Save Star Wars Dot Com — Page 14

Not for wipes and dissolves and opticals though. The "original negative assembly" pieces are actually second-generation copies that have combined two original pieces. The original original pieces are not used because they have to have a wipe combining them on a copy. For the SE, rather than cleaning up or scanning the second-generation copy that combined them with the wipe, they went back to the original original camera pieces in storage and re-combined them in a brand new transition.

So, for instance it might look like this

Camera negative piece A (sandcrawler) + Camera negative piece B (stormtroopers and dewback)

[copied using an optical printer to overlay a wipe on the cut between them]

=

New original negative piece C that starts as A (the sandcrawler) and then wipes to B (the stormtroopers) within the same shot

So A and B are then put back in storage and C is the actual piece that goes in the negative assembly.

My theory is that Pacific Titles did what they said: they went back to A and B and did a new C. There would be no point in saying Pacific Titles re-did the transitions using new optical printers if they didn't do this. What I am saying is that ILM then slapped new digital wipes over top of the new 1997 opticals. Why? Dunno. Smoother looking? Hide some splices? No idea. Why did they speed up the opening logo? No idea either. But they did.

I don't believe that Pacific Titles just bullshitted all that.

The only other explanation is that ILM re-did the work that Pacific Titles did by going back to A and B themselves and making yet another C. But this doesn't explain why the wipes are exactly positioned to hide the 1997 ones. The only explanation that accounts for this is mine above. So thats what I'm going with for the moment.

Well, like you said, the 1997 wipes might not have matched the 1977 wipes to a T--because that example never existed in 1977, technically. The A roll is a new CG shot, so they had to do a new wipe from scatch using a new A roll CG print out and a B roll from the original camera negative.  It looks like the difference here is about 4 frames. Deliberate or maybe just a mistake. But its likely because they were not technically re-creating an original cut but working with new material.

What you really need to do is compare 1997 to 2004. Because if I am right then the 1997 versions should basically match 1977, but then 2004 starts early. If 1997 and 2004 are both the same early starts then it would just be that they decided to start each transition a few frames early for some random reason.

Your link to "Attack of the Show" is dead.

Here's the link update:

http://g4tv.com/attackoftheshow/theloop/62851/The-Loop-Week-In-Review.html

Also am getting the malicious site warning.  Don't see any scripts in the main html, but can't easily track all the references.  Might want to revisit the pages which you copied from and that might give you a clue which is causing the problem.  The script exploit must have become aware to Firefox and now a bunch of sites are getting taken down because of it.

Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:

FYI, Firefox is reporting savestarwars.com as a malicious site. It states:

Of the 9 pages we tested on the site over the past 90 days, 1 page(s) resulted in malicious software being downloaded and installed without user consent. The last time Google visited this site was on 2010-09-16, and the last time suspicious content was found on this site was on 2010-09-16.

Malicious software includes 2 scripting exploit(s). Successful infection resulted in an average of 3 new process(es) on the target machine.

 For maybe an hour in total, there was one or two pages that were uploaded with a malicious script maybe three weeks ago, which unfortunately infected my whole hard drive. I took down the pages and edited the script out of the HTML coding and re-uploaded them. The site should be fine now. I don't get any warnings from my browsers, and I got warnings in the brief time the infected pages were up.

Hmm, that's weird. Is there a malicious site warning on my page itself? Because if its not on the page itself then it shouldn't be in the hotlinks. I've never got a warning like that in the recent past and I haven't changed that page recently. The page that was hotlinked is not giving me warnings in Chrome or any other browser I have...

Weird.

Hmm. Does the site itself do that?

Yes, it does.  (Using Firefox, not Chrome.)

I'm getting it with firefox too, but it's fine on Safari. The same thing happened to the digitalbits recently.

I remember that happening to TheDigitalBits.  Do you remember how long the warnings lasted after they told Google about it?  At least a couple days IIRC...

I just downloaded the Technicolor IB page and checked the HTML source. The malicious code is not there. Is it possible that the site was flagged because it had the code briefly in the past? Because I literally have not updated the site within the last week so its not something that has changed online.

Yeah, for what it's worth it took the bits a few days to sort it out. scroll down to 6/28

http://www.thedigitalbits.com/mytwocentsa181.html

Yeah, it's most likely because it was there before.  It clearly takes a while for them to do anything once you tell them the malicious stuff is gone, so I guess it follows that it takes a while for them to put up the warning once they find that the malicious stuff is present.

doubleofive brings up in the '35 years of ILM' thread, another issue maybe worth having a page toward.  The idea that articles, books, documentaries praise the advancements in technology the OT made, but then they show a picture from the SE.  Having a page of these circumstances could be a convincing way to show how LFL is attempting to subvert the originals.

http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/35-years-of-impossible-ILM-visual-effects-article-on-CNET/topic/11949/

Since this is anticipation of an upcoming documentary:

Encore commissioned a one-hour documentary about ILM, made by Oscar- and Emmy-winning director Leslie Iwerks, which is airing on Nov. 14.

This could be a very opportune moment to push this message.