⭐ Star Wars' 50th anniversary in 2027 ⭐ | Your hopes and expectations (if any)... — Page 36

I wonder how Disney+ would address the theatrical cuts, considering they never put up different cuts of the same film. Would they just keep it separate from the 19SE (assuming they’ll keep those versions available out of respect for George and the fans who prefer them) or would it be like The Simpsons with it’s 4:3/“remastered” 16:9 toggle that switches been theatrical and 19SE?

Broom Kid said:

I would be willing to bet they’re not going to use seamless branching to address the 81 crawl, or differences in the 70mm cut of Empire. I’m also pretty certain the mastering of this is going to be such that no garbage mattes will be seen because they’re going to set the black levels correctly - which is really all you need to do in order to get rid of them.

We 100% know they’ve restored the theatrical audio (70mm, Stereo mix, Mono mix) and that they’re also putting together yet another theatrical remix (this time for 7.1 + Atmos), but I am almost certain there’s only going to be the one “theatrical” version of the movie that shows up on streaming/in theaters/on UHD. For Star Wars, I’m pretty sure that means no “A New Hope.”

I’m fine with that, too. What I’m curious about, more than anything, is whether or not there’s going to be isolated scores FINALLY officially available on disc.

Ooh, you know what else I would love any new discs to have? Let’s bring back those elaborate, randomized menus! Can Blu-Rays even do that?

The reason I asked about garbage mattes in this thread was because Captainsolo mentioned them in his video - specifically asking what the restoration folks planned to do about them, and even citing various techniques to do so (and the pitfalls thereof). It was my assumption, which everyone has verified here, that a quality restoration would reduce the mattes to the levels intended in the cinema releases. I was only asking because I thought there might be more to it - indeed any artificial elimination of them would, to my mind, constitute a violation of the restoration principal (like recompositing effects or removing matte lines). No big deal, I just thought I was missing something…

Just catching up with the ‘SWPK’ videos and rumors. Man it woupd be great to get an official release for the 50th. I’m not getting my hopes up and assumed even if we do it will be a disney+ exclusive rather than a physical release. But even having that would be great. Would be a fantastic new source for the good folks here to work with if nothing else. (I assume they’ll trip up somewhere even if we get it)

oojason said:

A NEW VIDEO CLIP AND COMPARISON IMAGES FROM STAR WARS…

 

ALI…

That ALI looks well-detailed and has colors that match the look of the shot, but I have a question: What’s going on with the incomplete comparisons? This one is missing the 2011 Blu-ray, and the previous one was missing the UHD.

donowa said:

They’re really not at all apparent. It’s just that most of the home media releases (especially the gout) were very low-contrast, which made the matte lines more apparent. A modern grade would make them totally invisible.

does 4k80 count as one of those? the garbage matte seams were really obvious to me when watching on a pc monitor (especially in sequences like luke hanging on the antenna in esb).

It doesn’t matter, when it comes out in theaters you’ll see it projected properly, when you buy it on Blu-ray and watch it on a monitor you’ll obviously notice the matte paintings, lines, among other things, much more, but that’s how the film was made, removing them or trying to hide them would be altering the original material which is being restored.

[YAREL_RGP said:]
That ALI looks well-detailed and has colors that match the look of the shot, but I have a question: What’s going on with the incomplete comparisons? This one is missing the 2011 Blu-ray, and the previous one was missing the UHD.

The previous one as The guy with no name stated is from a deleted scene.

oojason said:

ridiculous how good the new one looks!!! so unbelievably excited

Broom Kid said:

This site (and it’s archival of a ton of interviews/conversations over the course of the last few decades) is by itself a good reminder not to just take folks’ word on the “truth” of Star Wars. For the longest time, people believed the original versions weren’t coming out because of a “clause,” or that Lucas had “destroyed” them, or versions of them. Just because someone involved with the films remembers something doesn’t actually mean they’re remembering it right, and their name in the credit block doesn’t turn them into infallible historians, LOL.

The latest version of this phenomena comes from this Roger Christian video, which seems to be causing some question marks to pop out on the part of fans eagerly awaiting the 50th Anniversary restorations:

this video, around the 7-minute mark has Roger Christian describing a day where George was “digitizing” the “original six” and he called Roger over to look at how easily visible the gaffer-tape around Darth Vader’s neck was now that it was “digitized.”

This isn’t a thing, though! We can SEE it isn’t a thing just by scrubbing through 4K77 (or even old VHS/Laserdisc rips!) and seeing there isn’t a single shot anywhere that gaffer tape is securing the mask the way he’s describing it. It’s not obscured by 35mm generational degradation - it’s clearly NOT THERE. Christian’s just… misremembering a thing! But often, what happens is someone misremembers a thing, and then we take it as read and repeat this trivia to ourselves, and suddenly it becomes an undeniable, concrete fact.

Another great example of this: For the longest time, one of fans fun bits of trivia to share and share again, was that there’s a continuity error in Empire re: Han’s vest, despite his never wearing a vest in that movie, and it being shown eventually in behind-the-scenes footage that it was just a shadow being cast from overhead lighting. People would repeat this trivia - and even add a completely fabricated scenario where it was literally a wardrobe mistake they had to leave in due to Harrison ad-libbing “I know” (That line’s inclusion ALSO being a frequently inaccurate bit of trivia shared amongst fans though there was a transcript of the rehearsal of that scene being in print since the early 80s).

