logo Sign In

.: The XØ Project - Laserdisc on Steroids :. (SEE FIRST POST FOR UPDATES) (* unfinished project *) — Page 42

Author
Time
Originally posted by: Dunedain
It's my understanding that such things are visible on the releases we buy in stores as some sort of by-product of the home video process. In theaters on opening day they weren't visible.


The garbage mattes were definately there in '77 when i saw it in theaters.I remember them because i always though that they were the energy shields of the ships, until i was older of course. lol. they just show up a lot more on the home video releases due to the fact that they were way overbright compared to the actual print.

ANH:REVISITED
ESB:REVISITED

DONATIONS TOWARDS MATERIALS FOR THE REVISITED SAGA

Author
Time
Again, that's what I've heard. Perhaps they weren't entirely invisible, but were certainly far less noticeable than on the home video releases. Whether you saw the Star Wars movies on the first days of showing, and thus the print was in great shape, and whether the projector was setup properly may also be factors, not sure. But on opening day, with a good projector and skilled projectionist, they were either not visible or much less so than you see on home video, but I'm not an expert on the subject. Post a question for "zombie" in the Star Wars thread at the link below, he can give all the technical details. In any case, they were certainly never intended to be seen, so naturally we want to make the restored version look the way it was intended to look at theaters on opening day, that means no matte lines.

http://boards.theforce.net/classic_trilogy/b10002/24990319/p42

The Star Wars trilogy. There can be only one.

Author
Time
I was just reading the SE to GOUT color auto-correction thread and I didn't want to leave any messages on there dealing with the X0 project.

I did want to say how impressed I was with the screenshots that Zion put up when he combined the SE with the DC and got a picture that had great detail and little ghosting. I feel like crying, this project is going to be wonderful!

BTW: how is the smearing when you combine footage?

What’s the internal temperature of a TaunTaun? Luke warm.

Author
Time
Originally posted by: Dunedain
In any case, they were certainly never intended to be seen, so naturally we want to make the restored version look the way it was intended to look at theaters on opening day, that means no matte lines.
So what? of course they weren't intended to be obvious, but then again neither was leaving Jabba in ANH on the cutting room floor. Lucas had obviously intended to put it in if he'd shot the scene... going with what was in '77, though, the matte lines and boxes, the orange blob under Luke's speeder were all there.
Some were not blessed with brains.
<blockquote>Originally posted by: BadAssKeith

You are passing up on a great opportunity to makes lots of money,
make Lucas lose a lot of his money
and make him look bad to the entire world
and you could be well known and liked

None of us here like Lucas or Lucasfilm.
I have death wishes on Lucas and Macullum.
we could all probably get 10s of thousands of dollars!
Author
Time
Originally posted by: boris
So what? of course they weren't intended to be obvious, but then again neither was leaving Jabba in ANH on the cutting room floor. Lucas had obviously intended to put it in if he'd shot the scene... going with what was in '77, though, the matte lines and boxes, the orange blob under Luke's speeder were all there.


I agree. We can argue night and day over how the film was "intended" to be seen on opening day, but there is one thing that cannot be argued, and that is how it was shown on opening day. This is what should be preserved... IMO the garbage mattes, orange blob, etc. should stay in.
Author
Time
Fine, then the matte line visibility should be reduced by, say, 80%+ over what the DC has, because that the way the DC looks certainly isn't how it appeared in theaters on opening day.

The Star Wars trilogy. There can be only one.

Author
Time
So what? of course they weren't intended to be obvious, but then again neither was leaving Jabba in ANH on the cutting room floor. Lucas had obviously intended to put it in if he'd shot the scene... going with what was in '77, though, the matte lines and boxes, the orange blob under Luke's speeder were all there.


Considering the availability of "deleted scenes" on DVDs these days, it should've been more obvious to you that it is extremely common to shoot more film than you need, so you have a lot to play around with in the editing room. Shooting a scene does not in and of itself does not mean that it should be part of the movie. So that's a bad argument to make there.

I think preserving the matte issue is kinda ridiculous. We're not talking about something that is a result of special effects limitations of the day. You don't see similar issues popping up throughout the film (not that I'm aware of). Somebody screwed up, and the crappy mattes made it into the finished film. As sort of a side thing, I can understand the preserving of the mattes in order to keep that "opening night" feel, but as far as the finished film, no.

