- Time
- Post link
I am not impressed unless you post about 175000 full screenshots in sequence and with at least 4K resolution.
This signature uses Markdown syntax, which makes it easy to add formatting like italics, bold, and lists:
StarWarsLegacy.com - The Official Thread — Page 20
- Time
- Post link
So you are doing noise reduction, then, or what?
- Time
- Post link
mverta said:
What do you mean, "However"?
The "However" was an accident. I edited it from the initial post. I am wondering though why I can't see any fine grain structure in the Legacy picture. Is it non-grainy by nature?
- Time
- Post link
Star Wars was shot on relatively fine-grain stock; what we're used to seeing is not representative of the negative. Much of it comes from the prints, themselves, and there are fine-grain prints out there. But moreso, you're looking at a small crop, smaller in resolution, which of course shrinks the grain with it. But no, I don't do any noise reduction or grain removal. I do, however, use tools to recover detail from within grain structure.
_Mike
View the Restoration and join the discussion at StarWarsLegacy.com!
- Time
- Post link
Will you update the website Mike ?
- Time
- Post link
mverta said:
Star Wars was shot on relatively fine-grain stock; what we're used to seeing is not representative of the negative.
Ah, I see. All right. I didn't know that. Thanks for the info, mverta. :-) Out of curiosity, lack of resolution, crushed blacks and color issues aside, is the 2004 master's smoother look closer to how a film print looks than the grainier LD releases or GOUT?
I don't do any noise reduction or grain removal. I do, however, use tools to recover detail from within grain structure.
Thank god. I can't stand noise reduction. I just didn't know that Star Wars had inherently fine grain.
- Time
- Post link
The site is being archived. For now, go to the forums. Much more will be posted there!
_Mike
View the Restoration and join the discussion at StarWarsLegacy.com!
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
The Aluminum Falcon said:
mverta said:
Star Wars was shot on relatively fine-grain stock; what we're used to seeing is not representative of the negative.
Ah, I see. All right. I didn't know that. Thanks for the info, mverta. :-) Out of curiosity, lack of resolution, crushed blacks and color issues aside, is the 2004 master's smoother look closer to how a film print looks than the grainier LD releases or GOUT?
I don't do any noise reduction or grain removal. I do, however, use tools to recover detail from within grain structure.
Thank god. I can't stand noise reduction. I just didn't know that Star Wars had inherently fine grain.
Yes, the 2004/Blu-Ray is closer to what the best prints/negative look like, grain-wise, though even then it's curiously noisy in places - likely from where other sources were used. I have said many times I think people would be surprised by what Star Wars actually looks like. Certainly, I didn't remember it being as sexy as it is, or as inconsistent in places.
_Mike
View the Restoration and join the discussion at StarWarsLegacy.com!
- Time
- Post link
Do you worry about Lucasfilm coming down on you for doing this? Seems risky no?
- Time
- Post link
jasmorru said:
Do you worry about Lucasfilm coming down on you for doing this? Seems risky no?
He does, and that's precisely why he plans not to release it.
- Time
- Post link
So that's safer? I thought just doing it would be suspect to George's evil eye. He seems pretty keen on keeping the originals away from the public.
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
jasmorru said:
So that's safer? I thought just doing it would be suspect to George's evil eye. He seems pretty keen on keeping the originals away from the public.
Have you noticed how wisely Mike is choosing his words when talking about sources and his plans?
I think he of all people knows the danger and makes sure that there's no way anyone could even prove he's doing the restoration.
- Time
- Post link
jasmorru said:
Do you worry about Lucasfilm coming down on you for doing this? Seems risky no?
Sorry, the correct way to ask that question is, "Aren't you afraid the Empire's going to find out about this little operation of yours and shut you down?".
Well at least the reversed surround channels have been addressed.
- Time
- Post link
Well it's all cool to me.
- Time
- Post link
Ha! Maybe he's made a deal with the empire to keep them out of his hair forever?
- Time
- Post link
View the Restoration and join the discussion at StarWarsLegacy.com!
- Time
- Post link
I was doing some channel analysis tonight and I remembered something you guys might not have seen before: Carrie's camisole visible under her robe. And if you look real hard...
View the Restoration and join the discussion at StarWarsLegacy.com!
- Time
- Post link
LOL. What is that purplish spot on Carrie's right side though? Is it just an artifact of the film?
- Time
- Post link
This sequence was the last thing shot. That's the spot of dirt she picked up on the costume during the trash compactor sequence, which didn't entirely come off in cleaning. Guess they didn't use bleach.
_Mike
View the Restoration and join the discussion at StarWarsLegacy.com!
- Time
- Post link
mverta said:
This sequence was the last thing shot.
Really? I never knew that. I'm curious. Sorry for being off topic but do you know the approximate shooting schedule of Star Wars in general? I know that they shot the desert sequences early on, but I'm not sure about much else.
- Time
- Post link
I have the entire shooting schedule around someplace... but I would think that's all online somewhere.
_Mike
View the Restoration and join the discussion at StarWarsLegacy.com!
- Time
- Post link
mverta said:
I have the entire shooting schedule around someplace... but I would think that's all online somewhere.
Really? I've never been able to find the entire one online. If you're able to share it/find either it or one for ESB, please tell me. The schedules could be interesting as it could give one an idea of what the early cuts were like and which scenes were missing from them.
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
mverta said:
I was doing some channel analysis tonight and I remembered something you guys might not have seen before: Carrie's camisole visible under her robe.
FWIW, I've been able to make that out for a long time.
But wow, there's a lot of purples and greens in the highlights. I never realized how many hints of color there were in the Tantive scenes, everyone always assumes that it was all monochrome whites and blacks.
Gil Taylor's cinematography/lighting* in the Tantive and Death Star scenes was monochromatic, sure, but the more I look at it, the more I see that it's only with successive inaccurately timed releases that they've become truly monochrome (i.e., black/white/gray).
*Not sure how much of a role gaffer Ron Tabera had in designing the lighting. Come to think of it, SW is his only credit anywhere. What else did this guy do?
- Time
- Post link
The other colors there are not representative of what's in the image. In that actual image, the back walls have a slight blue green cast, the stormtroopers are white(ish), and Leia's robe is slightly cream. It's beautiful, and far more interesting than the shades-of-white-seen basically forever.
_Mike
View the Restoration and join the discussion at StarWarsLegacy.com!
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
Just as an aside, on the subject of changes made to the color timing over the years: It's amazing that if you take the Moth3r widescreen telecine, turn up the saturation and fiddle with hue and color levels to try to counteract the odd color shift issues, that even with its lossy multi-gen picture quality, you can still get a sense of the original color structure of the film.
For example, I can see the blues and greens in the Tantive and Death Star interiors. And Luke's saber in the Falcon training sequence is blue throughout - no greenish or aqua cast in the wide shots, no parts where it looks white, it's actually BLUE. (Is it consistently blue in your source, Mike?)
*sigh* I wish someone could track down the owner of the original U-Matic master copies of that telecine. Outside of an actual print, it's probably the closest visual record of what the film actually looked like in '77.
Not really related to Mike's project, just a tangential musing...