STAR WARS DESPECIALIZED EDITION v2.0 WORKPRINT 3 REEL 1
I just watched it and personally I think it's pretty effing awesome!
Now, I'd like to hear if you find any technical errors and such. The colour-timing stays as it is here, since it's very close to a well preserved Technicolor print. The only thing I'm willing to change may be some glaring error, like colours suddenly changing in the middle of a shot or something like that.
It took my poor computer 8 hours to render this 19 minutes long video, and that was only single pass rendering, I'm kind of dreading the rendering time of the finalized film, especially since I plan to do a 2pass render.
doubleofive said:
I am so disappointed. Don't expect me to ever watch your projects ever again!
MY BURN MARK!!!!
;-)
Personally, I grew up watching a taped-from-TV copy of Star Wars, and (I'm 99.9% certain of this) there was no burn mark in it. So, to be able to watch a version of SW with no additional "quirks" than those I'm used to seeing would be good news for me.
“It’s a lot of fun… it’s a lot of fun to watch Star Wars.” – Bill Moyers
corellian77 wrote: Personally, I grew up watching a taped-from-TV copy of Star Wars, and (I'm 99.9% certain of this) there was no burn mark in it.
There are pics from multiple versions at the link below. If you have access to a source not listed and can provide pics, would be much appreciated.
http://fd.noneinc.com/Glitch/starwars-tantiveorangeerrors/starwars-tantiveorangeerrors.html#
My copy was taped from First Choice Super Channel (now The Movie Network) in Canada in 1982. It's presented in 4:3 P&S, and was (apparently) the world television premiere of Star Wars. I don't see it listed at the link... I'll try to send you a screen cap at some point this weekend.
“It’s a lot of fun… it’s a lot of fun to watch Star Wars.” – Bill Moyers
First of all I wanna say thank you Harmy for the outstanding work you're doing, really fantastic. You can't imagine how much I'm looking forward to actually getting v2.0
I've watched WP2.3 yesterday and I liked it alot. Apart from the things that others have mentioned before there's one framing error that I noticed. Now I don't know wheter it was always there, but at least it's in the GOUT as well.
Frame 4032:
[IMG]http://thumbnails26.imagebam.com/17404/e115e2174036621.jpg[/IMG]
About the encoding. I checked your settings in WP2.3 and see, I know it's a workprint and I know that you probably aimed for speed here and not for perfect quality, but I think for the final encode settings could still be improoved quite a bit.
What I suggest is that you aim for so called DXVA compatibility. This ensures that your file can be played back on the PC as well as on network media players and Bluray players. When using a resolution of 1280x542 as you did, the following settings should be chosen to achieve DXVA compatibility:
Profile: High (Main would work as well of course, but is very limited in other regards)
Level: 4.1
Reference Frames <= 12
Partitions: All but P4x4
VBV: Maxrate of 38000 and Bufsize of 30000 is safe
These are the settings used in x264, but I think they have similar names in the Adobe Encoder.
Now regarding 2pass vs. CRF (1pass). In CRF mode you choose a single value (so called CRF value in x264) which represents quality directly. This means that an encode made with CRF16 will have a different (better) quality than one made with CRF20. However, you can't predetermine the actual bitrate that the encoder is going to use. As it only does 1 pass and is therefor faster, this mode is recommended as long as you do not want to store the files on optical discs.
In 2pass mode however you choose the bitrate and the encoder is going to adjust the quality by itself in a way so that the bitrate is almost exactly met. This mode is therefore recommended if you want to store the encode on a DVD or Bluray.
My point is that in the end you will get the exact same quality both in CRF and 2pass when both file have THE SAME BITRATE. 2pass does not have any better quality at all, it just lets you predetermine file-size, thats all.
Well, I would be glad if I could give any further suggestions regarding encoding settings and such.
Regards Jan
Jan, as far as I know (not a lot compared to most people around here!), that glitch during the MF/TIE dogfight was always there. So correcting it is probably a no-go.