If we were talking about fixing that scene where the guy in the storm trooper outfit whacks his head, that would be too much, as it would involve taking drastic measures to fix a real-life scene, something that happened on set and was recorded to film, and kept for the finished movie. The mattes, on the other hand, are the result of somebody in the SFX department being asleep at the wheel.
Author
Time
Originally posted by: tweaker
I think preserving the matte issue is kinda ridiculous. We're not talking about something that is a result of special effects limitations of the day. You don't see similar issues popping up throughout the film (not that I'm aware of). Somebody screwed up, and the crappy mattes made it into the finished film. As sort of a side thing, I can understand the preserving of the mattes in order to keep that "opening night" feel, but as far as the finished film, no.

What is being preserved here is the original "finished film." Since the "crappy mattes made it into the finished film," they too should be preserved regardless of whether they belong there or not.

If we were talking about fixing that scene where the guy in the storm trooper outfit whacks his head, that would be too much, as it would involve taking drastic measures to fix a real-life scene, something that happened on set and was recorded to film, and kept for the finished movie. The mattes, on the other hand, are the result of somebody in the SFX department being asleep at the wheel.


Where do we draw the line, then? Certainly the jump cuts when Luke turns his lightsaber on/off could have been fixed using 1970's technology, but they were not. Same with the matte lines. I have no doubt there will be a number of projects spawned after the completion of this project that will use the X0 material as its source-- these projects can and should be allowed the freedom to pick and choose what corrections to make-- but IMO as far as initial preservation goes, if it was printed to film, it should stay.
Author
Time
X0 have stated many times that they are not "fixing" garbage mattes (or anything else) on their first release.
Author
Time
Originally posted by: tweaker
Considering the availability of "deleted scenes" on DVDs these days, it should've been more obvious to you that it is extremely common to shoot more film than you need, so you have a lot to play around with in the editing room. Shooting a scene does not in and of itself does not mean that it should be part of the movie. So that's a bad argument to make there. Untrue. Monty Python and the Holy Grail has no delted scenes - every scene they shout for the movie they used in the movie (of course there'd be out-takes, though). It if was in the script, then it was intended to be in the movie, and some limitation forced them to remove it. It may have been special effects limitations, it may have been that the scene ruined the flow or pace of the movie... the movie may have been too long, or it may have been that the film had a big glaring scratch in it that couldn't be removed! Scripts, from what I hear, are about 120 pages long. That's less then 1/3rd the number of pages in a novel - and from what I've seen of scripts they contain much less words on each page than a novel does - and many of those words are wasted on describing lighting and costumes and such. I don't agree that they start out deliberately with this flexibility to remove stuff - that's just stupid. It happens later on because for whatever reason they can't use the scene in their movie.
I think preserving the matte issue is kinda ridiculous. We're not talking about something that is a result of special effects limitations of the day. You don't see similar issues popping up throughout the film (not that I'm aware of). Somebody screwed up , and the crappy mattes made it into the finished film. As sort of a side thing, I can understand the preserving of the mattes in order to keep that "opening night" feel, but as far as the finished film, no.
"Somebody screwed up"? No, that's just an unwanted by-product of the special effects of that day. It's like filming a TV... it may flicker... or filing a helicopter - depending on the camera used the helicopter blades may look fluid - or they may look uncharacteristically stilted. Cleaning out matte lines/boxes is just like colourizing a film. Besides which, if you've seen the OUT DVD you'd know they're barely visible at all, except over other spaceships (and how do you expect the X0 team to fix those ones? but levelling out the blacks... that won't do there!)The mattes, on the other hand, are the result of somebody in the SFX department being asleep at the wheel.
They were a necessary by-product of the special effects. Just like the black R2 unit used in blue-screen shots, next you're going to say he should be digitally colourized?

