logo Sign In

Info: Star Wars - What is wrong and what is right... Goodbye Magenta — Page 15

Author
Time

RU.08,

What Mr. Cook said was that they would find the best settings for a film and then hope they didn’t stray while they monitored the transfer to check. The machine was a best to change the settings on (an hour and a half at the start of the day) and between the two comments and many others in the 90 minute interview I understand that they did not tweak the scenes but rather looked for the best settings for the entire film (not sure if he meant for each reel or for the entire film). He never mentions using a special telecine film. He never talks about 16mm. He talks about interpostives and internegatives which are the two intermediate steps in chemical processing from o-neg to release print. Both are lower contrast than the release prints.

And according to the man at BBC interviewed about the next generation machine (Mr. Cook was using a Rank Cinetel 2 and the man at the BBC circa 1990 was using Rank Cinetel 3), it could do release prints, negatives, and intermediates. I conformed that with an independent source. So it can do anything on 35mm or 16mm from the o-neg to a release print. Please refer to all his comments about the 1982 telecine that happened right before he joined the team and refer to the images of the LD archive of that telecine that I have included. It is a fine transfer that really contradicts what you are trying to say. Per Mr. Cook’s interview, it was a release print that was turning green and they had to restore the color rather than just do a straight transfer. From how it turned out, they didn’t do a bad job and the dark areas contain far more detail than the Technicolor prints.

And you are incorrect about prints not having crushed blacks. Please refer to the Technicolor scans. Either Mike Verta’s samples, DrDre’s scan, or the full film release as 4k77. It is full of shots where the dark areas are just a blob of darkness where all the telecines show an abundance of detail. We know that at least one telecine was from a release print (1982), at least two were from interpositives, and some from internegatives (interpositives would not have the reel change cues and internegatives would). Not one of them is from a special telecine transfer (not surprising since none of these are TV station telecines which is where you might find a special 16mm telecine print).

Your theory of the nature of the source of the telecines is not born out by the abilities of the machines used, the interviews with two different telecine operators, or the accounts of the sources of other telecines which agree with what Mr. Cook has said. I think the evidence presented makes it very clear how Fox did telecines and that it was from a release print or intermediate (the O-neg was too precious most of the time except when no other prints were available such as the Chaplin films). That matches what I have always heard and observed from watching movies on various movie channels from across the years. A great many telecines are made from theatrical prints, especially for older technicolor films where a full restoration would have to be done to realign the 3 strip Technicolor negatives - pretty cost prohibitive for a telecine for TV viewing. We could continue to discuss this, but I think the horse is dead and the evidence I have posted is pretty clear cut. Fox never used a special print for the Star Wars telecines. It was always a print on hand. Even the print used for the Definitive Collection was not one done specifically for that and was a standard interpositive.

Your continued comments about a low contrast print match the nature of interpostives and internegatives so I don’t know why you keep insisting that it had to be a special print when the evidence says otherwise. We can talk in general about the entire TV industry and print distribution, but that is a separate topic. This is specifically about how Star Wars was telecined and from what source and how that relates to the colors. There is zero evidence that any major Star Wars home video release was transferred from anything but an extant print (interpostive, internegative, or release print). I myself have plenty of evidence that 16mm films were the norm for distributing TV content around the world to TV stations and I’ll take your word that they are low contrast positive prints (which fits with the look of the Doctor Who prints recovered). But that is TV station distribution not major network or home video transfers. The higher end machines are clearly designed to transfer from any source from o-neg to intermediate to release prints. For a huge film archive like Fox, Paramount, MGM/Republic, WB, and Universal each have, having to make a special print for each telecine would become costly. Why do that when you can just buy a machine that can do anything. The Rank Cinetel was just that - a machine that use any source material. We have two users of those machines that say it could and the stats on the machines say they could so why do you keep saying they can’t? I really don’t get it.

Author
Time

Ronster said:

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.

Um… not quite. It happens in the middle of that fade in and in all the subsequent shots the two affected lights are green.

