Harmy's STAR WARS Despecialized Edition HD - V2.7 - MKV (Released) — Page 78

I love the look of the new subs Harmy, but I have to agree with Atlantis, the shake is overkill, to the point where it's kind of distracting. I saw a print of Star Wars last summer and in the  projected image, there was no shake on the subtitles or credits. The print was in pristine condition. I think if you were to do a proper transfer of a print, you would not see that amount of shake applied to text. If you plan on using this amount a shake for your final version, would it be possible to include a shake-less version of the scene for download? I'd much prefer to watch that.

The shake on the subtitles actually looks good to my eyes. It seems far more natural and less digital; it's a nice change, and more film-ish. Good job on it Harmy!

The subs do look great as they are, watching that clip really did bring back that nostalgic feeling....without that gate weave recreation on the subs they would definitely look less authentic.

I was perfectly happy with V1 of Despecialized.....but now I'm really looking forward to V2

J 

wow, this thread has exploded again! I haven't been able to keep up with everything but I did see mention of something about recreating the original credits, if I'm not mistaken. I'm not expert, but I know some here have done major research around the various versions of the end credits so I'm sure you got it right.

Getting to the point, I'm wondering, are you recreating the drop shadow on the credits like what mverta posted? I ask b/c, while I have no intention of arguing whether those are authentic of not (as I don't know for certain what his source is) I DO know for certain that not all prints had that. I've seen the end credits of a 1977 35mm print that absolutely did not have the drop shadow. Anyway, sorry if I'm late to the game. I was just curious about this. Can't WAIT for ver. 1.2 or 2.0 or whatever it is now, the stuff you've posted recently looks AWESOME!

Which version of the end credits did you see, humdingers? The "opening day" version with the "tight" John Williams spacing, and the text at the end being spaced out really far apart, or the more familiar version that's always showed up on video?

I don't think I would ever have been able to notice the shadow if it weren't pointed out. (In fact, if one version didn't have the shadow, I'm wondering if it's even there on the starfield credits on any version, since only the scrolling section was revised, and appended onto the existing starfield section by putting in a new dissolve about half a second before the original one.)

Incidentally, while watching 2001 on Blu-ray, I noticed that the opening credits to that film also have a slight drop shadow I never noticed before.

Harmy that Falcon looks great. As you remember I reported to you that there was a problem in Falcon jumping a frame there. I see that glitch is not present in Version 2 anymore. Did you change your source footage?

TServo2049 said:

Which version of the end credits did you see, humdingers? The "opening day" version with the "tight" John Williams spacing, and the text at the end being spaced out really far apart, or the more familiar version that's always showed up on video?

I don't think I would ever have been able to notice the shadow if it weren't pointed out. (In fact, if one version didn't have the shadow, I'm wondering if it's even there on the starfield credits on any version, since only the scrolling section was revised, and appended onto the existing starfield section by putting in a new dissolve about half a second before the original one.)

Incidentally, while watching 2001 on Blu-ray, I noticed that the opening credits to that film also have a slight drop shadow I never noticed before.

Harmy said:

And Ginge, where on earth did you see a pristine print of the original SW? If it was original, that is, because if it was SE, then the fact that the subs didn't shake isn't valid, as the subs were redone for the SE.

And if it was an original 77 print, the shake would most likely have been there, only you wouldn't notice it, unless you were looking for it, since there would be a slight shake to the whole picture and your eyes simply get used to it.

And like I said, the shake is actually imported from stabilized PG footage, so it should be legitimate, since PG is probably a 16mm dupe of a 35mm print, so if the shake on the subs is there after you stabilize the footage, it was on the source print as well.

I saw a print of "Star Wars" (the original theatrical cut) last summer in Baltimore, MD at the Senator Theatre. This was a beautiful single-screen theatre that was closing it's doors and the owners decided to have a free screening of Star Wars as a fitting end to the life of the theatre. I drove from New York as this was obviously a special event. There was two showings, one at 4 and one at 8 (I went to the 8). The print was an original in pristine condition that was owned by a collector who generously allowed the theater to use. It looked magnificent... free of any horrific coloring modifications or digital graffiti. 