BTW, Welcome to the forums blitter!
Some were not blessed with brains.
<blockquote>Originally posted by: BadAssKeith

You are passing up on a great opportunity to makes lots of money,
make Lucas lose a lot of his money
and make him look bad to the entire world
and you could be well known and liked

None of us here like Lucas or Lucasfilm.
I have death wishes on Lucas and Macullum.
we could all probably get 10s of thousands of dollars!
Author
Time
Originally posted by: boris
Untrue. Monty Python and the Holy Grail has no delted scenes - every scene they shout for the movie they used in the movie (of course there'd be out-takes, though). It if was in the script, then it was intended to be in the movie, and some limitation forced them to remove it. It may have been special effects limitations, it may have been that the scene ruined the flow or pace of the movie... the movie may have been too long, or it may have been that the film had a big glaring scratch in it that couldn't be removed! Scripts, from what I hear, are about 120 pages long. That's less then 1/3rd the number of pages in a novel - and from what I've seen of scripts they contain much less words on each page than a novel does - and many of those words are wasted on describing lighting and costumes and such. I don't agree that they start out deliberately with this flexibility to remove stuff - that's just stupid. It happens later on because for whatever reason they can't use the scene in their movie.


Most of what you wrote in the above quote is utter rubbish, but that first statement unbelievably so! In the 2001 Special Edition DVD Release of Monty Python and the Holy Grail, you can read from the features on the back "A glorious extra 24 seconds absolutely free" this is a scene that was cut, and re instated for this Special Edition release. If every scene they filmed was used in the movie, then there is something very strange here, as this scene was filmed, and it did not originally appear in the movie. Which I think was good because the scene was crap and it takes away from the pacing of the film. It looks like other people didn't like it either because the 2006 version doesn't seem to have it (though I an not 100% sure about this). My DVD, the old non anamorphic one, was 89 minutes, the SE was 90 minutes and the 2006 rererelease appears to be back down to 89 minutes again. But either way, MP and the Holy Grail did have at least one scene that was cut.

"Every time Warb sighs, an angel falls into a vat of mapel syrup." - Gaffer Tape

Author
Time
I'm not talking about the first release, but the more complete restoration afterwards.

The Star Wars trilogy. There can be only one.

Author
Time
boris,

a) you have no idea what you're talking about;

b) this has nothing to do with the X0 project;

c) do not post a long rationale of why a & b are wrong in this thread.
Author
Time
MeBeJedi, did you receive the upsampling package I sent to Zion?
Author
Time
Originally posted by: THX
boris,

a) you have no idea what you're talking about;

b) this has nothing to do with the X0 project;

c) do not post a long rationale of why a & b are wrong in this thread.

Ditto

Author
Time
Originally posted by: borisUntrue. Monty Python and the Holy Grail has no delted scenes - every scene they shout for the movie they used in the movie (of course there'd be out-takes, though).

Sorry Boris, you are wrong, there is at least one deleted scene (the Anthrax bit) and it was deleted because it just wasn't very good (personal opinion after watching the deleted scene). Most movies have a ton of scenes that never make it. It is called editing.

Scripts, from what I hear, are about 120 pages long. That's less then 1/3rd the number of pages in a novel - and from what I've seen of scripts they contain much less words on each page than a novel does - and many of those words are wasted on describing lighting and costumes and such. I don't agree that they start out deliberately with this flexibility to remove stuff - that's just stupid.

Sorry Boris, you are wrong on a few counts here too.
All films (there may be an *extremely* small number of exceptions) have a shooting ratio. i.e. the number of scenes shot vs the number that make it into the movie. Many scenes are shot *specifically* to have the flexibility to swap scenes in or out later - it depends on the director.
An extremely efficient director may have a ratio as low as 4:1 (i.e. they shoot four times as much footage as they use). John Cassavetes is at the other end of the spectrum. For his film "Husbands" he had a shooting ratio of *over 100:1*. He shot well over 200 hours of footage for his two hour movie. For "Faces" it was around 70:1.
So what? of course they weren't intended to be obvious, but then again neither was leaving Jabba in ANH on the cutting room floor. Lucas had obviously intended to put it in if he'd shot the scene...
Not necessarily the case at all, there were plenty of scenes shot for Star Wars that never made it into the film.

