logo Sign In

Info: Star Wars - What is wrong and what is right... Goodbye Magenta — Page 14

Author
Time

“The transfer of already-completed features and film programs is always performed from prints or intermediate elements that were originally produced as a part of the print-finishing process.”

Facinating statement. So if they didn’t make a specific print that indicates they would use what they had on hand.

I find it interesting that most of this discussion comes across as the typical modern way is the only possible way it could be done. I know for a fact that for a great many movies the typical modern way is impossible, either due to what exists or the age of the film. TCM uses Technicolor prints for those old color movies.

Star Wars is not from a time when every movie came out on home video. I trust reports of what the sources for the Definitive Collection were over what some think how it must be because that has since become the norm. The real world is not that clean and tidy.

And while your detailed description of how Doctor Who was transferred to film is accurate for the situation in 1963-5, they adopted a higher quality standard where they didn’t drop any of the half frames and they retransferred all the older episodes, though not all the existing copies are the better transfer.

Now, when we talk about how the average TV station handled telecines (which I’m sure is a different standard from how a major network would operate or a home video arm of a major studio), I have no doubt that 16mm prints were very common. I know a lot more about how BBC properties were distributed and it was all 16mm film out to the station for transfer and broadcast. Anything important made at those stations would be transferred to film to be archived. Some countries were small enough they only had one BBC affiliate. Australia had several, plus their own censor board. Sometime in the mid 70’s BBC started shipping video tapes to some markets. I have no doubt that the smaller station only had equipment for 16mm so if they wanted to show a movie they needed a 16mm copy. But major networks and home video arms of studios wouldn’t need those. The video posted above is pre HD at the BBC and the machine demonstrated in the video can handle 16mm or 35mm, prints, negatives, or intermediates. So pretty much anything except 70mm.

From a quality perspective, even an SD telecine should be done from the highest quality print available. Every generation adds more grain and degrades the colors. Reducing to 16mm adds even more grain,so unless you have to use that, you wouldn’t want to. If you have a special made high generation print, great. If you don’t, you wouldn’t deliberately have one made if the technical difficulties of using what you have weren’t insurmountable.

I still remember that very expensive VHS of Gone With The Wind that came out on the mid 80’s. I don’t remember how many generations down that was, but it was dark and awful. Then they did a restoration for the 50th in 89 that was outstanding from the original negatives to modern film. Then they finally did it right in full technicolor. So that telecine had to be from a print.

There is the norm and then there are all the exceptions. I have no doubt that Star Wars is full of exceptions. Return of the Jedi was the first one made in the home video era. I think rather than focusing on how some say it should have been done we look deeper and find out how it was really done.

Author
Time

yotsuya said:

“The transfer of already-completed features and film programs is always performed from prints or intermediate elements that were originally produced as a part of the print-finishing process.”

Facinating statement. So if they didn’t make a specific print that indicates they would use what they had on hand.

That’s correct, but they would never use a theatrical print unless it was the ONLY suitable element they had (i.e. if the negative or interpositive no longer existed, or if they had faded beyond use). So for a lot of older films from the 30’s-50’s they may not have had anything except theatrical prints because often the original negatives were burned instead of being archived, and for colour films of that time many of the original negatives had completely faded beyond use.

Star Wars is not from a time when every movie came out on home video. I trust reports of what the sources for the Definitive Collection were over what some think how it must be because that has since become the norm. The real world is not that clean and tidy.

The Definitive Collection isn’t until 15 years after the film was released. By that time no doubt the 1977 telecine prints were faded just like the theatrical prints other than the Tech prints. They could well have transferred it directly from the interpositive if that’s what they said they did, I’m not arguing there.

Also, it doesn’t matter that home video was in its infancy as television wasn’t, and telecines were use primarily for broadcast. It’s entirely possible that for the early home video releases especially those outside of the US that distributors used telecine prints intended for broadcast.

Now, when we talk about how the average TV station handled telecines (which I’m sure is a different standard from how a major network would operate or a home video arm of a major studio), I have no doubt that 16mm prints were very common.

The only difference would be that the film’s director or the DOP would often be on-hand to guide the home video transfers to get the look they wanted, whereas the TV networks would rely on their telecine operators to make their own decisions.

Anything important made at those stations would be transferred to film to be archived.

