BobaJett

May be old, but ran across it today.

Mark’s Down On Your Syntax said:

This is the stuff of my dreams, one day I hope I’ll find a way to do this for myself! Thanks so much for sharing and please keep posting more photos.

Trust me, even at my age, it was uber-cool to stand where Artoo and 3PO stood. Not to sound too geeky, but I even had the soundtrack playing as I drove from spot to spot.

Theres a guy that has a Death Valley tour page of all the sights and places in the park, and just so happens to be a big Star Wars fan. He has a section on his page that details how to get to all the filming locations, even for the deleted scenes. Theyre all pretty easy to get to, albeit you have to drive a bit to see them all. I took printed screenshots for reference. They are must if you want to get the shots as close to perfect. The sandcrawler spot was the most difficult to pin down. I think the foreground terrain has changed drastically since filming. There really is no bbig hill to frame the shot from. I skipped several of them this go around and just hit the really neat scenes. I plan on going back to spend a few days there hiking and whatnot and will visit all the locations, including the Tusken Raider valley where Luke is attacked.

Ive got a few more to add, so check back periodically if you want to see them. Thanks. I do plan on going back next year for a more extensive trek around the park and to find all of the filming locations. This was more of a recon trip to familiarize myself with the park. I want to do some hiking and off-roading also.

I think if I had gone out farther, where the dunes were more prevalent, I couldve got a better shot. Plus I was using the wrong focal length for the shot.

I just got back from a long roadtrip and one of the places I wanted to visit was Death Valley. Very cool place if you like the outdoors. But, as most of you know, it is also the filming location of several Star Wars and Jedi shots. I so wish I couldve been about 11 or 12 instead of my age now. But alas, im older now and it still was very neat to actually stand on Tatooine, so to speak. After looking at the photo of Artoo headed away, I realized the actual shot was a bit further to my left due to the angle of a few of the peaks in the distance. But, I was still there. I cut and paste Artoo just for the heck of it into my photo. I tried to adjust the color to closer match the actual movie. If any of you ever get the chance to go out there, it is a very neat park to visit. Most folks dont care about going there because of the heat, but its tolerable and a very, very cool place to explore. There are very view people there, so you pretty much have free reign of the place . Just make sure you have a reliable vehicle though. Getting in and out is really hard on your car. The temps range quite a bit too. At the Mos Eisley overlook, it was 84 while down in the valley, it was 118! Also, the one thing to consider is that the dunes are ever changing, and it has been 40 years since the Artoo scene was filmed. So you have to do a little exploring to find the dunes that match the shot as close as possible.
Looks like the Mos Eisley overlook shot was taken from a higher angle with a longer focal length. My shot just isnt high enough and not shallow enough in DOF to match properly. The sandcrawler shot was tough. I dont know if the terrain had changed that much, or in addition to the sandcrawler being a matte painting on glass, did they superimpose the Jawas onto the scene? IDK. Still the spot of the shot though.

this isn’t a GIF or pic, but I thought this was appropriate and humorous. “The Skinny Edition”,haha. FF to the 1:55 point if you can’t wait.
http://youtu.be/Bt9zSfinwFA

BobaJett said:

Colson said:

What do you mean you had in a drawer? What is it?

Its one of those 70mm collector frames they made years ago. I had asked sometime back where they got the frames for those and was told they were “made” specifically for those collector thingees to sell. What does that mean? Did they just make faux prints from another source to look like it was cut from an actual 70mm reel? Anyways, I just wanted an excuse to scan it so I could actually make out the detail in it.
Also, being that I have difficulty discerning color anomalies, I thought Id post it in this thread for those of you who have a better eye. It helps me recognize certain things that I might not even realize without it being pointed out. To my eyes, the top image has a brownish/slight yellowish hue to it.

Colson said:

What do you mean you had in a drawer? What is it?

Its one of those 70mm collector frames they made years ago. I had asked sometime back where they got the frames for those and was told they were “made” specifically for those collector thingees to sell. What does that mean? Did they just make faux prints from another source to look like it was cut from an actual 70mm reel? Anyways, I just wanted an excuse to scan it so I could actually make out the detail in it.
Also, being that I have difficulty discerning color anomalies, I thought Id post it in this thread for those of you who have a better eye. It helps me recognize certain things that I might not even realize without it being pointed out.