That's interesting, because I use single pass VBR encoding in Premiere for these workprints and it lets you set the average bitrate and maximum bitrate and shows you what the final size will be, and it is usually very precise.
So are you saying that if I used this for the final encode, the quality would still be the same as using 2pass encoding, or is that a different thing?
EDIT: Oh and that framing glitch was fixed on the Blu-Ray and I intentionally restored it, so not only would I not fix it, I actually unfixed it ;-)
BTW, I added RS links to the previous post.
1pass VBR should be quite worse than 2pass, since in 2pass the first pass is done so that the encoder can determine how to best distribute the bits between the frames to achive both given bitrate and a good quality. In 1pass however the encoder has to sort of guess.
This results in scenes that get too many bits when they might not bee needed, and not enough bits when they would be needed (blocks and other artifacts will be visible).
Maybe I'll do some tests on the weekend, but I think 1pass VBR is worse than CRF as well.
Harmy, I just checked out this latest workprint (big file!). I love the beginning bit with the tantive IV being chased by the star destroyer and the starfield looks very cool. The way you've restored the lasers to their former glory is pretty amazing.
However, when it switches to the interior bit of the tantive, there are a few colour inconsistencies IMO, switching from the first shot of the droids with an orange feel to a green feel and back and forth a few times. I've posted a comparison below of one of the more obvious examples of what I mean:
http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/107151
Overall the workprint looks too green to me in many places as well but if that's how the original print looks and the colours are finalised then there's nothing left to say I suppose.
Anyway, another thing I noticed was that the bottom of the frame on the workprint seems to be cropped a bit relative to the blu-ray. Just letting you know in case it wasn't intentional and you cropped the bottom off a bit by mistake while encoding.
Yeah, I know there's a little bit cropped there, but it's pretty negligible. As to the colours, the green tint is actually still quite moderate compared to the actual IB print. And the original was wildly inconsistent as well.
If I had a penny for every time this workprint made me crap myself, I'd be able to buy a new pair of pants.
That's my way of saying don't you dare change a thing. Or maybe I ate some bad shrimp.
What about this shot? Maybe I'm nitpicking but the sand right next to the crawler looks overly saturated and doesn't match up with the rest.
I just watched this scene on the '04 disc - didn't realize they reframed this shot and added in a new matte for the SE.
“In the future it will become even easier for old negatives to become lost and be “replaced” by new altered negatives. This would be a great loss to our society. Our cultural history must not be allowed to be rewritten.” - George Lucas
CatBus said:
That's my way of saying don't you dare change a thing. Or maybe I ate some bad shrimp.
Did you say shrimp? I love shrimp! Shrimp cocktail, shrimp scampi, shrimp puffs, shrimp kebab, peanut butter and shrimp sandwiches, shrimp milkshake, shrimp wine, Count Shrimpula cereal and blueberry pie with a scoop of vanilla ice cream a little brown sugar and some shrimp.
Sorry about that Harmy. Carry on with your excellent job! :D
Harmy said:
Yeah, I know there's a little bit cropped there, but it's pretty negligible. As to the colours, the green tint is actually still quite moderate compared to the actual IB print. And the original was wildly inconsistent as well.
Fair enough. I personally find that these inconsistencies take me out of the film, irrespective of whether it was part of the original theatrical print or not, a bit like the burn mark in one of your your previous clips that also took me out of the film (i'm glad you decided to remove it, you made the right choice IMHO).
The most important thing of all to me is not to be taken out of the film, so I would remove anything that causes that, no questions asked. If I was you, I would remove any colour inconsistencies/burn marks etc. When original theatrical print accuracy starts to detract from the film's enjoyment, I think that a tiny bit of that accuracy should to be sacrificed to keep that enjoyment for viewers as high as possible, because when all is said and done, Star Wars is a film, entertainment that should be enjoyed as much as possible by its viewers. Nothing should stand in the way of that. Nothing.
These films are meant to be enjoyable escapism at its very best, sacrificing that to be so 'accurate' seems counterproductive to me. Are you making these releases to be enjoyed by viewers or simply as a 100% accurate reference for future generations of what the theatrical print looked like when it came out in 1977? Optimally the answer would be both but if push came to shove, I would prioritise the former rather than the later and think you should do the same.