Not in 1963, in 1963 the actors’ union had a contract with the networks including BBC that required them to destroy episodes following broadcast and syndication, because they were worried that repeating old episodes would put actors out of work. That’s why they don’t have the negatives for any of the old doctor who episodes, the only have syndication prints that were sent out. But their policy of requisitioning those prints when found is what prevents a lot of collectors who do have many of the lost episodes from coming forward - I hope the collectors who own the remaining missing episodes will at some time get their prints transferred.

From a quality perspective, even an SD telecine should be done from the highest quality print available. Every generation adds more grain and degrades the colors.

Not necessarily, lab film is often finer-grain than the film for projection prints. But that isn’t always the case, I’ve seen Aliens on 70mm and it’s as grainy as hell - it looks like a grainy 35mm. So clearly the negative that Cameron shot on or the interpositive was very grainy! But that’s unusual.

[ Scanning stuff since 2015 ]

Author
Time

I have found first hand info on what prints were used for the CBS/FOX telecines. 1982 transfer of Star Wars was a release print. The initial releases of TESB and ROTJ were interpositives as was the concurrent release of Star Wars. The 1985 release of the trilogy was also interpositives. Tapes were sent to Lucasfilm, but no one from Lucasfilm was present. And it seems that virtually all films telecined at the CBS/FOX facility were either interpositives or internegatives. One exception was a collection of Chaplin films.

Not a single special telecine print. Not a single 16mm print. And done on a Rank Cinetel 2.

The interview with Wayne Cook can be found here - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LagwssLxlk

Author
Time

yotsuya said:

I have found first hand info on what prints were used for the CBS/FOX telecines. 1982 transfer of Star Wars was a release print. The initial releases of TESB and ROTJ were interpositives as was the concurrent release of Star Wars. The 1985 release of the trilogy was also interpositives. Tapes were sent to Lucasfilm, but no one from Lucasfilm was present. And it seems that virtually all films telecined at the CBS/FOX facility were either interpositives or internegatives. One exception was a collection of Chaplin films.

Not a single special telecine print. Not a single 16mm print. And done on a Rank Cinetel 2.

The interview with Wayne Cook can be found here - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LagwssLxlk

Sure but how many times did they use a release print? Once out of all their domestic home video releases by the sound of it. But what about their foreign releases? The French release? Japan? Australia? Germany? I can just about guarantee you they were not using release prints for all those releases.

It doesn’t surprise me they used the IP for other releases, like I already said typically for home video you use a low-contrast film (anything but a projection/release print) as that’s what telecines are designed to transfer. The IP is less valuable than the cut camera negative, and often less beat up than the duplicate neg (the interneg) used for striking release prints so it makes sense to use it.

But now you have to explain to me why those releases have negative cue marks in them. Because if they were from the IP that means the cut camera negative (or the o-neg) had cue marks etched into it. To me that doesn’t exactly add up…

[ Scanning stuff since 2015 ]

Author
Time

My point was is that for virtually every transfer they were using an intermediate print. Either an interpositive or an internegative. If using an internegative, as we previously discussed, it has the cue marks and everything else and once you reverse it it will look like a release print. So all the ones with a cue marks probably internegatives. but the 1982 transfer was specifically a release print in very bad shape. I had a very green color to it that they color corrected. And even so when you look at it the transfer looks very yellow. However, the opening titles were horizontally compressed so it has one of the highest quality transfers of that section which I found very valuable for one of my projects. The colors are horrible, but the details are great.

Also of note, in the interview Mr. Cook states that they didn’t constantly adust the transfer. So each scene is not individually color corrected. It is one setting for the entire film. So the scene by scene color, saturation, and contrast, at least of the transfers he did, are true to the original print.

Author
Time

yotsuya said:

My point was is that for virtually every transfer they were using an intermediate print. Either an interpositive or an internegative.

Sure, but those are low contrast film which give the telecine operator a lot of room to adjust the image. It won’t look anything like a release print after it is transferred to videotape.

but the 1982 transfer was specifically a release print in very bad shape.

Lucasfilm is known for cutting corners, but that is low even by their own standards. FYI repeatedly using the Interpositive for this purpose is also likely what led the original film elements to be in such poor shape by 1993 when they did their first photochemical restoration in preparation for the Special Edition.

Also of note, in the interview Mr. Cook states that they didn’t constantly adust the transfer.

That just means that He or Mr Lucas or Gilbert Taylor were not (for the most part) guiding/interfering with the telecine operator’s decisions. And from the way they did some of the PAL transfers it very much appears they were done at the same time using the same settings on the same machines. For example the 1993 release in particular it appears for the first two films anyway that they “rehearsed” the transfer and then used the same rehearsal to make both a NTSC telecine and a PAL telecine. I am guessing though that this wasn’t a unit really intended for PAL which would explain why there’s no extra detail in there (probably “Scanned” at 480 lines and interpolated them), ROTJ on the other hand does show greater detail on PAL which would indicate they used different hardware to do that transfer (maybe it was transferred separately).

