Puggo GRANDE - 16mm restoration (Released) — Page 25

red5-626 said:

Just because it's film doesn't make it a holy grail of quality. So people have to remember that the puggo 16mm projects are an interesting, and I find, highly enjoyable project. But if you're looking for a pristine copy of the OT... Get harmy's despecialized or Dj's gout project.

 

I understand that a 16mm print is not the best.

But is it not better then 8mm?

In case you aren't clear on what they are:
The "Puggo Edition" is a scan of 8mm highlight reels.
The "Puggo Grande" and "Puggo Strikes Back" are scans of 16mm prints.

16mm or 8mm film scanner that is privately owned by some one that could scan it and “ avoid any Empyreal entanglements”.

That is exactly what I have, and what I did, albeit in DV.

red5-626 said:

Just because it's film doesn't make it a holy grail of quality. So people have to remember that the puggo 16mm projects are an interesting, and I find, highly enjoyable project. But if you're looking for a pristine copy of the OT... Get harmy's despecialized or Dj's gout project.

 <span></span>

I understand that a 16mm print is not the best.

But is it not better then 8mm?

We all know the best thing would be a scan of a 35mm or 70mm print.

But even it we had a 35mm or 70mm print.

We do not have a scanner for it.

But there is a better chance of finding an HD,

16mm or 8mm film scanner that is privately owned by some one that could scan it and “ avoid any Empyreal entanglements”.

I know the 16 and 8 mm prints would be littered with dust and scratches. But this could be cleaned up in a computer.

Of course doing this for the hole 3 movies may seem like to much work, it could still be used in part for projects like Harmy's Despecialized Edition . For ROTJ It could be use to get an HD copy of <span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">Lapti Nek. </span></span>

You might want to go back and read some of the discussions on this and the PSB thread, as it will answer a lot of technical questions.  Here are some quick comments:

- no it is not videotaping a projection at slow speed.  The camera is zoomed into the gate, and a snapshot is taken of each frame.  The frames are assembled in software into an .avi file.  There is no projection.  See www.moviestuff.tv for details.

- 16mm films are not only generally poor quality, they are ALL heavily cropped, even the scope prints.  Go back into the thread and look at some of the screenshots as the project progressed, for this and for Krig.

The capture device shown in Rescuing SW is a workprinter-16, which is described here:  http://www.moviestuff.tv/wp_16.html

It looks like a projector because it was built out of a projector.  But it doesn't project... the front side of the film is illuminated and the camera zooms in on it.  It also has a different motor that controls both the advancement of the film and the clicking of the mouse to inform the computer to capture the frame.

Puggo, if I may derail this further...

What makes a 35mm system so much more expensive than a 16mm? Obviously the film is twice as big, but I don't understand why this would make a huge difference.

Because to make an affordable 35mm telecine, you'd pretty much have to build it from scratch.  16mm and 8mm telecine units can be made using the transports from older home movie projectors, of which you can find tons out there for practically nothing, and that were well-engineered.  That's what Roger Evans at Moviestuff did to make the workprinters - he makes them out of old Eiki and GAF home movie projectors.  They still have significant amounts of new engineering in them (different motor, completely different optics, etc.), but the film path and housing is largely original.

By contrast, there has never been any such thing as a home movie 35mm projector.  The only projectors are the professional kind used in movie theaters. They are much more expensive and there are much fewer of them.  They are not easy to find used, they take up a lot of space, they are complicated, require maintenance, and they are heavy. Shipping is expensive. Plus there is virtually no market for an affordable 35mm telecine unit, because there is no such thing as 35mm home movies.  You can't even buy 35mm movies, for the most part.  So no company is going to make such a thing other than for high end Hollywood-type applications.  You CAN buy a 35mm telecine, but expect to pay a good $30,000 or more, installed and working.

So, you'd basically have to go out and buy a 35mm projector, and you'd have to engineer the telecine unit yourself.  It could be done, but probably not for under $10,000 and many months of effort even if you had significant mechanical and electrical engineering experience.  I think the best chance of seeing something like this happen, would be if someone on this forum were a mechanical engineering student and did this for a college degree capstone project... possibly in a team of students.  But then still, someone would have to front the money to buy a used 35mm projector to base it off of.  If one turned up for cheap at a theater closing, that might be possible.  35mm projectors of various types and condition pop up on eBay fairly often.  You'd have to know what you were getting.

The Workprinters are marvels of clever, quality engineering out of cheap off-the-shelf parts.  I've become convinced that Roger Evans is basically a genius who has single-handedly changed the way small-format film is handled.

