ATMachine said:
It seems to me (viewing the 2004 version of ANH on an HDTV) that Leia's hologram recording was changed twice, once in 1997 (when the blue tint was added) and again in 2004. Specifically, it seems the hologram's vertical scanlines got a LOT fatter in the 2004 version, whereas the 1997 Leia hologram (judging by pictures you guys have posted) had very thin, very hard-to-see vertical scanlines.
Am I just hallucinating? I'd love to have somebody verify this for me--I don't yet have all the digital copies of the various releases. Thank you!
It's true that the horizontal bars that was present on the original Leia hologram went missing when they re-comped it in '97, but it could just have been the variations in resolution and detail between video releases that made you think anything was changed between '97 and '04, the fine detail such as scanlines on holograms and binocular shots can differ wildly between releases sometimes and have confused us in the past. Just take a look at this binocular shot in Empire for example:
'85 LD
'89 LD
GOUT
'97 SE broadcast
2004 DVD
Had I only checked the '89 LD against the '04 DVD I would have thought something was altered.
We want you to be aware that we have no plans—now or in the future—to restore the earlier versions.
Sincerely, Lynne Hale publicity@lucasfilm.com
I noticed that these two are mislabeled as '97 alterations.
The bogwing pterodactyl-like creatures in these particular scenes were re-comped for the DVD.
We want you to be aware that we have no plans—now or in the future—to restore the earlier versions.
Sincerely, Lynne Hale publicity@lucasfilm.com
Thanks.msycamore said:
The bogwing pterodactyl-like creatures in these particular scenes were re-comped for the DVD.
Star Wars Revisited Wordpress
Star Wars Visual Comparisons WordPress
More re-framings, all close-ups of Ben are zoomed-in in the '97 SE.
Top: GOUT Bottom: '97 SE Broadcast
There are 8 shots in total. Just like the re-framing in the wampa cave, they were all reverted back to the original framings in 2004. Talk about tinkering...
We want you to be aware that we have no plans—now or in the future—to restore the earlier versions.
Sincerely, Lynne Hale publicity@lucasfilm.com
if you grab the others, I'll put them up as is.
Star Wars Revisited Wordpress
Star Wars Visual Comparisons WordPress
doubleofive said:
if you grab the others, I'll put them up as is.
Will try to grab them for you.
We wondered a few pages back if the laser bolts in the blockade runner shootout were re-composited, at least some of them were. It appears to me that all of them were re-composited in this last shot just before Vader boards the ship, these three frames are the most obvious due to the different positions of the elements:
Top: GOUT Bottom: 2004 DVD
Top: GOUT Bottom: 2004 DVD
Top: GOUT Bottom: 2004 DVD
I'm now pretty sure more of them were redone, but I don't think I have the patience to go through it to be honest, I have been called "the comparison-freak" by none in the past, but even I have my limitations. ;) This was done in '97 btw.
On comparison 13 of Star Wars, the description says: "This first shot of R2 and 3PO has been reframed, possibly due to a tear in the negative. (1997 Change)"
In the other thread dedicated to the tears that appeared on the release prints and on some home video releases, Tservo pointed out that the camera shake in the original film was a combination of a real camera shake and optical effect, and he is absolutely correct about that, for the Special Edition they most likely went back to the original production footage, either to avoid additional grain caused by the opticals or maybe due to CRI-stock fading.
There are also at least two other shots with an optical camera shake, they appear on shots of Solo and Luke in the Falcon when they're preparing for the incoming TIE's, oddly enough both were repositioned one frame later in the '97SE, much like the dissolves between Luke and Vader in ESB. This difference was easier for me to describe than it would've been with screenshots.
We want you to be aware that we have no plans—now or in the future—to restore the earlier versions.
Sincerely, Lynne Hale publicity@lucasfilm.com
As there are laser bolt fire frames before and after these modified ones, which don't seem revised (?) why change these three? Guess it's more dramatic having the bolts near the rebels heads... Some occurances of laser bolt fire being changed for the SE have coincided with another type of revision either in the same shot or neighboring scene. This catch seems to add weight that everything was recomp'd.
Don't say things like that! ;-)none said:
This catch seems to add weight that everything was recomp'd.
Star Wars Revisited Wordpress
Star Wars Visual Comparisons WordPress
none said:
As there are laser bolt fire frames before and after these modified ones, which don't seem revised (?) why change these three? Guess it's more dramatic having the bolts near the rebels heads... Some occurances of laser bolt fire being changed for the SE have coincided with another type of revision either in the same shot or neighboring scene. This catch seems to add weight that everything was recomp'd.
Yeah, it might. There are more than just these three I posted in that particular shot that are re-comped, probably all of them, these were just the most obvious ones, that's why I decided to post just these three frames.
I was a little sceptical about it before, because all the timings and positions of the elements seems to match the originals so precisely, whereas in all other cases of re-comped shots in the trilogy, you'll immediately see the difference if you studying it, this may all have to do that the positioning and timings had to match the on-set footage in this case with all the blanks that is fired.
We want you to be aware that we have no plans—now or in the future—to restore the earlier versions.
Sincerely, Lynne Hale publicity@lucasfilm.com
More '97 alterations, these three cockpit shots were treated with camera shake, it's all very subtle so a comparison won't do.
The original footage didn't have camera shake, instead they shook the cockpit.
We want you to be aware that we have no plans—now or in the future—to restore the earlier versions.
Sincerely, Lynne Hale publicity@lucasfilm.com
Digitizing a VHS (TWC323) and came across a Dateline News report (1997.01.31) on the SE which as George Lucas saying:
Jane Pauley: 'George realized his old classic creation, had lost some of it's glow'
George Lucas: 'and so we replaced 375 shots, just in Star Wars.'
