logo Sign In

STAR WARS - Special Widescreen Edition (Technidisc) (Released) — Page 8

Author
Time
 (Edited)

AntcuFaalb said:

EDIT: Sorry, I misunderstood your question. It's probably an IP in bad shape that is the reason for some of it if I would make a guess.

What does IP stand for in this context?

Interpositive: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpositive

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

Author
Time
 (Edited)

captainsolo said:

Wow, thanks for having another go at this. I loved the original capture and frankly don't have any problem with the inconsistencies. In fact, I loved it.

Thanks. Yeah, I agree. It's not that horrible as I make it out to be, but it makes setting the white balance correctly a little tough.

captainsolo said:

Your new samples do look improved and further underline my need to find a copy of this myself.

Hope you're able to find one. Just be aware that this pressing suffers from crosstalk artifacts that I was mostly succesful to get rid of with making 5 captures and using a median script in AviSynth. Some examples of it:

At one point I thought it was just a problem with my player, but I have not seen this kind of artifacts on any other LD's I own.

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

Author
Time

At one point I thought it was just a problem with my player, but I have not seen this kind of artifacts on any other LD's I own.

That's interesting - the artifacts look like RF interference. If you have any different cables (extra-shieled old-school high-end video cables?), I'd suggest trying those, but if you haven't had trouble with other LDs, that would seem like the trouble is with the disc itself. 

 

Author
Time

Crosstalk (in the context of laserdisc) is indeed a type of interference - which is why the artefacts look similar.

In this case it's nothing to do with RF (so cable shielding won't help) but a disc mastering defect which results in the laser pickup reading a signal from an adjacent pit track that interferes with the signal from the main track.

It was discussed here:
http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Smear-free-93/topic/12190/page/4/

Guidelines for post content and general behaviour: read announcement here

Max. allowable image sizes in signatures: reminder here

Author
Time

I guess it's possible that the amount of crosstalk can vary between different discs of this pressing, maybe some players are even able to handle it better than others? What I think is a little odd is that it appeared so random. Another thing that made me more certain that it was a disc mastering defect and not player related, is that the same thing was seen on two different players, same model though.

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

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Recently noticed that this transfer have an incorrect aspect ratio in places, it seems like this wasn't that unusual back in the early days of widescreen transfers, noticed this on the NTSC LD's of THX 1138 as well. Haven't located exactly where this sligthly distorted aspect ratio starts and ends, but it's present at the end of Side 1 and at the start of Side 2, the picture is quite clearly vertically stretched. First noticed it on the scenes in Ben's hut, will need to eyeballing it against the 2004 DVD. Another reason to redo this one...

EDIT: Well, I've found out that it is at least a pattern to it, only some reels are in the wrong aspect ratio.

2nd EDIT: Good news, was able to locate all the parts in the transfer with an incorrect AR.

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

Author
Time

An example of the incorrect aspect ratio.

Top: DVD Bottom: Corrected

Save and toggle between them to make it easier to see the difference. About two thirds of Side 2 and the end of Side 1 had this vertically stretched picture. It was quite easy to see when it happened as the otherwise quite severe cropping on this transfer gets about equal to how the GOUT or the 2004 DVD transfers were cropped.

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

Author
Time

I never would have spotted this, has it had a noticable effect on the compositional flow of the sequences now you watch it over again or is it more a semi-conscious thing?

Author
Time

frank678 said:

I never would have spotted this, has it had a noticable effect on the compositional flow of the sequences now you watch it over again or is it more a semi-conscious thing?

Judge for yourself: http://www.sendspace.com/file/3skuge

It's from when the distortion first appears, now corrected.

Top: DVD Bottom: corrected

It does make a difference in that it makes objects that should be circle-shaped appear circle-shaped instead of being egg-shaped etc, the difference is actually big enough that you can also notice it on the faces of the actors sometimes, at least on a direct comparison.

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

Author
Time

It does look better and not just because of the improved sharpness of the new frames. Looking at those shots of R2D2 the corrected version seems 'quicker' to appear real. As if when its incorrect the brain has to do an additional milli-second adjustment to interpret the image. This is much easier to see (as it is with the colour stuff) with comparison shots. The thing that strikes me about star wars without having really studied it is often the frame stays still (the camera stays still) and the action moves through it. A stable frame size can only help the illusion that you are looking through a window and then make that window invisible. This stuff is all pretty much on a subliminal level for me. I can only really see it when its correct (i.e. using before and after).

Since reading the linked thread below, my theory is widescreen accords more with what your vision does when it takes in a landscape and then within that frame you can focus in

Whereas 4:3 accords more with what your vision does when it just focuses in on stuff

This is why intimate conversations maybe don't always seem that intimate in widescreen. maybe.

So although Star Wars is composed for widescreen and pan and scan is a corruption of the artistry of the original, we would probably be focusing in to small frames when scanning the widescreen image - its just it feels more natural when we do it than when the frame is imposed from the outside somehow - we can instincively feel whats missing - even when we dont know a widescreen version exists.

http://mubi.com/topics/why-is-it-that-the-best-looking-films-were-shot-in-1331?page=1

Author
Time

Remember, these movies were meant to be seen on a big cinema screen. You *would* be focusing on certain parts of the image. It doesn't justify pan and scan, but I get what you're saying.

Author
Time

TServo2049 said:

Remember, these movies were meant to be seen on a big cinema screen. You *would* be focusing on certain parts of the image. It doesn't justify pan and scan, but I get what you're saying.