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

They are green in every single transfer that I included. No cyan

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.

This is also the reel change so the fade is is the start of a new session.

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.

Everything you are talking about could be an artifact of video processing. They telecined the film to a master tape. Then they sent it off for duplication where it was copied again, adding any pre-film items like the CBS Fox logo adds or trailers, and then duplication to VHS or LD. If you are familiar with video processing, such strange color changes can crop up. Take a look at the French Pyramid Boxset and its odd color issues. Those didn’t come from the print used and they aren’t an indication of color shifts on the film or in the telecine or changed settings in the telecine. Take a look at the shot at the end of reel 1 and the shot the starts reel 2. There are a lot of details we don’t know about some of the transfers, but the three direct from film transfers for the Puggo Grand, 4k77, and SSE are very well documented from the raw scans through the clean up and color correction process so we know there are no major color shifts in those. Here is the shot that ends reel 1 and the shot that starts reel 2 (where you spotted the error - which I now must fix in my correction).


There is not much of a change other than the overall image is darker because the scene went inside from outside. There are no changes in color in the GOUT at this point, only those two isolated lights on that panel that inexplicably blink red all of a sudden. No other areas of the image change color which would happen if the telecine machine settings changed. The color slant of each print is maintained. Some are reddish, some are yellowish and the color slant carried over from the end of reel 1 to the start of reel 2. The error in the GOUT has to be a video artifact for that to happen like that.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

yotsuya said:

They are green in every single transfer that I included. No cyan

That depends on how you calibrated your monitor 😉

Author
Time

ZigZig said:

yotsuya said:

They are green in every single transfer that I included. No cyan

That depends on how you calibrated your monitor 😉

All too true. 😉

Author
Time

And here is a sampling of what the R2 Builder’s club has done. I think the color is very clear for R2’s blue panels and it is based on the original film props and a lot of research. Not how cobalt the blue is rather than royal blue or purple.

From their twitter: https://twitter.com/r2builders

Author
Time

yotsuya said:

RU.08,

What Mr. Cook said was that they would find the best settings for a film and then hope they didn’t stray while they monitored the transfer to check. The machine was a best to change the settings on (an hour and a half at the start of the day) and between the two comments and many others in the 90 minute interview I understand that they did not tweak the scenes but rather looked for the best settings for the entire film (not sure if he meant for each reel or for the entire film).

That’s not what he said. He said they had to calibrate the machine every morning, and that they had to fine-tune the settings for every film they transferred because they were all different. Nothing about that suggests a transfer as straight-forward as you’re imagining.

He never mentions using a special telecine film. He never talks about 16mm. He talks about interpostives and internegatives which are the two intermediate steps in chemical processing from o-neg to release print. Both are lower contrast than the release prints.

When he talked about using an interneg he said “the interneg is actually another film stock …” I’m not sure exactly what he meant, but when he talked about the film being too fragile to fast-forward on the Rank II it was in the context of using internegs.

And according to the man at BBC interviewed about the next generation machine (Mr. Cook was using a Rank Cinetel 2 and the man at the BBC circa 1990 was using Rank Cinetel 3), it could do release prints, negatives, and intermediates. I conformed that with an independent source. So it can do anything on 35mm or 16mm from the o-neg to a release print. Please refer to all his comments about the 1982 telecine that happened right before he joined the team and refer to the images of the LD archive of that telecine that I have included. It is a fine transfer that really contradicts what you are trying to say. Per Mr. Cook’s interview, it was a release print that was turning green and they had to restore the color rather than just do a straight transfer. From how it turned out, they didn’t do a bad job and the dark areas contain far more detail than the Technicolor prints.

We’ve been over this already. If release prints worked so well why were they using dupe-negs and interpositives?