So each scene is not individually color corrected. It is one setting for the entire film. So the scene by scene color, saturation, and contrast, at least of the transfers he did, are true to the original print.

They wouldn’t tune every scene, just a handful throughout that might look distracting.

[ Scanning stuff since 2015 ]

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Well, if you listen to the interview, he was the one doing it and they set the setting at the beginning if the day and only changed things if the machine started to drift. That probably was between reels. From what he said, the machine was too strong and if you moved the film you risked breaking it. So I believe that his telecines on that machine had a uniform setting for every reel and they tried to stay consistent between reels. When you really think about it, there shouldn’t be any need to change the settings in the middle of a properly timed and processed itermediate.

Also, I just tried to match his transfer to the other transfers and after a few tweaks to adjust the contrast, levels, and saturation (reversing the settings that made it compatible with the old home video standards), it looks quite good for a pan and scan. And it looks so different from the 4k77 no-dnr release (which is pretty faithful to the Technicolor print). So my feeling that the color timing on the Technicolor prints is very screwed up is only reinforced.

Author
Time

Seriously yotsoya you pissed me off… But I am ok with you just stop inflicting your stuff on me.

I really felt like quitting the site ok I am here to make a post… I sat down with the Gout first 2 vobs most difficult took quite a bit more time than the remaing files everything after tbat flew through it looks good happy with it.

Hue Shift overall change througout Purple pulled back round to blue.

Things I noticed at this time…

The green lasers are off some of the time when it comes to the end of the film certain elements are in different hues for example tench background and lasers require positive shift / actors and bluescreen require negative shift. The way to circumnavigate this was to use selective correction but ideally you would take separate elements and re-composite in the correct color. Stars and starfields are cyan not blue/ purple.

The whole purple conundrum keeps showing up again and again and it is the plague of this film. Nothing “Should” be purple as a whole sort of tint put it this way. Purple in anyway shape or form tinted shows the degredation.

Sorry lots of posts here and just had a look today quite suprised… will read these when i get a chance but essentially I am done apart from snippets where I will capture between Vobs where the rip missed some frames.

I am personally happy with the result though I am pleased I did the process. Interesting also is that if you shift quite a few of the special edition shots say for instance mos eisley CGI shots they look like the images posted on the packaging of the laserdiscs and books.

Author
Time

Interesting findings my friend. Don’t lose hope just because one man shouts louder than the rest of us. Look for the helpers in life and ignore the haters. I know this site can be tough but you have to persevere for the sake of the fun you will have if you stay. ❤️

Author
Time

LordZerome1080 said:

Look for the helpers in life and ignore the haters.

Or maybe he should actually listen to the advice of literally everyone that’s offered it, including multiple industry professionals, instead of bullheadedly assuming he’s right and that the people who get paid to do this stuff somehow don’t know what they’re talking about.

Author
Time

Ronster, I have mixed feelings about pissing you off. Did you finally calibrate your monitor? How about this, have you checked the lighting where your monitor is? That can change how you see colors. Check every variable. I check mine with photos, videos, paper prints. I compare with real life and how photos I take look. For instance, I check that shot of Leia facing Vader against other movies Carrie was in, videos, old and new. I check it with people around me with similar complexions. I consider the light on set and all the other vaiables. I look at all the old transfers. I look at the professionally printed posters and stills, such as several books and the original 1977 soundtrack LP and story LP. I found the Blu-ray of American Grafitti to be very enlightening in general for colors. No weird colors there. But you have to be sure your monitor is showing the right colors. Flesh tones are the hardest thing to get right. You have to balance red and yellow to get the right peach/tan/brown color.

I would really like to see what you can do, but if you stick with what you have posted so far, you have taken away too much red and screwed up the skin tones. Something hasn’t been right and many of us have urged you to start with calibrating your monitor. If you don’t do that, we can’t help you isolate the error in your setup.

Author
Time

Oh, I also have found my phone very helpful. I can watch the same video on both screens at once so I can be sure my TV and the two monitors I use (work and home) are all the same.