Sorry to interject here, but I find this thread interesting despite being colorblind. I can see the differences, but not the subtle nuances discussed here. Still fun to try though. From what Ive deduced from reading this thread, there really is no 100% way to know what the true colors were without a pristine, unprojected print as a referance. Even then, time would be our enemy to some degree. Just for grins I threw together a comparison shot of a few sources to look at side by side. I had my GF (good color vision and good cinema knowledge) look at them and compare and contrast. She made an offhand remark that the top image looked best for cinema. Just her opinion though. I really have no knowledge on this subject, but I like to learn what I can by reading the threads here. One is SSE, one BD (obvious which one) and the third is something I had in a drawer. I already know the verdict on the 2011 BD (middle image), but I was curious about the top and bottom inage, one being the SSE and one I found here at home. Again, sorry to I cant really add to this thread.

I say just the opposite on the opening themes dynanmic range if you will. Ive always thought the audio tracks on all the movies, was weak. I throw in another movie and my sub is hitting properly, the music fills the room and then switch back to SW and its dull to me. TFA’s opening theme on BD is by far the best sounding/recorded/mixed of the previous 7 IMO. Maybe Im wrong and Ill have to sit and listen to them all again.

Wow, got my hands on some DL DVD-R’s and this restore looks great, considering the source material. I am very pleased with it. Good job FF. I just didnt realize you couldnt burn a DVD file to a BD-R. Learn something everyday.

Doctor M said:

This project was done a long time ago. BD discs were expensive and the editor wasn’t silly about using the wrong disc format for standard definition.

True. Id forgotten that this was done several years ago, and in tech years thats like 25 years ago! Is there a reason it was done in an anamorphic AR? I have to stretch it to get it to look right.

towne32 said:

The GOUT audio isn’t important, it’s a standard for synchronization purposes, and contains all known frames, I think. So if you sync your video to it, you can use any of the many tracks available.

Gotcha. Now I understand. It’s a reference standard.

Dek Rollins said:

Yeah, there is some nasty aliasing (it bothered me too 😄). But you should try and track down a DVD DL, because I would assume that it would solve your problems.

Yeh, I know I have one floating around hee somewhere. I just never had a use for one, thus the lack of knowing its location.
On a side note, if anyone wants this, I will be seeding it for the forseeable future indefinitely.

Williarob said:

BobaJett said:

Forgive me if I overlooked this, but what are the changes/upgrades for this version?

Fully GOUT Sync’d

Oh, OK, very cool indeed. Look forward to it. One more question though, I keep seeing “GOUT synced” all over the place. Why is this so important? I know what the GOUT is, but why is its audio so coveted?
When is this version due?

Dek Rollins said:

Why would you put SD video that amounts to 7-ish GB on a BD? That’s a waste of hardware. Also, a DVD DL is easier to obtain and cheaper than a BD, and not everybody has a BD burner.

Well, for right now, I only have BD-R and DVD-R discs. It wont fit on a DVD-R, so I threw it on a BD-R. But instead of it burning as a whole movie, it burned as a data disc with the movie chopped up into multiple parts ranging from 11-20 minutes each. Someone above mentioned burning to a DVD-R-DL and I wonder if that will solve my problems. WHat I have thus far does not look very good, even though it is 480P, it has severe aliasing which is something I cant overlook. Its too distracting.

Forgive me if I overlooked this, but what are the changes/upgrades for this version?

Oh, I noticed a 16mm SWOT print that just went up on eBay. Pretty pricey. Are the 16mm prints scoped? I just dont ever remember going to a theatre as a kid that projected in 16mm.

Doctor M said:

If it’s the original release of this edit, it’s a DVD9. You must burned to a dual layer DVD and play it in a DVD player.

I found the picture to be on the soft side and used DVD Rebuilder to put it on a single layer DVD.

Why a duel layer? Why not just use a BD? I dont believe I have any DLDVD’s laying around.

Photoshop to the rescue.

I was if it stayed at or below $1200

Ok, thanks. Its odd though, when I burned it, it was burned as a data disc with multiple bits and pieces that you had to watch individually. It didnt burn as one whole movie. Observation here, not complaining, but I sure notice a lot of aliasing. Im guessing because of the source material that there is no higher resolution from which to get the extra scenes and make them match PQ wise and that this would probably be best viewed on an old CRTV, preferably a 16:9 model. Still very cool. I havent seen this version in probably 30 yrs. I know Ive seen it before, but I just cant remember when.

Ok, Dumbass question here, but is this version 480p or higher? Its only 7.7gb and will fit on a DVD-R. But that will only be 480p at best. Under the resolution spec, it just says the AR and not the actual resolution. How should I burn it for viewing? BD-R or DVD-R?

That is very cool. Now I have to run out to my local large format printer and get a one-sheet made!

CatBus said:

ZaneFlare92 said:

Defiantly gonna have a Star Wars marathon

Fight the power.

😃 too funny!