Just because it can do something doesn’t mean it does it well or that it is designed for it. Blackmagic claim their $30K BMD 4K scanner is designed to transfer prints - but it’s a complete lie. I can show you samples I have from positive prints transferred on it - they come out noisy as fuck. Anyone in the business could tell you the same thing - you would not use that scanner to transfer theatrical prints, and there may be other types of film it struggles with as well. Now does that mean that everyone does the right thing? Of course not - I have no doubt that some small companies have installed these and are using them to transfer prints - but as Ian Malcolm would say “just because you can doesn’t mean you should”.

And you are incorrect about prints not having crushed blacks. Please refer to the Technicolor scans. Either Mike Verta’s samples, DrDre’s scan, or the full film release as 4k77. It is full of shots where the dark areas are just a blob of darkness where all the telecines show an abundance of detail. We know that at least one telecine was from a release print (1982), at least two were from interpositives, and some from internegatives (interpositives would not have the reel change cues and internegatives would). Not one of them is from a special telecine transfer (not surprising since none of these are TV station telecines which is where you might find a special 16mm telecine print).

As I said, prints don’t hold as much detail in the dark areas, not even IB prints. It’s not because the blacks were “crushed” (the black point being set lower than shadow detail).

Your theory of the nature of the source of the telecines is not born out by the abilities of the machines used, the interviews with two different telecine operators, or the accounts of the sources of other telecines which agree with what Mr. Cook has said. I think the evidence presented makes it very clear how Fox did telecines and that it was from a release print or intermediate (the O-neg was too precious most of the time except when no other prints were available such as the Chaplin films). That matches what I have always heard and observed from watching movies on various movie channels from across the years. A great many telecines are made from theatrical prints, especially for older technicolor films where a full restoration would have to be done to realign the 3 strip Technicolor negatives - pretty cost prohibitive for a telecine for TV viewing. We could continue to discuss this, but I think the horse is dead and the evidence I have posted is pretty clear cut. Fox never used a special print for the Star Wars telecines. It was always a print on hand. Even the print used for the Definitive Collection was not one done specifically for that and was a standard interpositive.

We’ve been over this, I already said that negatives and inter-positives and other lab film would transfer just as well as a telecine print, but be on much more fragile film. I’m not sure what you think this proves… you only have the accounts of one distributor, and they were not using release prints as matter of course. Lab film is not referred to as “prints”, so the film they used for the DC was an interpositive film not a print.

Your continued comments about a low contrast print match the nature of interpostives and internegatives so I don’t know why you keep insisting that it had to be a special print when the evidence says otherwise.

What I said was that theatrical prints transfer poorly, and are more difficult for the telecine operator. As for what the telecine machines were designed to handle, you just have to listen to what Mr Cook said - the machine would tear apart lab film if used to fast-forward and stop. This is undoubtedly because when the Mk II was designed (in 1964) it was designed for TV broadcast not for home video. They didn’t imagine having to routinely work with lab film.

For a huge film archive like Fox, Paramount, MGM/Republic, WB, and Universal each have, having to make a special print for each telecine would become costly. Why do that when you can just buy a machine that can do anything. The Rank Cinetel was just that - a machine that use any source material.

Striking a low-contrast 16mm print for telecine would be a lot cheaper than having to replace a worn out 35mm interpositive. As I’ve already been over this, just because you can transfer theatrical prints on a telecine doesn’t mean they are easy to work with and produce nice results. They don’t. I’m sure the distribution company was not asking the film studios to send them theatrical prints, that would be almost last on their list of preferred film to work with.

[ Scanning stuff since 2015 ]

Author
Time
 (Edited)

These series of shots I find the most difficult in the film to understand and I am struggling with this one only.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

ZigZig said:

yotsuya said:

They are green in every single transfer that I included. No cyan

That depends on how you calibrated your monitor 😉

How about Calibrate your brain before you open your mouth.

😃

They are cyan after the shift I have performed and there are many that are close to cyan in those shots rather than totally green hexagons.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Ronster said:

ZigZig said:

yotsuya said:

They are green in every single transfer that I included. No cyan

That depends on how you calibrated your monitor 😉

How about Calibrate your brain before you open your mouth.

😃

Could you be respectful or close this thread. It was enjoying non-sense, it is not anymore, now you are rude.