Or, you could pay a service to transfer it for you... except that nobody is going to touch a print of SW - or any major commercial movie - with a 10-foot pole due to the risk of getting shut down legally.

That makes a lot of sense, unfortunately. As I think I mentioned somewhere else on this great big forum, The Maker Movement comes to mind. Unfortunately, I can't find a good article summing the whole thing up, but it's basically people that make stuff. And by stuff I mean anything. There are things called "hackerspaces" in some cities now, where people get together to work on projects, and these projects include Book Scanners, 3d Printers, CNC Machines, as well as more mundane stuff. Given that these guys often have the ability to fabricate their own parts, I don't know why a 35mm scanner or telecine or whatever would be beyond their abilities.

Of course, with the Maker Movement, there is no real "they", because anyone could get involved. Still, I bet it's doable.

Oh yeah, it's definitely doable.  But somebody has to actually do it. Unfortunately, I don't have the time right now :)   It would be cool if someone did.  The Maker Movement sounds cool.

grisan said:

I just found an auction on german ebay for the Star Wars 8mm anamorphic Reel 2 from Ken Films.

http://www.ebay.de/itm/STAR-WARS-Super-8-Scope-Breitwand-Widescreen-Sammlerstuck-Rare-Collectible-/120784937853?pt=DE_DVDs&hash=item1c1f57e37d

I just failed to win a similar auction for the same scope reel (it went for $110).  I'll keep an eye on this one.

red5-626 said:

The round thing that puts the image sideways looked like that box thing that you Project into. ?

Any way I was thinking of something like this only HD and 16mm

 

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWKyd67P2HI

The Workprinter doesn't project into a box.  There is a magnifying lens that the camera zooms through and focuses on the emulsion side of the film.

Your link shows an interesting telecine unit. Judging by the Tobin website, their newest 8mm units also use a frame-by-frame approach like the Workprinter.  They are definitely more expensive... a 3CCD system is almost $6K for 8mm and $7K for 16mm... that's 2-3x the price of the workprinters.  I can't see what advantage it offers other than the camera being built in (although the snipers have that too). Saying that no computer is needed isn't really an "advantage"... you'd still have to capture to something (they only provide composite and svhs outputs, of course you're going to want a video card and computer to deal with that; they suggest a DVD recorder?!  I wouldn't want to edit off of that).  And there's no HD option for 16mm... the 16mm units look pretty primitive by comparison with the moviestuff units.  For 8mm, you have to provide an HD camcorder just like the workprinter.

The build quality looks nice and rugged, and they look easy to use.  They look like they'd be handy for bulk transfering home movies straight to DVD to customers.  But my initial impression is that for our purposes they are a couple of steps behind what moviestuff has to offer.  Moviestuff is already offering 16mm RGB-separated Hi Def.

If by "back then" you mean in 1977, then no, in my opinion Harmy's is more like things looked in 1977.  If by "back then" you mean in 1984, well I did see SW in the theater once at a late-night showing in 1984, and the print was so beat up, dirty, and faded, that yes it did look quite like the Puggo Grande does now.

Why not just get them and see for yourself which one(s) you like?  They don't cost anything, other than downloading time.

It would be safe to say Puggo Grande replicates the experience of seeing the movie in 1978, after it had been playing for over a year. Theaters really ran prints into the ground back then. Take it from someone who was there. :)

YES, when the film came out it was razor sharp, at least in the best theaters on opening day.  Look at properly preserved prints on blu-ray such as "2001", which was made in 1968, and for which the blu-ray was sourced directly from a newly-minted 70mm print of the original film.  It's as good or better than modern digital source material.  A pristine 70mm print beats blu-ray hands down for detail, resolution, color, and sharpness.  All those people who say that if we want the OOT we should want it looking like crap because that's how old films look simply don't know what they're talking about. Yes films get beat up with use, but that doesn't mean you should preserve the beat up version.

Some people say they want to see the film as THEY experienced it in a theater. To me, that's like saying I first saw it on YouTube so it should be preserved in YouTube quality.  I want to see it in its original form as it was seen in an ideal theater projection with a pristine print.  That is the original work of art at its most grand.

It sounds from your description like you would enjoy any of the theatrical preservations mentioned in this thread - DJ's or Harmy's.  (When I saw Harmy's it practically made me cry - spooky how much it reminded me of when I was 17 and saw SW for the first time.)  If you're really hard-core, you might get a kick out of mine too.  None of them contain the CGI crap and other changes that make up the SE.  Trust me, we share your values.

Harmy did his best to make the lightsaber colors match what they looked like originally.  The only reason he would change them, would be to change them BACK to what they were originally.

Get DJ's too :)