Author
Time

In regards to the conversation about the Technicolor prints, I decided to sync 12 different transfers so I could see the colors side by side. I tweaked a few (such as minimizing the Technicolor green shadows and magenta highlihts and the overall red tone to Puggo Grand). I decided to check one of the scenes that was changed (between the limited and wider releases I believe) and found this shot to highlight the differences. The one labeled 2006 UK GOUT CC is my color correction and I pulled my 1985 version which happens to have this shot taken from the JSC since I was trying to match that. The UK GOUT has is identical to the US GOUT, but I am not using that due to the missing frame. But the versions with the fully white frame are the shot as it has been in all the newer prints (Definitive Collection, Special Edition, up to Blu-Ray) and the others are all older. Specifically the Moth3r the Puggo versions which have the original crawl, different end credits, and a mono soundtrack that is a fold down of the stereo instead of the actual mono mixed soundtrack. I take that to mean that not long after the May 1977 initial release, the movie was edited resulting in all following copies to have the 3 new FX shots and the new end credits. When Fox sent over copies for home video, they sent an odd mixed copy that had the new opening crawl and the new end credits, but still had the original 3 FX shots. That makes sense because that interpositive might not have been used after May 77. When the struck and new interpostive that was used for the Definitive Collection and GOUT, the new FX shots were there. Only this one is still there because the other two were changed for the Special Edition.

Author
Time

But down to business.

These three shots show very clearly the variation in the Technicolor print. Not only are the blacks crushed (and I’ve compared several really good scans of a number of scene and found the same crushed black on all of them) and the brights consistent across these three neighboring shots, but the contrast varies. In the wide shot of the cargo hold, all the shots look pretty similar, but when it cuts to Ben, the shot is dark.



And this variation in image continues through out the film. The two pan and scan LD captures show very pale images. The Moth3r and Puggo widescreens tend to be dark. The Technicolor goes from matching one to the other. And thanks to that interview, we know the 1982 LD was telecined from a release print. The 1985 telecine was from an interpositive. The GOUT is from an interpositive. The SSE is from release prints (varying sources color corrected to match using the GOUT as a reference). If the Technicolor print is definitive, these others should not vary so much. But in some shots the darks are green and crushed and in others the contrast is low. Some shots are highly yellow. This shot has some good examples of the crushed blacks. Compare to the 1982 LD release print.

This shot leans blue in the Technicolor print. The details of the blanket next to Threepio and the wall behind Luke and Ben are muddled or gone.

This shot leans yellow.

This shot looks great.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Ronster,

This one is for you. For all our leaning yellow or red discussion, look how Threepio has fared. Compare the 1982 LD to the JSC LS. All all places in between.

Which one do you think is the right color. So many choices here.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Ronster, to harken back to your first post, I see an issue with some of your image choices. althor1138 has done a magnificent job archiving the LD versions and what is often called the Technidisc is a reissue of the 1989 Special Widescreen Edition (middle of the third row). I believe this is the original release with the creeping letterboxing, but I think the colors remained the same. the Technicdisc reissue was just a superior transfer of the telecine. But you posted an image in your original post that does not match any of the versions I have. It certianly does not match the SWE as captured by althor1138 (shown in these images un-altered from his capture).

And the blu-ray has noting on the French Pyramid Boxset when it comes to magenta and purple.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

yotsuya said:

Ronster,

This one is for you. For all our leaning yellow or red discussion, look how Threepio has fared. Compare the 1982 LD to the JSC LS. All all places in between.

Which one do you think is the right color. So many choices here.

The one i think looks best is top right Fox Ld.

don’t know if it is actually right or not but it looks the best and essentislly all these images you are posting prove that there is not really any wrong or right only looking better or worse.

The Binary sunset shot though is a special effects error or something, it is just “fucked up” and it’s not worth particularly much apart from knowing that looks totally wrong compared to the 3p0 shot makes sense no matter what different color is displayed from the transfer is relative no doubt to the rest of the film in a sense.

You need to look at the technidisc it was a transfer of technicolor print. Or atleast I think it was?

Essentially what I have done is shift the Gout to sort out the skin tones but this has left me with a video with a purple weirdness to it. Probably similar to what a print on the way out would look like. Bug I have dealt with the Purple problem not shifted it to hide the purple problem that it had.

So it is a good reason to do it… They were blatently shifting color on that transfer and it is plain to see that it was shifted to hide the problem.

Author
Time

yotsuya said:

Well, if you listen to the interview, he was the one doing it and they set the setting at the beginning if the day and only changed things if the machine started to drift.

I haven’t listened to it, it’s 90 minutes - could you give some timestamps?