When I worked on Babe Pig In The City, a *lot* of scenes were shot and never used, we even built a beautifully elaborate set for the opening sequence, had the motion control camera all set up, did a few test passes and then the director changed his mind.
He decided that as it was a sequel the opening sequence was no longer required, so it ended up not being shot, even though we had spent 3 months setting the shot up and were ready to roll camera. Had he been on another part of the set that day it would have been shot anyway, and then in edit may have ended up in the film.
Pre-vis has allowed shot ratios to be reduced in some instances, but it is a staple of film making to get as much 'coverage' as possible. Films cost big bucks, so shooting some extra scenes when you already have the set, the actors and the crew in place makes a lot of sense. Pickups and reshoots cost a fortune in comparison to grabbing an extra couple of scenes when you have the chance.
Even in post a lot of CG work was created that was never used, but was wanted so they had options when going into the final edit.
No one really know exactly how a film will turn out, so it makes sense to have more scenes available than you finally use in case the script just doesn't work when it becomes a movie.
Just on the script thing scripts are about 90 minutes long for a typical movie. 1 page = about one minute of finished picture, so a 90 minute film has roughly a 90 minute script. A 120 minute film would have roughly a 120page script. Scripts change massively throughout the course of the film, you see scripts with all sorts of colour coded pages to let you know where the (constant) revisions are. No one except really broke people (or arty guys) just shoot the V1.0 script and no scenes deviating from it.



I think preserving the matte issue is kinda ridiculous. We're not talking about something that is a result of special effects limitations of the day. You don't see similar issues popping up throughout the film (not that I'm aware of). Somebody screwed up, and the crappy mattes made it into the finished film. As sort of a side thing, I can understand the preserving of the mattes in order to keep that "opening night" feel, but as far as the finished film, no.

Boris: "Somebody screwed up"? No, that's just an unwanted by-product of the special effects of that day. It's like filming a TV... it may flicker... or filing a helicopter - depending on the camera used the helicopter blades may look fluid - or they may look uncharacteristically stilted. The mattes, on the other hand, are the result of somebody in the SFX department being asleep at the wheel.
Boris: They were a necessary by-product of the special effects. Just like the black R2 unit used in blue-screen shots, next you're going to say he should be digitally colourized?


They weren't a 'necessary' by product, just an unwanted one.
We have always said, the straight X0 captures were done and archived in the name of the purists that want all the glitches intact. It is interesting from a technology point of view, and therefore the glitches are worth preserving for that alone.
True the matte lines were somewhat visible at the cinema, (and still were when the SE's were released in cinemas!) but far less so than on the laserdisc/video and DVD releases. However, they were never intended to be an integral part of the film, they are akin to a processing error, or a scratch on the film, i.e. something that may have been unavoidable, or missed, but definately unwanted.

Boris:
Besides which, if you've seen the OUT DVD you'd know they're barely visible at all, except over other spaceships (and how do you expect the X0 team to fix those ones? but levelling out the blacks... that won't do there!)

I found the Matte lines very visible on the GOUT, not sure what you were watching if you can't see them? Perhaps you need to calibrate your TV.
Fixing the garbage mattes over other spaceships is simply an application of a little roto and some colour correction. Easy.
Tedious, but easy.

I repeat - straight captures of the DC and SC are done, they are archived and finished, so purists can rest happy - we will not be 'cutting our negatives' so to speak.
The straight laserdisc captures will stay as they are in all their glitchy glory, matte lines, jump cuts, miscoloured sabres, garbage mattes totally untouched. This was always one of our goals.
i.e. The transfer is a straight calibrated capture from the X0 so it can be watched without side changes and looks better than the laserdiscs did for anyone except the X0 owners!

But for the cleaned up version we are focussing on fixing just the glitches that should never have been there and make the movie harder to watch now.
That is just fixing the problems that were *definately* not intended to be in the film when it was released. Not adding any new creatures, or changing story arcs, or throwing in rontos or messing with the story in any way.
However removing matte lines, film burns, garbage mattes etc. definately brings the movie closer to what the guys in post were trying to do, but in some way failed (but not taking it to the level of what they *might* have done, which is where I see the SEs).

The difference is we are just redoing exactly what they actually *did* do in the film with better tools (e.g. redoing an optical comp digitally).

Boris: Cleaning out matte lines/boxes is just like colourizing a film.


Not at all. Colourising means *totally* changing the intention of the DOP and the director. B&W films are shot utilising the medium for certain effects, and a certain look - and colourising changes the intention of the film maker drastically.
The films made in black and white were intended to be made in black and white. Had a director been *able* to make a colour film, he may have chosen to do so, but would have shot and composed it completely differently. He would not have just made the film the exact same way but in colour (unless the DOP was truly useless).

This is the core difference between a 'corrected' or fixed version of the OT vs a re-imagining of the OT which is what the SEs are.
One fixes technical errors and byproducts of the optical processes of the day, the other changes the story, composition, characterisation, pacing etc. Two very different agendas, and two very different results.
But at any rate, the archive capture remains untouched.