Don't remember hearing a number before. And not sure what 'replaced' equals.
Interesting, so we have Tom Christopher, the Lucasfilm editor in charge of the restoration say that 748 shots were redone on the first film and Lucas says 375 were replaced, that would perhaps make the 373 shots not mentioned by Lucas enhancements? or vice versa? Speculation...
We want you to be aware that we have no plans—now or in the future—to restore the earlier versions.
Sincerely, Lynne Hale publicity@lucasfilm.com
Watching another SE era news report (TWC327) and this one has the following:
CNN Newsource 1/30/97 3AM - 23 Entertainment: Star Wars Returns - Dennis Michael PKG 2:21
Dennis Michael: Lucasfilm and 20th Century Fox teamed up to give the film something of a tune up, ended up giving it a complete overhaul.
George Lucas: When I went in, I was just going to change four or five shots. And as it's turned out now, I think there are now over 700 pieces of new negative in the film out of about twelve hundred, it's almost, it's more then half the film. But a lot of them are simply just redoing wipes and fades and flopped shots, things people won't notice, to make them cleaner.
*OMIT*
GL continues: There are over 110 ILM shots that are new.
There's an interesting look/giggle in the negative sentence. Not sure how to take his overall number.
I haven't updated this page since a day or two after I posted it:
http://savestarwars.com/specialeditionchanges.html
Since I haven't been keeping up with this thread, I've lost track of the extra changes found since I posted it. Have you guys been keeping a running tally like I was here or do I have to re-read a few pages and update my numbers and spreadsheet manually? Sorry to make a "do this work for me because I'm too lazy to just do it myself" type of post. I'm fine doing it myself, but if you guys already did that would be better. :p
msycamore said:
In the other thread dedicated to the tears that appeared on the release prints and on some home video releases, Tservo pointed out that the camera shake in the original film was a combination of a real camera shake and optical effect, and he is absolutely correct about that
Whew, I had mentioned an optical shake there in some thread or other and was subsequently convinced I was misremembering. Still a couple brain cells left after all! :)
Ah, sorry about that, it was perhaps you Treadwell who pointed it out.
Zombie, maybe none have kept track of it all. And by none I mean the member none. ;)
We want you to be aware that we have no plans—now or in the future—to restore the earlier versions.
Sincerely, Lynne Hale publicity@lucasfilm.com
No, he gets credit for pointing out that it was both a camera AND an optical shake.
zombie84 wrote: Have you guys been keeping a running tally like I was here
Yes. Took your initial set up and continued/expanded in these spreadsheets:
This is the current version:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AtjXdIjRQo5NdDJORXlfTDBIN0NaQXlWMk51Q2tOR0E
It is missing new finds from the last 2-3 months. There are multiple calculations the one closest to your spreadsheet is version 2. (column 2473) As these totals are done per year; below that are totals of each new modified release added to the next. (column 2478) So where the SSW.com page total was 307, we're now at 498. (thru the 2011 blu-ray)
If you'd like to add to your page some video of George talking about the SE changes, in the last few posts are some quotes (which are confusing when taken together) but maybe having those quotes will show how confusing this was then and still is now. (George mentions 700, 375 and 110) Along with the Tom Christopher number of 748, should leave everyone reading with a mild headache. I can put the video clips somewhere if you think they'd fit in.
Some more SE number quotes, from the Sci-Fi channel's 'The Force Returns' SWSE program (TWC298):
Phillip Feiner (Optical Supervisor) said: "Taking a look at the number of shots, optical, dupes and effects of over 800, it's a massive undertaking."
Also:
Rich McCallum said: "The color fading had dropped by 20-25 percent."
and:
narrator: "To update the film, Lucas added over one hundred nine new digitally created scenes."
Pretty effing confusing...
Probably mostly marketing hyperbole. Like when everything is "digital" or "high definition" these days. Except that this wasn't coordinated properly, it seems!
From this bunch the one that gets me is the McCallum, Lucasfilm has gone to great lengths to portray the negative as being abnormally degraded almost lost (pieces maybe), yet he says (what i'm assuming could be an overall picture) a loss of 20-25 percent, that's not that bad. There's the Vader/Tantive picture Lucasfilm typically shows of the degraded negative which is all cyan next to the updated version, yes they are probably showing us a worst case or an example of how far the film had gone in one case. This number is a sign that maybe things aren't so bad. This quote came from a SWSE press conference i've never see the full thing of. Would love to find it.
The other two numbers though are at least close to some of the other quotes. but the 109/110 is GL sourced in both cases. The other two (800 & 748) are at least sourced from people closer to the production. And this number may mean that every SFX shot is a redo, all the way down to blaster fire, which we've been uncertain about. Need to run the numbers...
005, since you included this shot:
You should probably include these two as well, as they were also shortened to accommodate the CGI shot between them:
Furthermore, the second shot seems to have been altered in 2004, where in the older versions, the stormtrooper passing near the camera seems to have been affected by some composition error where something was scribbled over one of the composite elements. Check it out, there's clearly a sign saying something like B FFET 23 over his path:
It's also present in Puggo Grande (as seen on the left) and the 97 SE but it was fixed in 2004.
Wow, that's awesome!
Star Wars Revisited Wordpress
Star Wars Visual Comparisons WordPress
Hay Harmy
You may want to put that B FFET 23
On the
Star Wars : 'Tantive's Orange Items' Thread & other unintended objects
B FFET 23 ?
sounds like someone’s user name.