Author
Time

RU.08 said:

yotsuya said:

RU.08,

What Mr. Cook said was that they would find the best settings for a film and then hope they didn’t stray while they monitored the transfer to check. The machine was a best to change the settings on (an hour and a half at the start of the day) and between the two comments and many others in the 90 minute interview I understand that they did not tweak the scenes but rather looked for the best settings for the entire film (not sure if he meant for each reel or for the entire film).

That’s not what he said. He said they had to calibrate the machine every morning, and that they had to fine-tune the settings for every film they transferred because they were all different. Nothing about that suggests a transfer as straight-forward as you’re imagining.

He never mentions using a special telecine film. He never talks about 16mm. He talks about interpostives and internegatives which are the two intermediate steps in chemical processing from o-neg to release print. Both are lower contrast than the release prints.

When he talked about using an interneg he said “the interneg is actually another film stock …” I’m not sure exactly what he meant, but when he talked about the film being too fragile to fast-forward on the Rank II it was in the context of using internegs.

And according to the man at BBC interviewed about the next generation machine (Mr. Cook was using a Rank Cinetel 2 and the man at the BBC circa 1990 was using Rank Cinetel 3), it could do release prints, negatives, and intermediates. I conformed that with an independent source. So it can do anything on 35mm or 16mm from the o-neg to a release print. Please refer to all his comments about the 1982 telecine that happened right before he joined the team and refer to the images of the LD archive of that telecine that I have included. It is a fine transfer that really contradicts what you are trying to say. Per Mr. Cook’s interview, it was a release print that was turning green and they had to restore the color rather than just do a straight transfer. From how it turned out, they didn’t do a bad job and the dark areas contain far more detail than the Technicolor prints.

We’ve been over this already. If release prints worked so well why were they using dupe-negs and interpositives?

Just because it can do something doesn’t mean it does it well or that it is designed for it. Blackmagic claim their $30K BMD 4K scanner is designed to transfer prints - but it’s a complete lie. I can show you samples I have from positive prints transferred on it - they come out noisy as fuck. Anyone in the business could tell you the same thing - you would not use that scanner to transfer theatrical prints, and there may be other types of film it struggles with as well. Now does that mean that everyone does the right thing? Of course not - I have no doubt that some small companies have installed these and are using them to transfer prints - but as Ian Malcolm would say “just because you can doesn’t mean you should”.

And you are incorrect about prints not having crushed blacks. Please refer to the Technicolor scans. Either Mike Verta’s samples, DrDre’s scan, or the full film release as 4k77. It is full of shots where the dark areas are just a blob of darkness where all the telecines show an abundance of detail. We know that at least one telecine was from a release print (1982), at least two were from interpositives, and some from internegatives (interpositives would not have the reel change cues and internegatives would). Not one of them is from a special telecine transfer (not surprising since none of these are TV station telecines which is where you might find a special 16mm telecine print).

As I said, prints don’t hold as much detail in the dark areas, not even IB prints. It’s not because the blacks were “crushed” (the black point being set lower than shadow detail).

Your theory of the nature of the source of the telecines is not born out by the abilities of the machines used, the interviews with two different telecine operators, or the accounts of the sources of other telecines which agree with what Mr. Cook has said. I think the evidence presented makes it very clear how Fox did telecines and that it was from a release print or intermediate (the O-neg was too precious most of the time except when no other prints were available such as the Chaplin films). That matches what I have always heard and observed from watching movies on various movie channels from across the years. A great many telecines are made from theatrical prints, especially for older technicolor films where a full restoration would have to be done to realign the 3 strip Technicolor negatives - pretty cost prohibitive for a telecine for TV viewing. We could continue to discuss this, but I think the horse is dead and the evidence I have posted is pretty clear cut. Fox never used a special print for the Star Wars telecines. It was always a print on hand. Even the print used for the Definitive Collection was not one done specifically for that and was a standard interpositive.

