obvious in a still frame as it is in movement, so if you have the set, I recommend popping the discs in and checking it out for yourselves but those circled dark areas, which are nice smooth gradients in the original, become weird shimmering black blobs in the re-composited version and they bear unmistakable signs of bad digital keying - it caught my eye immediately the first time I put the disc in and I was like what the eff!?
Harmy said:
THANK YOU! Please regular posters, feel absolutely free to speak for me
*maniacal laugh*
Harmy said:
OK, so I finally got around to trying out the 1080p to 720p script AntcuFaalb sent me a couple of days ago. It took me a while to figure it out, because I was getting some errors and then I had to figure out how to use VirtualDub, but that was pretty easy and it was well worth it, because the results are nothing short of amazing! Seriously, can you f*cking believe this?:
To my eyes the image on the right looks brighter and has more chroma noise. I might also call it slightly over-sharpened as well. The main question to me (which I learned from these forums incidentally) is how things look in motion, which can be quite a bit different from the individual still frames.
Still, amazing!
Harmy said:
Oh, no! "Minor" corrections like those in Blade Runner FC would be absolutely unacceptable for an OOT release - it would destroy the historical integrity of the movies and while it would be the same cut, it wouldn't be the same original version - I've said it a million times before but I guess I'll have to say it again - if you say some fixes could be made, then it is up for debate, what's still acceptable and what is not and you'll get a million different people with million different opinions - some would draw the line at matte-lines, some at blue R2 and others at expanded Cloud City windows, whereas, if you say the original version warts and all, there's nothing to debate - the goal is to restore the movie as close as possible to the way it looked on opening day.
I understand your point and have to agree but as I said, minor corrections are unacceptable for the Despecialized Edition as they would make it a mixture of official versions. Shaw's eyebrows are a different thing though but there's still hope that the manual stabilization pays off. If not, I also think that they should be omitted unless there's a 35mm source.
Of course, I also favor the historical integrity of an unaltered theatrical version but a slighty polished release by Disney would still be ten times better than any official release right now.
Oh, and talking about Blade Runner, some of the new composites in the Final Cut actually look worse than the old ones and you don't have to go far into the movie - the 1st shot will do:
[...]
The top is the original, bottom is the FC - now it is not quite as obvious in a still frame as it is in movement, so if you have the set, I recommend popping the discs in and checking it out for yourselves but those circled dark areas, which are nice smooth gradients in the original, become weird shimmering black blobs in the re-composited version and they bear unmistakable signs of bad digital keying - it caught my eye immediately the first time I put the disc in and I was like what the eff!?
Question: Which version do you prefer overall? In my opinion, the Domestic Cut is the awful version while I don't have real preferences between the Director's Cut and the Final Cut. For me, the developement of this movie is the complete opposite of Star Wars.
guiser said:
Harmy said:
OK, so I finally got around to trying out the 1080p to 720p script AntcuFaalb sent me a couple of days ago. It took me a while to figure it out, because I was getting some errors and then I had to figure out how to use VirtualDub, but that was pretty easy and it was well worth it, because the results are nothing short of amazing! Seriously, can you f*cking believe this?:
To my eyes the image on the right looks brighter and has more chroma noise. I might also call it slightly over-sharpened as well. The main question to me (which I learned from these forums incidentally) is how things look in motion, which can be quite a bit different from the individual still frames.
Still, amazing!
The shot on the right looks slightly over-sharpened to my eyes as well. Could you possibly add a third image to the comparison which shows a basic upscale of the 720p to 1080p without the custom script?
George creates Star Wars.
Star Wars creates fans.
George destroys Star Wars.
Fans destroy George.
Fans create Star Wars.
The shot on the right looks more like film to me... just sayin'. That's a good thing.
@n00b: http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/What-is-your-favorite-versions-of-the-following-movies-Apocalypse-Now-Alien-Aliens-Blade-Runner-and-Terminator-2/post/723923/#TopicPost723923
@Turisu: Actually, the sharpening isn't from the downscale script but rather from the upscaling. Here's a simple bicubic upscale in PS. There is some detail loss off course but it's super minor.
Harmy said:
THANK YOU! Please regular posters, feel absolutely free to speak for me, whenever one of these ever-repeating questions comes up. It gets really very tiring, typing the same stuff like two times a week, so I'm very happy, when someone steps up like this a answers for me. And then, if I have anything to add or amend, I will. In this case, I don't - couldn't possibly have said it better myself.
Sorry for being so "annoying." *sigh*
As a fellow restoration hobbyist (mostly Hong Kong films from the 80's and early 90's) I work hard on what I do and always value feedback. In fact, I have integrated feedback into my work in an effort to create the best restoration possible.
I have endlessly praised these Harmy releases and told every Star Wars fan I know about them. But this is an open forum and we should be able to speak our minds. The eyebrows are shockingly obvious and distracting. If you can't properly recreate what was, then it should be left alone. That eyebrows are so painfully obvious that it yanks you out of the film. All I see are blurry matted in blobs. That's not what you intend, i am sure.
The other day I burned off ten copies of Star Wars 2.5 for family and friends who have absolutely no clue about HTPC's or how to create AVCHD discs. Last night my cousin watched his and called me right after, in shock at what he witnessed. That's how good Star Wars 2.5 is.
There is no question these Despecialized editions are Holy Grail type restorations. But am I supposed to not speak my mind at all? Constructive criticism isn't allowed? JEDI is only in v1.0 so clearly more work will be done. I should feel like I cannot even open my mouth about it.
And please remember that at 28 pages, it's impossible to read this entire thread when one hasn't been reading it from the get-go.
That post you quoted wasn't really aimed at you specifically, it was more general and it's just that I have literally given the answer to those same questions at least 50, possibly a 100 times and I'm happy, when someone else steps up and saves me the typing, that's all.
Now, here then is my answer, specific to your post:
That ROTJ v1.0 was done like 4 years ago and was far less high profile at the time and I was far less experienced - I looked at the eyebrow scene again yesterday and yes, it doesn't look too great and today, I could definitely do it better, even with only those same sources but at the time, I was quite proud of it and I previewed it here before putting it into the edit and most people praised it and I don't remember anyone saying, that it would better be left as it was - because the quality of these edits was measured by a different standard then, so when you come in and start complaining about this old piece of work using such strong words as terrible or atrocious (I fail to see how that is "constructive criticism"), it's like telling a 10 year old, that that finger painting hanging in the kitchen that he made when he was four, is absolutely horrible.
If you had said it normally, without being rude about it, it would have been ok to suggest, that if some rather minor change can't be undone with high enough quality, it's better left alone (this was the case for example with the Rancor matte-lines, which I would have loved to restore but I just wasn't able to pull it off at the time) but then you went on and started suggesting, that even fixes, which were quite easy to revert should have been left in, such as reverting R2 to black (I'm not sure what you mean in the finale of IV - R2 was never recolored there) that just goes completely against the spirit of these edits - if I could pull it off, I would undo everything down to the last matte-line and the "where do you draw the line" reason for that I already explained extensively in this post.
Matt_Stevens said:
Harmy said:
THANK YOU! Please regular posters, feel absolutely free to speak for me, whenever one of these ever-repeating questions comes up. It gets really very tiring, typing the same stuff like two times a week, so I'm very happy, when someone steps up like this a answers for me. And then, if I have anything to add or amend, I will. In this case, I don't - couldn't possibly have said it better myself.
Sorry for being so "annoying." *sigh*
...And please remember that at 28 pages, it's impossible to read this entire thread when one hasn't been reading it from the get-go.
Two things.
1) No need to put "annoying" in quotes.
2) 28 pages is nothing.