From what he said, the machine was too strong and if you moved the film you risked breaking it.

Well that explains why they used a release print in bad shape (I’m assuming this is the 1982 transfer?) A machine rough on film would be far more likely to damage or tear lab film, and if you didn’t have a telecine print on hand you probably wouldn’t want to risk putting through an interneg or interpos. But it still doesn’t mean it would have come out looking like a projected print, that’s just not how telecine transfers worked.

So I believe that his telecines on that machine had a uniform setting for every reel and they tried to stay consistent between reels. When you really think about it, there shouldn’t be any need to change the settings in the middle of a properly timed and processed itermediate.

Yes they do, particularly because black points on film can vary a lot. In the movie theatre it’s forgiving, but in home viewing it isn’t. Even if this guy said he didn’t do much scene-to-scene tinkering I would still think scenes with a higher black point to the rest of the reel he would adjust.

[ Scanning stuff since 2015 ]

Author
Time

RU.08, if you don’t want to listen to it, you’ll need to take my word for it. No telecine prints. Not a single one in over 200 movies he transfered. The studios didn’t use them for home video transfers. That would be a TV station specific thing. I terpositives and internegatives work white well. And the lightened black level would hide any variation so it would be pretty forgiving. Plus, the shadows are all very bright and full of details. The black levels of the Technicolor print and Blu-ray show both of them have crushed blacks while the release prints (see the 1982 LD) and interpositives don’t. So there would be no need to make the tweaks you think were made and that he denies making.

Author
Time

Ronster, the Technidisc was a new pressing and correction of the Fox Video Special Widescreen Edition. It was not a new transfer and it was not from a Technicolor print. It is virtually identical to the Japanese Special Collection. Due to what had to be fixed it would be the same telecine and is just a better transfer from the master tape to LD. The colors aren’t any different except if the new transfer eeked out some subtile improvements. It is the same telecine which is what matters to me as that determines what the transfer looks like.

The SWE is in the middle of the second row. The one on the top far right is my tweak of the 85 LD to restore the contrast, levels, and saturation. The untouched 85 LD is next to it for comparison. That is also the only one we have info directly from the operator of the telecine equipment.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

yotsuya said:

RU.08, if you don’t want to listen to it, you’ll need to take my word for it. No telecine prints. Not a single one in over 200 movies he transfered. The studios didn’t use them for home video transfers. That would be a TV station specific thing.

You’re missing the point entirely. Telecine machines were not designed to transfer projection prints. They work well with low contrast film (negatives, inter positives, master positives, telecine prints, etc).

You should provide proper references. I’ve listened to part of the interview and so far he doesn’t say anything like what you claimed, so no I’m not taking your word on it. Here are some quotes from it:

11:19- “It wasn’t until Rank Cintel came out with film transfer machines in the 60’s that any scene correction was done at all. They did what they call a ‘one light’ which was a single pass of the move through the projector and record it all through the camera, and then distribute it however it was.”

12:58- “To operate it everything that controlled that machine was on a little stick and cards in cages in the front of the machine and every morning I’d have to go through and do basic alignments on that machine before they ever started, because it would sit overnight and it would drift. It would take me roughtly an hour and a half every day to tweak that machine on a calibration frame, and then we’d check in in motion because in motion the light level and the colour would change slightly.”

20:33- “When we got that film (Star Wars) that entire series they were in good shape. I think we had to put one splice on the interneg. The interneg is actually another film stock, I looked it up a few months ago, and there’s a Kodak site that talks about internegs and the typical film stock for it. We put one splice in that because the interneg that we did get had been used so much that it broke once. So we had to splice it and we were really careful with it. We didn’t often do a fast-forward or a ree-to-reel take because the Rank was so strong that when you put the brakes on it would stop so hard so fast that you take a good chance of breaking any film on it.”

21:49- “Yep, every single film has its own little characteristics, chemical psychology, every single film that you get in the transfer suite is slightly different from the one you just did or the one after it. Another example, an extreme example is Yentl because that particular film Barbra Streisand had shot it with a yellow-cast to indicate that it was a period piece, and when we put it on the Rank and looked at the first frames of the video it didn’t look right. It had that yellow cast. And we went through and had done the typical set ups, zeroing everything out, and when we did that there was this yellowish looking, almost mustard looking, film over the film. While she had done that on purpose and our studio wrote a letter at my request to her, and she replied back and she was pretty upset. Robert Altman had shot a film about Buffalo Bill that had a colour cast to it. Every film, even the black and white films, come through the film transfer and they’re slightly different colours depending on age. Even those films have to be handled and calibrated before we actually do the transfer - every single time. And that can take up to half a day. Because not only do you have to calibrate the transfer machine before the film, but you have to look through the entire film and find out ‘are my calibrations going to last me all the way through this film or is there some scene in this that is going to be so extreme that I’ve got to adjust the window of acceptability to that scene and then hope the rest of the movie fits into it?’ Because it happens.”