We’ve been over this, I already said that negatives and inter-positives and other lab film would transfer just as well as a telecine print, but be on much more fragile film. I’m not sure what you think this proves… you only have the accounts of one distributor, and they were not using release prints as matter of course. Lab film is not referred to as “prints”, so the film they used for the DC was an interpositive film not a print.

Your continued comments about a low contrast print match the nature of interpostives and internegatives so I don’t know why you keep insisting that it had to be a special print when the evidence says otherwise.

What I said was that theatrical prints transfer poorly, and are more difficult for the telecine operator. As for what the telecine machines were designed to handle, you just have to listen to what Mr Cook said - the machine would tear apart lab film if used to fast-forward and stop. This is undoubtedly because when the Mk II was designed (in 1964) it was designed for TV broadcast not for home video. They didn’t imagine having to routinely work with lab film.

For a huge film archive like Fox, Paramount, MGM/Republic, WB, and Universal each have, having to make a special print for each telecine would become costly. Why do that when you can just buy a machine that can do anything. The Rank Cinetel was just that - a machine that use any source material.

Striking a low-contrast 16mm print for telecine would be a lot cheaper than having to replace a worn out 35mm interpositive. As I’ve already been over this, just because you can transfer theatrical prints on a telecine doesn’t mean they are easy to work with and produce nice results. They don’t. I’m sure the distribution company was not asking the film studios to send them theatrical prints, that would be almost last on their list of preferred film to work with.

Please listen to all 90 minutes, paying attention when he talks about the work he actually did and the work just before him. He very clearly says that they would calibrate the machine and put on a reel and hope the settings didn’t slip during the telecine process. He never mentions color changes outside of finding the best settings that would work for the entire reel/film. If you pay attention to what he says, it is clear they did entire reels with a single setting on the machine that was a compromise based on problem scenes. It is really clear.

Also, download a copy of the 1982 telecine (the one from a release print) and watch it. It shows a lot of detail in the dark areas that the technicolor print is missing. So a lot of what you are saying is making no sense as we have the evidence of how a telecine from a release print looks and it is not what you are saying. And yes, technically anything that isn’t a viewable copy is not a print, but I fall into the habit of using print for anything that isn’t the o-neg.

But Mr. Cook goes into detail in several places about what he worked with. The BBC telecine operator lists what he has worked with. I’ve seen what they have worked with on Doctor Who to try to restore the film prints to look more video, starting with a telecine (they watched it while it was happening which means at playback speed rather than a slower scanner).

And you are missing the point about quality. Even for a low res SD telecine, they wanted the best copy available and that is an interpositive. The negative should have been in storage so the interpositives (there were many) are the best copy for telecines for a high quality home video release. And for most films, after their initial release, the interpositives have done their job and if the film was getting a rerelease they would strike new interpostives from the negative. But in cases of subtitles and some other features, they would turn to an internegative. I believe both the French Pyramid Boxset and the Spanish THX were done from internegatives due to the reel change marks. And you know, for comparison we do have our own scan of a release print (well, a compilation of several prints) to compare and the detail level is amazing. While not as sharp and crisp as the Technicolor print, the color depth is better and more details are revealed.

This shot is the prefect example.

Just look at the shadowy area behind the two men. In the technicolor print it gets dark and there is little color variation. In the SSE scan the shadow is more varied and there is a wider range or color. And in the 1982 telecine of a different print, the color range is even better. What we see in the technicolor print (and this goes for the 4k77 project, Mike Verta’s samples, and the frames DrDre has scanned) is classic crushed blacks. This is normally what you get when you optically copy a release print. So whatever they did to produce the Technicolor color separation was a very flawed process that resulted in the loss of a lot of information in those dark areas that was maintained in the typical release prints. The SSE print source is probably suffering from fading and the details have been lost to time rather than in the optical printing process. There are only 30 years between the 1982 telecine and the SSE scan and correction after all. And it isn’t like it is this one shot. This is all over the film. I first noticed it in the shot of Threepio looking at the falcon that Mike Verta made a video detailing the quality of the technicolor. I noticed when I took a closer look at that frame that the shadow detail was lost compared to other copies. And that is shot after shot in the entire film. Other shots are washed out and the color levels are not comparable to any of the other copies. And our members have been very accurate in archiving LD’s and VHS, flaws and all. In one shot it looks like the Moth3r has the same colors and in the next it doesn’t. And the Technicolor is the one that changes from all the other versions. That many telecine operators can’t make the same mistakes and with Mr. Cook stating they used a single setting for each reel/film, we can be certain that telecine does not have shot by shot color correction, only pan and scan.

