Originally posted by: Mielr
So....the camera equipment they used in 1975/76 was great, but the telecine equipment they used in 1993 was crap?
How come nobody complained about the gate weave when the DC/Faces laserdiscs came out?
Originally posted by: zombie84
Star Wars was filmed on Panavision Platinums by a top-notch crew. Panavision Platinum's are the most rock-solidly registered cameras that you can buy--the film literally does not move.....
....And the GOUT weave is not just the slight weave created through less-than-steller camera gate registration--its very pronounced, and obviously due to factors in the equipment made to telecine it. These factors may include human error, poor print conidition and poor equipment used. Perhaps because it was from the 1985 IP the print already had lots of weave built into the print itself since it is third generation to begin with, faults which were then built upon by the actual 1993 telecine.
Star Wars was filmed on Panavision Platinums by a top-notch crew. Panavision Platinum's are the most rock-solidly registered cameras that you can buy--the film literally does not move.....
....And the GOUT weave is not just the slight weave created through less-than-steller camera gate registration--its very pronounced, and obviously due to factors in the equipment made to telecine it. These factors may include human error, poor print conidition and poor equipment used. Perhaps because it was from the 1985 IP the print already had lots of weave built into the print itself since it is third generation to begin with, faults which were then built upon by the actual 1993 telecine.
So....the camera equipment they used in 1975/76 was great, but the telecine equipment they used in 1993 was crap?
How come nobody complained about the gate weave when the DC/Faces laserdiscs came out?
In that case--and i suppose this case as well--the gate weave issue is secondary to the wretched DVNR smearing, which indeed has had numerous complaints levelled against it, which is why its not used anymore. Back in 1993, of course, the gate weave was of a level deemed acceptable and was about the norm, especially for older films where print damage adds more shakiness. Thats like saying "how come people didn't complain about the poor res in 1993?" All the flaws of the GOUT were of a level of acceptability for 1993, but in 2006 for a product of such high esteem as this its a professional embarrasment as far as I'm concerned.
Personally i would be able to put up with the level of weave if it wasn't for the overall poor resolution and DVNR--we could always try our own stabilising efforts, although the level of weave seen on the GOUT is probably at a level that would be difficult to totally elminate.