Here's another example of colour inconsistency on the workprint that takes me out of the film. I have checked this scene on the blu-ray and my regraded version and while the lighting is slightly inconsistent, it is very much within acceptable limits of colour continuety. Your workprint is not IMHO:
http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/107159
It is of course your project so its your call. You know my position so I will say no more on the matter.
OMEN!-_-! said:
Are you making these releases to be enjoyed by viewers or simply as a 100% accurate reference for future generations of what the theatrical print looked like when it came out in 1977? Optimally the answer would be both but if push came to shove, I would prioritise the former rather than the later and think you should do the same.
Maybe it's selfish of me but I am making these first and foremost to be enjoyed by me and second to be enjoyed by others that enjoy the same things I do. I enjoy watching films that look and feel like they were made when they were made and like they were shot on film. An occasional spec of dirt, burn mark, matte-line or colour inconsistency add to that feeling and enhance the experience for me.
Harmy,
The latest work print is simply amazing. I still think some stars are missing from the area of the star field I highlighted above, but that seems like a fairly trivial issue, and frankly, I may just be losing my mind anyway.
Oops, moved this two posts down...
Harmy said:
OMEN!-_-! said:
...
I enjoy watching films that look and feel like they were made when they were made and like they were shot on film.
My sentiments exactly. :)
delusions_of_grandeur said:
Harmy,
The latest work print is simply amazing. I still think some stars are missing from the area of the star field I highlighted above, but that seems like a fairly trivial issue, and frankly, I may just be losing my mind anyway.
No, you're right, it's a different starfield, I already tried to replace it but this shot is really bad in the GOUT. It's a small miracle that I even managed to get the SE starfield to be this bright, I actually managed to create a luma-curve preset that recovers starfields thanks to this shot. It doesn't work for every shot but generally it yields good results. In the WP I also used it on the shots of Tantive IV's engines exploding, Tantive IV getting pulled into the stardestroyer's docking bay and the stardestroyer above Tatooine before the wipe to the droids in the desert.
I see. It was probably the most nitpicky comment of all time anyway.
I used to look at Mike Verta's shots with a bit of envy but a great deal more sadness that such an important piece of film history was essentially rendered unavailable by the poor decisions of George Lucas. Your latest work print has me more excited about Star Wars than I've been since the early 1980s. It really feels like we're stepping back in time. Thank you, sincerely, for all of your hard work.
Harmy said:
OMEN!-_-! said:
Are you making these releases to be enjoyed by viewers or simply as a 100% accurate reference for future generations of what the theatrical print looked like when it came out in 1977? Optimally the answer would be both but if push came to shove, I would prioritise the former rather than the later and think you should do the same.
Maybe it's selfish of me but I am making these first and foremost to be enjoyed by me and second to be enjoyed by others that enjoy the same things I do. I enjoy watching films that look and feel like they were made when they were made and like they were shot on film. An occasional spec of dirt, burn mark, matte-line or colour inconsistency add to that feeling and enhance the experience for me.
Fair enough, I can definately see where you're coming from. I disagree about purposely keeping noticable imperfections in a film that you have the ability to remove but agree 100% about ultimately having to please yourself and no one else. Probably the only way to stay sane with a project of this sort of scope. I'll stay quiet now (at least for the time being hehe ;) ).
OMEN!-_-! said:
Harmy said:
OMEN!-_-! said:
Are you making these releases to be enjoyed by viewers or simply as a 100% accurate reference for future generations of what the theatrical print looked like when it came out in 1977? Optimally the answer would be both but if push came to shove, I would prioritise the former rather than the later and think you should do the same.
Maybe it's selfish of me but I am making these first and foremost to be enjoyed by me and second to be enjoyed by others that enjoy the same things I do. I enjoy watching films that look and feel like they were made when they were made and like they were shot on film. An occasional spec of dirt, burn mark, matte-line or colour inconsistency add to that feeling and enhance the experience for me.