Author
Time

Ronster said:

ZigZig said:

yotsuya said:

They are green in every single transfer that I included. No cyan

That depends on how you calibrated your monitor 😉

How about Calibrate your brain before you open your mouth.

As there are several pages and many people urging you to calibrate your monitor, that was uncalled for.

They are cyan after the shift I have performed and there are many that are close to cyan in those shots rather than totally green hexagons.

What do you consider cyan? It looks green to me in all these shots.

Author
Time

There is entertainment,
and then there is beating a dead horse.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

So I present the Hue Shifted Gout Color Correction Sample.

https://vimeo.com/300024250

Hope you like it but if you don’t I am not bothered either 😃

I purchased a copy of the 97 five star collection dvd of the 1997 version so I will be pairing that with this in places, only having the 97 broadcast version available to myself (4:3) , it would seem that some of the Millennium falcon cockpit shots are much better in the 97 version (Looking out in to Space) and also to pair Some Special edition elements for a semi-specialised edition but I really like the 97 audio mix a lot I have to say.

I am also planning on using a couple of shots from the Silver Screen edition (2gb mp4) for the hexagon lights issue and the Landspeeder shot (after storm trooper check point) in Mos eisley.

Anyway this is where I am at and this will match the 97 version come the end the two sources are of similar quality I would imagine so this will be a good blend and also good color match.

Using Star Wars the Illustrated script as a bit of a guide on the 1997 version and also a reason for doing the Hue shifts for which the 1997 version was shifted and corrected in places.

If you are going to critique fine just don’t go overboard, but I am showing the process to you now in finished form apart from one shot which I noticed has purple problem.

This basically looks good to my eyes, although it’s a bit different, I am awaiting the onslaught of negativity and flogging / bashing.

Edit: Having watched it a few times I noticed that Chewie in the Matte shot by the elevators is in wrong color so will fix that and a few highlights need de-saturating.

Author
Time

Well, Ronster, not bad. I think you were listening a bit. But if this is the Blu-ray, your results look more like one of the LD archives. I think it is too washed out. You should up the saturation.and while this sequence looks pretty good, there are some tell take signs that shifting all the colors did not work in your favor. I’d be interested in seeing a different sewuence with these settings. C-3PO is too green and the blue lights are too purple. Chewy is also too yellow. That was the problem I ran into when I tried this. Yes, it corrected a lot of things, but it caused other issues. There are sections impacted by fading that just can’t be fixed and have to be patched. But overall, the skin tones were not bad.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

yotsuya said:

I’d be interested in seeing a different sewuence with these settings. C-3PO is too green and the blue lights are too purple. Chewy is also too yellow. That was the problem I ran into when I tried this. Yes, it corrected a lot of things, but it caused other issues. There are sections impacted by fading that just can’t be fixed and have to be patched. But overall, the skin tones were not bad.

Whats a sewuence?

you mean sequence…What one?

Basically I can adjust 3P0 looks like it’s the darker area of yellow with too much green.

It depends what Band the color is in and cleaning out the rubbish is quite a pain.

Problems in

Shadow either Green or Magenta

Mids pretty good

Highs magenta and Blue issues.

It is the Gout not Blu Ray I am trying to recreate the way it was on TV when I was a kid. Not Possible with Blu ray I don’t think the contrast is any good on the Blu ray. Not changing Chewie or Blue lights. The Saturation Level is good also in my opinion.