You can view photos of the screening here (the photos don't even capture just how blue Luke's saber is on the Falcon, but gives you a good idea):

http://petergaultney.smugmug.com/Movies/historic/Star-Wars-at-The-Senator/13089279_nXePV#948662138_wuqj9

I paid very close attention to the Greedo scene for obvious reasons and my memory of it is still very vivid. Your version is nearly identical (despite some coloring issues obviously related to the transfer), but the subtitles on the screen did not shake; they appeared crisp and rock solid. It wasn't a matter of my eyes getting used to it either... the shake simply wasn't there (I definitely would have noticed).

As I said earlier, the credits did not shake either, they were solid and crisp just like the subtitles. This thinking that any text on the screen must shake is a total myth... not all text in a film of this era shakes. The shake might have been there on the 16mm print for whatever reason (transfer issues maybe), but to claim it was on the source print as well is just guessing and not a very accurate assumption. I saw this with my own eyes last year on a 35mm print of the film... there wasn't any shake present, trust me.

If you want to keep it the way it is, that's your call of course... but if you are trying to capture what it was like to see this film the way it was presented in 1977, the shake should not be present in the subtitles or the credits. If for some reason you feel the need to add shake, it shouldn't be at the excessive level you have them at now. This is just my two cents as someone who has seen a projected print recently. I would at least love to have this scene and the credits without shake in the text so  I can splice them into the completed film myself... as this would be more accurate to what I saw on screen. I hope this came off helpful and not like an attack or rant... that's not what I'm going for. 

Ginge, the link you referred to actually has a video of the Greedo Scene with subtitles. Unfortunately, the camera is not completely steady so one can't completely tell whether the subtitles were shaking.

The Aluminum Falcon said:

Ginge, the link you referred to actually has a video of the Greedo Scene with subtitles. Unfortunately, the camera is not completely steady so one can't completely tell whether the subtitles were shaking.

Here's a direct link to the video. Harmy could stabilize it if he wanted and see if there is a detectable shake.

http://petergaultney.smugmug.com/Movies/historic/Star-Wars-at-The-Senator/i-GnX2777/0/1280/10-greedo-1280.mp4

Also the 35mm subtitle font looks more like the end credit font than this new font that Harmy is using to emulate the 16mm print. The periods and ellipses look squarish while the letters have a slightly rounded appearance (might also be the soft focus). The opposite seems true for the 16mm subs. Perhaps they had different subtitles made for the 16mm reduction?

That would explain why the 16mm subs seem to have more shake... they were added in optically after the reduction. 16mm only has two perforations per side versus 35mm's 4 perfs. Just thinking out loud...

EDIT: If you look at the subtitle, "It's too late. You should have paid him when you had the chance." Notice where "You" falls over Harrison Ford's body.  It doesn't match Harmy's current 2.0 version.  The rest of the letters are also out of place. Maybe it's more like the GOUT after all?

Harmy's clip does look great, there is no denying that. Han's flesh tones seem to be a bit off from what I remember, but that's again due to the limitations of the source material. You are correct Tim, the subtitles at the screening did have a dimensional look to them, but they weren't shaking. When I see Harmy's clip, it does not exactly reflect what I saw at the screening due to the level of shake he applied. The video isn't reliable since the camera itself shakes and there is a ton a flicker since it's a NTSC video camera capturing a moving film image. While the subtitles appear to be crisper than in Harmy's version, it doesn't "conclusively" show anything either way sadly.

I won't say there was no shake at all on the print for the Greedo scene, but I had a great seat for the screening and as I said, I studied that scene pretty intensely as it played. If there was shake it was extremely subtle and certainly not at the excessive level that Harmy's clip applied. Harmy's shake is obvious and a bit overkill, which unfortunately doesn't represent the actual print. I think some people just have it in there head that there must be shake, and will try to find ways to convince themselves and others, but I'm telling you... it wasn't the case.  

I guess you're gonna leave it this way, and that's fair... I would just like a shakeless version of that scene if it's at all possible Harmy. I would be very appreciative as it would look the way I remember seeing it last year. Unfortunately, I lack the skills to recreate this myself.