Puggo Strikes Back! (Released) — Page 16

Could you post some pics?? LOL

LexX said:

Could you post some pics?? LOL

See post #305... they wouldn't be any different than those.  I just have the whole first reel now.

It's really nice that Ady could help, especially considering his own workload[s]. :p

Thanks a lot for posting those.  Is this the complete film or selected scenes?  If it's the complete film, the soundtrack might be interesting.

Anyone want to shell out $800 bucks for a flat print of the SE? ;)

http://www.ebay.com/itm/16mm-Film-STAR-WARS-EMPIRE-STRIKES-BACK-LPP-/150657627298?pt=US_Film&hash=item2313e4f4a2

These kind of auctions crack me up. Not even a single photo. First 16mm SE print I've ever seen listed though.

16mm of the SE? I didn't think any were made. Then again, there were supposedly some 70mm engagements in 97 so who knows.

I've completed the sound sync of reel 1.  There are two glitches that I'll need to fix: (1) it's missing the roll-off right at the start, and (2) a couple of words where Han's voice inexplicably drops about 2 octaves.  I expect to be able to fix those with the backup print after I finish prepping the other two reels.

Next up, reel 2.

captainsolo said:

16mm of the SE? I didn't think any were made. Then again, there were supposedly some 70mm engagements in 97 so who knows.

yeah, i mentioned star wars SE was shown in 70mm

in oslo:

=====

http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Making-our-own-35mm-preservation-my-crazy-proposal/post/330884/#TopicPost330884

the print was destroyed afterwards..

--------

http://www.in70mm.com/newsletter/1996/47/spektrum/index.htm

later

-1

I hope this has a strong blue tint throughout, cuz that's the way it's supposed to be and always has been!

negative1 said:

yeah, i mentioned star wars SE was shown in 70mm

 

the print was destroyed afterwards..

Story of life isn't it? ;)

Thanks for the update Puggo!

Do you happen to know if this Super-8 of yours also is sourced from 70mm version material like Puggo's was? see here: http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/70-mm-print-of-the-Empire-Strikes-Back-Differences/post/268442/#TopicPost268442

Hi Puggo,

I really admire what you've done so far, and I've been so thrilled over the last few weeks discovering all the many fan preservations available from the users on the site.  I'm one of those guys who found out about the new BluRay changes, and finally had enough and decided to look into what was out there.

I've been dying to see the theatrical OT come to life beyond GOUT.  I could personally care less what Lucas does to the films, just as long as the original films are properly preserved ala Blade Runner.  The 16mm scope preservation is a great idea, and potentially the best source for the original content until a useable 35mm scan becomes available to us...

Again, I totally admire and respect all the effort and time you're putting into theses restorations.  Having said that, I nearly gagged when I read you're using a Sony TRV900 for the telecine.   I understand budgetary constraints, especially for a self funded project like this.   Have you considered looking into borrowing a newer camera, perhaps an HDLSR from a friend?   The main problem with the Sony 900, aside from being 10 years old and interlaced SD, is the very limited dynamic range, and the "baked in" artifacts like sharpening.   Today, almost any camera will have a much better dynamic range than the Sony.   I think given all the work and time you're putting into this project, that Sony handycam is a real disservice to you.   I strongly urge, no I beg you, to consider looking into a new camera with a much wider dynamic range so that you can faithfully capture most of the beautiful range present in the 16mm print.  Plus, shooting it in higher resolution will definitely capture whatever detail is in the print.

If done with a better camera, I am certain that theses 16mm scope prints would be the new reference material for the theatrical OT.

Regardless, I'm looking forward to Puggo Strikes Back. 

cheers,

-Craig

*EDIT* So maybe I jumped the gun a bit before reading the entire thread...I see most of what I said was addressed already, and an HDR attempt was even made which was going to be my second suggestion.   I'm wondering what the limitations are for the 16 workprint rig and why it can only use DV cameras?

Wrong thread, but while I'm here checking the latest reply, may as well mention that I have downloaded Stjärnornas Krig and shall watch it soonishly.

PreserveOurHeritage said:

Hi Puggo,

I really admire what you've done so far, and I've been so thrilled over the last few weeks discovering all the many fan preservations available from the users on the site.  I'm one of those guys who found out about the new BluRay changes, and finally had enough and decided to look into what was out there.

I've been dying to see the theatrical OT come to life beyond GOUT.  I could personally care less what Lucas does to the films, just as long as the original films are properly preserved ala Blade Runner.  The 16mm scope preservation is a great idea, and potentially the best source for the original content until a useable 35mm scan becomes available to us...

Again, I totally admire and respect all the effort and time you're putting into theses restorations.  Having said that, I nearly gagged when I read you're using a Sony TRV900 for the telecine.   I understand budgetary constraints, especially for a self funded project like this.   Have you considered looking into borrowing a newer camera, perhaps an HDLSR from a friend?   The main problem with the Sony 900, aside from being 10 years old and interlaced SD, is the very limited dynamic range, and the "baked in" artifacts like sharpening.   Today, almost any camera will have a much better dynamic range than the Sony.   I think given all the work and time you're putting into this project, that Sony handycam is a real disservice to you.   I strongly urge, no I beg you, to consider looking into a new camera with a much wider dynamic range so that you can faithfully capture most of the beautiful range present in the 16mm print.  Plus, shooting it in higher resolution will definitely capture whatever detail is in the print.

If done with a better camera, I am certain that theses 16mm scope prints would be the new reference material for the theatrical OT.

Regardless, I'm looking forward to Puggo Strikes Back. 

cheers,

-Craig

*EDIT* So maybe I jumped the gun a bit before reading the entire thread...I see most of what I said was addressed already, and an HDR attempt was even made which was going to be my second suggestion.   I'm wondering what the limitations are for the 16 workprint rig and why it can only use DV cameras?

Regarding the TRV-900:

• The workprinter I have is SD only.  Using an HD camera wouldn't work because the system wouldn't be able to keep up, and the software wouldn't be able to build the movie file.  There are new models of workprinters that have come out recently (only within the past year) that handle HD, but I can't afford them.  The website is www.moviestuff.tv.  The cost of such a workprinter would be several thousand dollars, after you factor in the camera, the accelerator, and other PC upgrades.  Considering the condition of the films, I can't justify the expense.
• The TRV900 doesn't suffer from most of the things you describe when used in this manner, because it never actually records video.  Only the camera element is used, and the workprinter assembles the individual frames captured by the software into to a movie.  In fact, this particular video camera is very popular for this application, because of its 3 large CCDs, large lens, focus ring, and low-light capability that exceeds most modern camcorders (unless you want to spend several thousand dollars).  For this application, newer doesn't always mean better because I'm actually not even using the camera's video capability.

Ripplin said:

Wrong thread, but while I'm here checking the latest reply, may as well mention that I have downloaded Stjärnornas Krig and shall watch it soonishly.

Lower your expectations!  It's pretty rough.