I've been looking at the Catnap bootleg and several questions sprang to mind.
The source looks very good, like a fresh print. The image is stable, the colours are good. Could this be from a privately owned 16mm or 35mm print? I didn't watch it all the way through, but did anyone spot any reel-change markers, which would prove this was from a theatrical print?
The print used is in such good condition, that it had to be videotaped very close to the original release date, within a couple of years I suspect. That would mean it was made with late 70's, possibly early 80's videocameras.
But.... To me, this just doesn't look like it was camcorded with vintage equipment. There is very little tape noise for one. Also, the black levels pumping to blue seem to be a result of the video cameras auto-adjusting to the available light. Was such a feature available on the early video cameras of the 70's/80's?
Then again, this doesn't look videotaped at all. It looks telecined, more like Puggo's 16mm project. The color bars at the beginning would not be on a film print, would they? So what is the source of this boot? The black-level pumping could also occur with a telecine. Also, if this was filmed off a screen, the video camera would most likely blow out the bright sky at scene changes (which you see in my Jedi boot when the scenes change from dark space to daylight Tatooine). This does not happen on the Catnap version. The clouds are in fact very well preserved on that version. I would have expected the sky to be blown out to white if this was camcorded. This has all the characteristics of being telecined. Even the fact that it is in widescreen bears this out. 9 out of 10 camcorded bootlegs were centered/cropped to appeal to a mass (pirate) audience. This boot does not seem to be made with mass distribution in mind.
And the quality of the tape used for the transfer to DVD looks to be first or second generation analog video. This was not a dub of a dub of a dub like most bootlegs going around (mine included). Yes, this tape could be straight from the horse's mouth, from the very individual who taped it off the screen in the 70's, but how often does that happen...?
The DVD version we've been sharing has also had some post-processing done to it. The black bars are electronic, not part of the original capture which would have been 4x3 analog video. The cropping of Greedo's subs indicate quite a lot was lost. I would very much like to see the raw, source tape used before the cropping was applied. (Moth3rs source tape was most revealing in this respect. Video noise across the black bars etc.) The VOBS are dated generically 01.01.2000 00:00, and the menu looks to be from a Philips domestic DVD recorder from that time. The PAL recording also indicates a European source for this film.
So, where am I going with this?
The Catnap bootleg seems like it was made much more recently than the 80's, camcorded/telecined or not, which it obviously couldn't be, because noone would have access to a Pre ANH film print that would look so fresh at this time.
Which got me thinking. Could a "bootleg" be faked today, and would we, the OT forum members, be fooled?
What if I popped in my GOUT DVD (the commercial one), projected that on my setup with my HD projector, and then camcorded the screen with my 1998 VHS-C camera. Then used the VHS-C tapes as a source for a transfer to a DVD/HD recorder? The inherent degrading of the image, the analog characteristics of the camera, the flickering, the VHS tapes used, the glitches where the tapes were changed, they would all mask the DVD source. Not to mention all the degrading that could be added in post. Then revealed this on the "scene" as some recently discovered (out of the blue) holy grail bootleg. Would we be fooled?
Now, I'm not saying that's what Catnap did. What would be the motivation? The source is obviously dirtier than any of the commercially available transfers of the GOUT (but the dirt, hairs and blemishes could easily be faked in the digital domain if one wished). It's just that this Catnap version doesn't add up to me. Too stable image, too fresh colours, too little print damage, too few analog copies of copies characteristics. Too good to be true.
(Then again, my own Empire boot is too good to be true also.)
I'm just sayin'