Star Wars is, I would bet, the most documented film production in modern history. It’s also got some of the most made up “lore” behind it there is. A lot of this is directly due to Lucas’ own self-mythologizing as a creative. It can be hard to discern between the two sometimes, but usually you can suss out what’s a skewed memory and what’s the real by doing just a little digging.

Well said

I find it very strange how much ALI and 4K80 color match, only in 4K80, because with the others they are quite different

YAREL_RGP said:

I find it very strange how much ALI and 4K80 color match, only in 4K80, because with the others they are quite different

Well UHD and Blu Ray were intentionally tampered with color-wise. 4K80 (as well as 77 and 83) was an attempt to get everything looking as theatrically accurate as possible which the new ALI restoration is doing to a much greater extent.

DarthSmaul said:

YAREL_RGP said:

I find it very strange how much ALI and 4K80 color match, only in 4K80, because with the others they are quite different

Well UHD and Blu Ray were intentionally tampered with color-wise. 4K80 (as well as 77 and 83) was an attempt to get everything looking as theatrically accurate as possible which the new ALI restoration is doing to a much greater extent.

I know very well that the colors of the 04/19 Master are a super inaccurate disaster on a galactic level, but what I meant was that 4K80 was colored without any existing references, none at all. The base copy that 4K80 uses was faded and tinted red. I think they used one of Dr. Dre’s tools to recover the color from red copies, but I’m surprised that ALI looks so similar. Normally, theatrical copies tend to have different colors compared to the archive material (The interpositives that have been filed).

i’m so glad that they’re pulling back on the dnr for this, probably the worst thing about the special editions to me is the dnr they applied to the hd home releases. atp i think preservations might pivot to respecializations rather than despecializations, as there are a moderate amount of good changes the SEs made (alongside the awful ones)

donowa said:

i’m so glad that they’re pulling back on the dnr for this, probably the worst thing about the special editions to me is the dnr they applied to the hd home releases. atp i think preservations might pivot to respecializations rather than despecializations, as there are a moderate amount of good changes the SEs made (alongside the awful ones)

Different people like different things about the SE. I appreciate most of the recompositing, and I do like some of the Millennium Falcon approaches into Bespin, but I think the rest of it is garbage. Others like different things, so best to just keep things original.

YAREL_RGP said:

DarthSmaul said:

YAREL_RGP said:

I find it very strange how much ALI and 4K80 color match, only in 4K80, because with the others they are quite different

Well UHD and Blu Ray were intentionally tampered with color-wise. 4K80 (as well as 77 and 83) was an attempt to get everything looking as theatrically accurate as possible which the new ALI restoration is doing to a much greater extent.

I know very well that the colors of the 04/19 Master are a super inaccurate disaster on a galactic level, but what I meant was that 4K80 was colored without any existing references, none at all. The base copy that 4K80 uses was faded and tinted red. I think they used one of Dr. Dre’s tools to recover the color from red copies, but I’m surprised that ALI looks so similar. Normally, theatrical copies tend to have different colors compared to the archive material (whether it’s the OCN or the IP that the studio has).

The OCN and the IP are never color timed.

In most cases, it was the IN that was color timed. Today, we have to color time theatrical prints right off of the OCN as Kodak no longer makes true IN/IP film. (You now have to print your OCN as a positive back on to the same OCN emulsion to save an “IP” for safety and preservation.)

Before the advent of digital cinema, you printed a color timed “Show Print” (sometimes called a “Kodak”) off of the OCN for premieres and other special events. This was the absolute highest quality version of a film that one could experience.

This is also how “Answer Prints” were made to be approved by the filmmaker after cutting, color timing, etc.

But the 4th generation theatrical print that was sent to theaters was either contact printed off of a color timed IN or it was color timed during the printing process based on the final settings of the Answer Print.

The reality is that there is no “exact one way” a movie ever looked theatrically.

A 70 MM blowup print of Star Wars will look slightly different than a 35 MM print, which will itself look different than one of the IB Tech prints struck in London for the UK release. Prints printed at different labs will look different due to the unique nature of the “soup” at each facility. Even the same lab could produce wildly different results depending on who was running things on that particular day.

Film color has always been a moving target.

And that’s before you factor in all the other variables like what kind of projector was used to project the film? What kind of screen was it projected on? How old was the bulb? How dim was the bulb set for that screen?

And on home video, the various technologies over the years, from CRTs to Plasma to LED to OLED and beyond, all have their own unique way of reproducing color.

You could take a top of the line Sony OLED and a top of the line LG OLED and have both professionally calibrated. Now put them side by side and run the same exact video signal to both and you will be able to see slight variances in color, brightness, etc.

And to top it all off, each individual has different eyesight. Age, sex and a variety of health factors can make a significant difference on how we each see and recognize color. Women, in general, have much better color sensitivity than men. Some women even have additional cones in their retina that allow them to see way more colors, (Look up Tetrachromacy). If you’re curious, take the “X-Rite Color Challenge and Hue Test” to see how good your eyes are when it comes to judging color.