What you said was this:

yotsuya said:

Also of note, in the interview Mr. Cook states that they didn’t constantly adust the transfer. So each scene is not individually color corrected. It is one setting for the entire film. So the scene by scene color, saturation, and contrast, at least of the transfers he did, are true to the original print.

yotsuya said:

Well, if you listen to the interview, he was the one doing it and they set the setting at the beginning if the day and only changed things if the machine started to drift. That probably was between reels. From what he said, the machine was too strong and if you moved the film you risked breaking it. So I believe that his telecines on that machine had a uniform setting for every reel and they tried to stay consistent between reels. When you really think about it, there shouldn’t be any need to change the settings in the middle of a properly timed and processed itermediate.

That’s not at all what he said in the first 25 minutes (unless he said it later?):

  • Calibrating the machines each day before transfer did not mean further calibration didn’t happen. In fact he specifically says that further calibration did happen and could take up to half a day per film (clearly he is referring to the “rehearsal”). He even mentions that specific scenes can be problematic.

  • He didn’t say that he didn’t do fine adjustments throughout.

  • He didn’t say you couldn’t do scene-by-scene adjustments because the “machine was too strong” he simply said that you couldn’t do a fast-forward or entire reel transfer when using a negative because of the strength of the machine. All that means is that you couldn’t fast forward through scenes in the rehearsal by the sound of it. And it would only apply to lab film as it’s much much thinner than prints - I would think the prints for telecine were more durable with thicker base just like projection prints are.

  • He doesn’t say they always used internegs/interpositives to transfer the Star Wars films throughout the 80’s and early 90’s. He was clearly talking about his own experience.

  • You claimed he never used telecine prints, yet he clearly says he sent a letter to Barbra Streisand because the film she had sent wasn’t suitable for home video transfer - what do you think they asked for her to send? Where does he claim he only ever worked with dupe-negs and interpositives? I never claimed you can’t transfer those, just that you don’t usually transfer release prints as they don’t transfer well.

And the lightened black level would hide any variation so it would be pretty forgiving.

That’s not going to make a film with an inconsistent black level more consistent.

Plus, the shadows are all very bright and full of details. The black levels of the Technicolor print and Blu-ray show both of them have crushed blacks while the release prints (see the 1982 LD) and interpositives don’t. So there would be no need to make the tweaks you think were made and that he denies making.

Prints don’t have “crushed blacks”, they have lower levels of detail in the shadows.

Nowhere in the first 25 minutes of the interview does he deny tweaking specific scenes - when exactly do you claim that he denies doing this?

[ Scanning stuff since 2015 ]

Author
Time
 (Edited)

If you watch the Gout Dvd when 3p0 is going in the tub from a dissolve in…

Look at the cyan hexagon lights behind him. They go from being Cyan to red once the disdolve effect is done.

these are shown as Green hecagon lights now in later transfers but I think they are actually that cyan color in reality.

but the sudden change in color would probably be the telecine machine starting it’s settings which was not possible to do on the actual dissolve effect. Hence cyan suddenly became red all of a sudden on this shot.

Vader with pink lights on his belt rather than green when he enters the Tantive.

Vaders chest plate…

On and on weird and unusual and impossible without something altering the image in an extreme way. But it’s also probably something that improved the way the film looked in many ways.

I appreciate the effort but would like to improve upon that effort.

Author
Time

Ronster said:

but the sudden change in color would probably be the telecine machine starting it’s settings which was not possible to do on the actual dissolve effect

Are you talking about calibrating issues?

Author
Time

how about the lasers choose weather or not they are green more lime green or strong cyan green.

there really is no consistancy but I personally find that Lime green looks good and the rest look no good with blobby color surrounding them so no brainer as far as I am concerned any laser not Lime green is not the right shade of green.

Author
Time

how about the lasers choose weather or not they are green more lime green or strong cyan green.

there really is no consistancy but I personally find that Lime green looks good and the rest look no good with blobby color surrounding them so no brainer as far as I am concerned any laser not Lime green is not the right shade of green.