Star Wars Colortiming & Cinematography (was What changes was done to STAR WARS in '93?) — Page 8

here's some pictures from a super8 (not derann)

==================================

later

-1

negative1 said:

here's some pictures from a super8 (not derann)

==================================

 

 

later

-1

 here's our darker version of the

frame on the left:

----------------

later

-1

Wow, there's a lot of stuff going on in here! I think more and more that we just got royally screwed in 1993 when they decided to use the IPs laying around and then overprocess like mad to make them look "good" for old CRTs of the era.

Good idea on those last caps-the film is definitely going to look different on modern equipment versus 70's era equipment that the prints would have been manufactured for.

I don't know if people have done this yet but two other things that might be useful: Looking for other films of the era shot with the same film stocks and films from the era shot by the cinematographers. Every person has a unique style and way of lighting that no matter what will show though and affect the image in some way. Having an idea of this and how it would affect the stock might help to give a better idea of the way the image was originally developed.

Gil Taylor shot Omen the year before but I think Donner's Superman is a pretty good example of the kind of cinematography Star Wars had, Close Encounters Of The Third Kind is another. But I would rank both of those as more sophisticated than Star Wars.

Negative1, what's exactly the reason behind the low detail in your posted 35mm frames? They look extremely noise reduced.

Here are a few funny pictures from the 2004 DVD chapter menu:

They sure know how to make a quality product. What's even funnier is that the Binary Sunset looks better in that chapter menu than it ever did on their '97 SE video releases.

Is the '97 Jabba seen in the chapters?

Which reminds me, sometimes you wonder how many telecines have really been made, here's how the '97 SE - Binary Sunset appears in the 2004 THX DVD documentary:

Too dark and dull, but still better than the "timing" people were treated with when they bought their '97 videos:

I don't know which one is worst, the 2004 incarnation is a different kind of ugliness.

TServo2049 said:

The THX DVD documentary clips look about the same as the ones in Empire of Dreams. Both of them used a different source than the official video masters - for example, Jabba's subtitles were burned in like they were in theaters. 

Yeah, of course they did but that's the irony isn't it, scenes looking better in trailers, promos, documentaries and even in chapter menus, but the video transfers of the films themselves are always presented with shoddy quality.

TServo2049 said:

Still, as I said before, according to Mike Verta the '97 colors were inaccurate even in the theater. They were probably closer, but people like Mike and Treadwell noticed color issues from the get-go.

The SE was given its own timing that apparently wasn't entirely faithful to the original in many scenes like you said but my reason for posting those '97 pics had nothing to do with the timing of the '77 original.

The binary sunset and the canyon scenes were certainly a little mystery when I started this thread, but it has since become known how these scenes looked.

The point is, you have the '97 sunset right there in the chapter menu looking better than it ever did on their main '97 releases, and I find that hilarious. In fact, the whole film looks pretty damn good in the chapter menu compared to the main feature.

The screencap from the doc match the DVD menu pretty well, so yeah this must be the same master before someone decided that the film should look like a cheap hooker.

more mos eisely testshots..

====================

http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Best-source-for-the-Mos-Eisley-speeder-pass-by-shot/post/568398/#TopicPost568398

later

-1

from another super 8mm on ebay:

scene 1 of 18

--------------------------------------------

scene 2/18

------------------

more from the super 8 (4/18)

------

some more shots from reel 1:

------------------------------------

later

-1

and some desert shots:

---------------------------------

later

-1

msycamore said:

Negative1, what's exactly the reason behind the low detail in your posted 35mm frames? They look extremely noise reduced.

Straight from the horse's mouth: "the 720p versions went from the original image to wmv, then (i think) to xvid ... we'll try to get files together with less compression steps, that does eat up a ton of detail"

Those frames you're referring to look exactly how I imagine JPG screen grabs of an nth generation XviD would look. No mystery here ;)

more from the 8mm

scene 7/18

===================================

scene 8/18

===================================

scene 9/18

=============================

later

-1