What's missing from GOUT — Page 2

…

It is not surprising at all that there are frames missing at reel changes because it is common practice to cut off the first and last frame of each real while "building" a print for projection. It makes it easier for the projectionist to put the correct head and tail back on each reel. So, I would expect (at least at the theater in the US) to find 2 missing frames at each reel change. It is kind of interesting that sometimes these frames are mission when converted to video.

I think that it is interesting that there are versions out there that have the frames and versions that do not. I wonder which is intended? It is possible that an extra frame was left on each reel in order to account for this practice.

This can give some insight into which versions (on video) share comon ancestry (from the same print).

I also wonder if cutting these frames is not practiced at certain facilities, and is at others.

Just some thoughts...

…

iojabba said:

It is not surprising at all that there are frames missing at reel changes because it is common practice to cut off the first and last frame of each real while "building" a print for projection. It makes it easier for the projectionist to put the correct head and tail back on each reel. So, I would expect (at least at the theater in the US) to find 2 missing frames at each reel change. It is kind of interesting that sometimes these frames are mission when converted to video.

I think that it is interesting that there are versions out there that have the frames and versions that do not. I wonder which is intended? It is possible that an extra frame was left on each reel in order to account for this practice.

This can give some insight into which versions (on video) share comon ancestry (from the same print).

I also wonder if cutting these frames is not practiced at certain facilities, and is at others.

The materials that would be transferred to home video are not treated the same way, so the point is not really relevant. For telecine, each reel would be scanned independently, without cutting the head or tail.

What might be a factor with interlaced transfers is joining the reels together on a master where the first or last image from the reel is partially interlaced with a black frame.

Back to the print screening, however, some forward-thinking locations do NOT cut one frame in, because as the print travels from location to location, you lose more and more of the heads and tails. At each successive location, projectionists will often ignore the splice that already existed and move to the next frame.

skyjedi2005 said:

... They are not even optical effects there to account for the low image quality, just a shoddy transfer that is inexcusable in 2006 tech.

Perhaps it is done to make the blue ray releases "incredible".

I said it in another topic: GL didn't want to release SW on DVD at the origin, waiting for a better format. The blue ray technology was planned since back in 1983 and myself as a kid knew about that. I sold the magazine where Lucas told about it just one year ago... I would have translated this article in english here if I still had it (can't find a .pdf!).

I'm amazed nobody seems to know anything about that.

[citation needed]

DE

(Did I do that joke already?)

Darth Editous said:

[citation needed]

Is that adressed to my post ? Be sure I'd like to put my hand on this again. I'm 96% sure it was stated in GL's interview from this old mag:

... And I remember very well the words "blue laser" used for describing that technology. I always wondered how this would turn out. Hope some french collector could step in and confirm.

It would partially help to understand -perhaps- the lack of care those films have received since then, for every releases.

And I remember very well the words "blue laser" used for describing that technology.

Darth Editous said:

 

Extrapolating that to Blu-ray is like claiming Henry Ford invented the Tesla Roadster.

 

...or that Nikola Tesla invented the Ford Mustang!

Aren't you confusing the steps with the whole stair with your Mpeg exemple ?

Anyway, the facts for me are:

In 1983, they planned to develop what they called the "blue laser". If you think it's linked to the laser discs then ok, why not. But I insist though that George Lucas didn't want to release SW on DVD, waiting for a better format. That's what is strange, and that's why I made the link with the blue ray.

Airbus in France has developped some tactile holographic 4D technologies already that are a revolution for the future and are completely at thousand miles away from your living room and theatres technologies, blue ray or whatever. It's just an exemple for you remember that big companies do what they want, not what you expect, and as specialist as you can be in your area you may probably won't hear about it before years, depending on what they plan to do with that.

... Because all these "big ones" plan things, and it's even more efficient commercialy if you don't know anything about it in the wait.

Damn! For a moment I thought the truth was really out there...

A B C said:

Anyway, the facts for me are:

In 1983, they planned to develop what they called the "blue laser".

If you think it's linked to the laser discs then ok, why not.

SKot said:

What the hell is an aluminum falcon?

Darth Mallwalker said:

Found more missing from GOUT

These frames from ROTJ:




It's the tail end of the establishing shot just before Mon Mothma's briefing.
Happens to be the end of a reel too.

Screen caps taken from Editdroid disc.
Now this is puzzling:
If Editdroid used DC laserdiscs, then 'DC master' should also contain those frames, right?
So what's GOUT's excuse for cutting them?
My childhood is raped!

Those two frames are intact in the PAL GOUT.

However the PAL ROTJ is missing this frame instead.

Darth Mallwalker said:

What's missing from GOUT



That frame is missing from GOUT



Here's those two fields after re-assembly

Faces frame from MeBeJedi prototype (IVTCed)


That frame shouldn't be missing from GOUT

But the PAL GOUT seems to have it.

These two frames are missing from the NTSC ESB.

It's strange that the NTSC GOUT is missing frames compared to the PAL version as this is just a conversion from the same NTSC D1 mastertapes, but it probably happened when they joined the D1 segments and trimmed of any redundant frames and probably also messed up the IVTC.

There are i.e. interlacing errors in the NTSC (top) that are not present in the PAL (bottom).

A couple of frames missing at scene/reel ends really isn't a big deal though, except for perhaps loss of audio sync if anyone wants to use the DC/Faces PCM track with the GOUT video.

No those frames are clean in the PAL (bottom) 13588

145590

Here's another error NTSC (top), PAL (bottom) 149900

Although here it is the PAL (bottom) version that's seriously messed up 148959