For my own personal version I am also fixing jump cuts and other effects that look cheesy to me today, and once again, obviously are not meant to be a part of the film.
On the weekend I was deciding wether to colour R2's panels or not (for my own version) as I find it distracting that they are blue when seen behind Luke's head in some of the 'in cockpit' shots, but are black in most of the external shots.
For me I want the film to be watchable with no moments that pull me out of the viewing experience, wether that is a poorly executed jump cut, or a horribly obvious new CGI addition it has a similar effect on me - it pulls me out of the movie.

So just to be clear, (even if it is on the front page of the thread for all to see) we are keeping an archive of the captures untouched as a 'purist' archive, and are doing a 'technical errors repaired' version, as we have stated many times.

So *please* for any future discussion on morals, idealogies, scriptwriting, film making etc. start a new thread for them Boris.

We are getting into the home stretch for ANH and I would like to keep the discussion focussed on the project happenings.


Author
Time
Laserman, whenever I read your posts, I find myself in a state of awe....it's amazing how eloquent you are with your words...I'm not sure of your personal particulars ( profession, age, education) but in my opinion you should be teaching others...after reading your posts I always find myself knowing more and also wanting more....

Thank you for boosting my anticipation and confidence in the X0....we can hardly wait...

I love everybody. Lets all smoke some reefer and chill. Hug and kisses for everybody.

Author
Time
shooting ratio doesn't necessarily correspond to scenes cut, simply takes and set-ups. For example, Steven Speilberg has a low shooting ratio--he might film a scene from seven angles and do four takes each, and use six of those angles in the final cut. Francis Ford Coppola is usually known for his high shooting ratio--he might film a scene from ten angles and do eight takes each, and use only four angles in the final cut. This also extends to deleted scene material--speilberg might only have twenty minutes of deleted material in a film, while Coppola might have forty.
Author
Time
Of course, but almost no one puts every scene shot into a movie.
Author
Time
Heh, never intended my retort to Boris to turn into such a long debacle. Sorry about that.

The reason I assumed that you guys were strictly going with the restoration version (removing the scratches and the matte errors) was because of the featurettes posted to your site, where you showed your techniques for fixing the above-mentioned errors. I forgot that, being hardcore fans, you'd be archiving both versions: the straight transfer, and the corrected version.

I'm not a big SW fan, but I've been following this thread, as I've been really impressed with the technical work you guys have done, and have been fascinated with the techniques you've shown off on the site. Very nice work.

I would really hope that you would consider creating a full length documentary of the restoration process, so budding video editors could get an in-depth look at how such a massive project is prepared, organized, and undertaken. The featurettes are just too much of a tease...
Author
Time
Even the featurettes take ages to put together.
We have thought about documenting the whole process, and have kept copious (read insane amount of) notes, but I don't know if we would manage to get that done.
It would be possible, just very time consuming.
Author
Time
With my limited background in image and video editing, I can only begin to appreciate the difficulty of the project you're tackling. But I hope you all realize how valuable the techniques you've developed are, not just in the context of this project, but for video editing and restoration in general.

Obviously you guys aren't breaking any radical new ground in the field of video restoration, but what you've done is taken difficult, advanced techniques, and adapted them for use in very inexpensive programs, and produced what is probably some of the most advanced amateur work ever done. If you chose to make available the details of your techniques, in video documentary form or in some sort of tutorial format, it places those techniques that you've developed in the hands of an assload of people, which all sorts of interests.

ANH is interesting in that it is essentially a rogues gallery of every sort of visual defect you can have in a film: excessive grain and dirt, scratches, color blooming, off color, matteing issues, etc etc. And all these techniques that have been developed to deal with this wide array of problems could be adapted for use in restoring huge number of films that will never be professionally restored, simply because the profit isn't there to be made.

Your starfield recovery technique could possibly be adapted to restore detail to early black and white films and historical films (WW1 & 2, Zapruder, etc). Your work with grain and dirt removal could be used to restore noir-era films that have never been restored, and been transfered to DVD with grain and scratches intact, or to restore films from the 70's and 80s that have never had a decent DVD transfer, if that.

You guys have done a hell of a lot of work, and it just seems like a shame to allow that work to be limited to fixing only 3 films, when there are so many out there that could be restored.