Fair enough, I can definately see where you're coming from. I disagree about purposely keeping noticable imperfections in a film that you have the ability to remove but agree 100% about ultimately having to please yourself and no one else. Probably the only way to stay sane with a project of this sort of scope. I'll stay quiet now (at least for the time being hehe ;) ).
Well, that's the thing though, how far does a noticeable imperfection go? Is it a matte line, is it a bad rubber mask, is it a spaceport consisting of only two streets lacking digital dinosaurs or an unconvincing model shot? Lucas had the ability to remove all those things that were imperfections in his eyes and he did it and that's why we're all here. There are many people who see grain as an imperfection. It's just not that easy.
Just watched WP3R1 and I'm really really impressed Harmy.
There's only one color incosistency that "bugs" me a bit:
Beginning of the fade: [IMG]http://thumbnails52.imagebam.com/17409/1d2e40174086901.jpg[/IMG]
End of the fade: [IMG]http://thumbnails65.imagebam.com/17409/286092174086905.jpg[/IMG]
Harmy said:
OMEN!-_-! said:
Harmy said:
OMEN!-_-! said:
Are you making these releases to be enjoyed by viewers or simply as a 100% accurate reference for future generations of what the theatrical print looked like when it came out in 1977? Optimally the answer would be both but if push came to shove, I would prioritise the former rather than the later and think you should do the same.
Maybe it's selfish of me but I am making these first and foremost to be enjoyed by me and second to be enjoyed by others that enjoy the same things I do. I enjoy watching films that look and feel like they were made when they were made and like they were shot on film. An occasional spec of dirt, burn mark, matte-line or colour inconsistency add to that feeling and enhance the experience for me.
Fair enough, I can definately see where you're coming from. I disagree about purposely keeping noticable imperfections in a film that you have the ability to remove but agree 100% about ultimately having to please yourself and no one else. Probably the only way to stay sane with a project of this sort of scope. I'll stay quiet now (at least for the time being hehe ;) ).
Well, that's the thing though, how far does a noticeable imperfection go? Is it a matte line, is it a bad rubber mask, is it a spaceport consisting of only two streets lacking digital dinosaurs or an unconvincing model shot? Lucas had the ability to remove all those things that were imperfections in his eyes and he did it and that's why we're all here. There are many people who see grain as an imperfection. It's just not that easy.
Everything you mentioned there I see as technological limitations of the time and not imperfections. GL felt the need to 'update' them but they were great as they were and didn't stop Star Wars being the massive hit it was.
Colour inconsistencies are imperfections though because they take you out of the reality of the film's world, irrespective of whether it was shot in 1977 or 2012. The laws of light haven't changed since the 1970s, the lighting in the same location can't change dramatically from one shot to another unless a new light source is clearly introduced and shown in the film, our brain won't accept it and will not be able to suspend disbelief, kicking us out of the carefully crafted world that the filmmakers have created for us as viewers to immerse ourselves in.
Burn marks are also imperfections IMHO because they are not part of the film itself but something that gets added later in production so it has no place in the film because it reminds the viewer of the fact that the film is exactly that, 'a film', rather than what the filmmakers intend, that you forget that you're watching a film and that it's instead like you're looking through a window into another world you never knew existed, just as real as this one.
I'll shut up now.
That's the thing though, burn marks, scratches and colour inconsistencies are just as much due to the technological limitations of the time as matte lines or rubber masks. The colourtiming process was much more difficult then than it is today with digital technology and that's why it couldn't be as perfect as today. Same goes for handling the film. Today, most of the editing work is done on a digital scan of the film, back then it was all done by hand in a lab and so accidents sometimes happened and little scratches and burnmarks appeared on the original negative and became a part of seeing the film. Some could argue that a matte line around a model takes you out of the film or seeing a wolf-man in the cantina takes you out of the film, and they may be right but that doesn't mean it should be removed.
@Jan: Well, this is something that happens every time there is a wipe, the noticeability of it depends on how different the colourtiming is from shot to shot.