Pan and scan is almost comparable to someone redirecting your film. It was'nt composed for 4:3 but I'm going to make a smaller film inside your film. On average it just doesnt work - although mathmatically you are still getting about 50% of a great film.

I agree widescreen seems to be much more powerful when it gets past a certain threshold (i.e. past the size of a laptop or small tv screen) so it feels like it fills up your whole line of vision and merges with natural perspective so the fourth wall disappears. I'm not sure I trust the vlc fit to screen function always works precisely sometimes if the start ratio is correct it seems more correct to just increase size by a percentage - and it either fits your screen or doesn't.

 

Author
Time

frank678 said:

It does look better and not just because of the improved sharpness of the new frames. Looking at those shots of R2D2 the corrected version seems 'quicker' to appear real. As if when its incorrect the brain has to do an additional milli-second adjustment to interpret the image.

 Because it's running without the NTSC pulldown ;) And possibly at the wrong framerate, too?

Oh, or maybe you're talking about the screen captures, nevermind.

This signature uses Markdown syntax, which makes it easy to add formatting like italics, bold, and lists:

Author
Time

Asaki said:

frank678 said:

It does look better and not just because of the improved sharpness of the new frames. Looking at those shots of R2D2 the corrected version seems 'quicker' to appear real. As if when its incorrect the brain has to do an additional milli-second adjustment to interpret the image.

Because it's running without the NTSC pulldown ;) And possibly at the wrong framerate, too?

Oh, or maybe you're talking about the screen captures, nevermind.

You'll have to bring me up to speed on the NTSC pulldown/framerate differences between the new clips and previous version. I was looking out for improvement via aspect ratio adjustment and did'nt want to mistakenly attribute that to the mild sharpening that had been applied to the new clips. Correction for fluffy anaylsis is welcome!

Author
Time

My samples run with NTSC pulldown and with a correct framerate, Asaki were just making a joke.

 

Regarding the slightly distorted AR with a vertically stretched image as a result, I was able to locate at which points this occur...

the first time this happen is here:

^ first frame of that shot

and it ends on this frame:

Next occurrence of a stretched image is here:

^ first frame of Han after Greedo's line "I've been looking forward to this for a long time."

and it ends here:

Those who have done IVTC on various transfers of SW, might notice that some of these points corresponds with reel changes, the short duration of an correct AR in the Greedo confrontation is a little odd, but I guess it perhaps could be related to the subtitle-free source they used. Anyway, just thought I would share my findings as those who own this LD might find it helpful if you're ever doing your own transfer of it sometime.

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

Author
Time

I wasn't telling a joke, it seemed a bit fast and smooth to me. Maybe my setup was just playing it wrong or something?

This signature uses Markdown syntax, which makes it easy to add formatting like italics, bold, and lists:

Author
Time

Oh, ok. I assumed you were telling a joke as I know I did encode that sample correctly. Then it must be your setup if you weren't imagining things.

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

Author
Time

msycamore: How's it going? Any update(s)?

A picture is worth a thousand words. Post 102 is worth more.

I’m late to the party, but I think this is the best song. Enjoy!

—Teams Jetrell Fo 1, Jetrell Fo 2, and Jetrell Fo 3

Author
Time

No, sorry. I haven't had much time for this lately.

But here's some samples for you.

Hologram: http://www.sendspace.com/file/6sjs3c

Greedo: http://www.sendspace.com/file/u2851z

^ to demonstrate the sudden shift in aspect ratio at the end of the scene. (corrected)

Duel: http://www.sendspace.com/file/7vsmgi

^ Vader vs. Obi-Wan, just to once again demonstrate how badly affected my original DVD was by the poor contrast and saturation adjustments.

The settings on these aren't final though, the brightness is almost as inconsistent as the contrast on this transfer, haven't decided how I will deal with all of this and when.

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

Author
Time

Are Greedo's subtitles burned-in on the LD?

A picture is worth a thousand words. Post 102 is worth more.

I’m late to the party, but I think this is the best song. Enjoy!

—Teams Jetrell Fo 1, Jetrell Fo 2, and Jetrell Fo 3

Author
Time

They are placed in the bottom black border.

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

Author
Time

msycamore,

finally downloaded some of your recent clips. The colors are looking great! I can't wait for your next realease!

-G

 

Author
Time

msycamore said:

They are placed in the bottom black border.

Did you burn them in?

A picture is worth a thousand words. Post 102 is worth more.

I’m late to the party, but I think this is the best song. Enjoy!

—Teams Jetrell Fo 1, Jetrell Fo 2, and Jetrell Fo 3

Author
Time

Yes, I did my own set of subs in AviSynth based on the theatrical ones. If you're interested in the placement and timings you can check out this thread: http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Greedo-Jabba-subtitles-theatrical-placement-and-fonts/topic/11463/

Thanks g-force. Compared to my original DVD it looks quite good.

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

Author
Time

msycamore said:

Yes, I did my own set of subs in AviSynth based on the theatrical ones. If you're interested in the placement and timings you can check out this thread: http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Greedo-Jabba-subtitles-theatrical-placement-and-fonts/topic/11463/

Thanks g-force. Compared to my original DVD it looks quite good.

Thanks -- I'll check it out.

A picture is worth a thousand words. Post 102 is worth more.

I’m late to the party, but I think this is the best song. Enjoy!

—Teams Jetrell Fo 1, Jetrell Fo 2, and Jetrell Fo 3