zombie84 said:
It looks like he is implying that the sub-title burn-ins were printed into the internegative. But he says other videos used the internegatives, and those were blank with electronic subtitles. Same with if they used the archival low-con prints.
So, number one where were they getting their prints, and number two if they were all blank too, then just when did the theatrical subtitles get printed in? In the release print printing stage at the very end?
I don't really know what is normal regarding subtitle printing processes so I can't say if this is usual or makes sense.
Hmm, have no idea either but maybe they were printed in at that late stage when doing the release prints to being able to produce versions for foreign markets etc. I always thought the foreign subs were done as early as when making the opening crawl, it would seem convenient doing foreign opening crawls and alien subs at the same stage. I don't know, never seen how the alien subs look in other languages, they were perhaps not even done by ILM or in US.
zombie84 said:
Also, it makes sense now knowing the 1993 print was different from the previous ones, and the ones made for the 1985 home video IP. I had no idea. It was a source that was brand new to home video! That's why it is so grainy compared to other ones. It wasn't the same print. It wasn't just that the transfer made the grain more apparent, these were just grainier prints that had never been used before.
But what totally contradicts this is that these are supposedly the original IPs! The earliest generation source possible. So that doesn't make sense. How could the earlier generation be grainier than later? But he even remarks at how grainy the prints are, almost like it was surprising. They had to use heavy DVNR machines as he said. So, why is the grain only a problem when they go back to the earliest generation source? It should be the least grainy of them all.
My theory is that maybe that print isn't what they thought it was.
Yeah, something doesn't seem right about it, dirty and rough if treated bad is one thing but how the hell could those transfers be so grainy if they were sourced from first generation IP's, doesn't make any sense. Going by the '93 Technidisc LD I recently captured which most likely is from the same IP as the GOUT, but didn't go through the THX mastering and DVNR process, you can see why they tried out the then quite new DVNR process as it was in pretty bad shape in some parts, extreme amount of dirt in some areas, real grain level is hard to spot though due to the soft picture of a LD cap compared to an professional encode from the master we have on the DVD. But I would say it was more rough than what was used for the "tear-free" video releases and those didn't use a pretty source either with its ugly splices and glue all over the place. I guess we will never found out about the real answer.
I find it very interesting though, all this because of none's find of the re-framing. ;)