logo Sign In

THX 1138 "preservations" + the 'THX 1138 Italian Cut' project (Released) — Page 60

Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link

Obviously there were more creative ways to deal with nudity in the '90's. I was referring to a much earlier era where even a butt shot was verboten. :)

The WB Tv logo at the end dates the print to pre 1984...

The "snap pans" in the 16mm print are a pan and scan attempt at showing the whole scene. Try running them side by side, and you'll likely find it's the same shot. Pan and scan can be less obvious to the eye when it's done on film versus a video master.

Forum Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time
Post link

Spaced Ranger said:

BTW, your PM inbox is full. So ...
... if you are doing the THX 1138 LD capture(s) any time soon -- which I expect will be the best ever -- could that one, with our extras, be the combined project? And no problem if you want to do the final construction.
If not, I'll continue with SilverWook's excellent captures. But I had to ask, for the obvious reason of why we're here.  :)

 

It's empty now.

Also, the answer is: yes! :-)

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
 (Edited)
Post link

SilverWook said:

The "snap pans" in the 16mm print are a pan and scan attempt at showing the whole scene. Try running them side by side, and you'll likely find it's the same shot. Pan and scan can be less obvious to the eye when it's done on film versus a video master.

Yeah, it's basically down to the telecine operator how to handle it, so it can differ quite a lot between versions, especially on films in a 2.35:1 aspect ratio. Sometimes they even made cuts instead of a pan inside the frame.

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
Post link

SilverWook said:

The WB Tv logo at the end dates the print to pre 1984...

So, any release with the WB Kinney logo would have been mastered sometime 1970 through 1972.

However, with Lucas' Star Wars success (post 1977) and WB subsequently re-releasing THX 1138 (with the WB cuts restored), did WB simply put the excised footage back into the master and make new distribution prints (Lucas' restored original/1st edit) ... with the original logo also unchanged? Lucas probably wasn't even involved in that one (beyond demanding that it be done).

From the WB re-release forward, a TV broadcast would be of Lucas' restored original/1st edit (excluding mangling by individual TV stations or networks). So any broadcast that included those missing SEN shots would identify it as Lucas' original edit. -- Does this sound right?


AntcuFaalb said:

Also, the answer is: yes! :-)

Excellent.

You are a true believer.

Once I get the project resources I'll send you an inventory ... if you can use anything already accumulated (other releases, etc.).

 

msycamore said:

SilverWook said:

... Pan and scan can be less obvious to the eye when it's done on film versus a video master.

Yeah, it's basically down to the telecine operator how to handle it ...

So, the difference of my post-1990's TV recordings is just the original (1st) Lucas edit (the 16mm period) with it's P&S release doing snap-scans and the next (2nd) Lucas edit (the laserdisc period) with it's P&S release not doing snap-scans. That would make the laserdisc-period release Lucas' 2nd edit of THX 1138.

Keep in mind that stations can have unlimited play rights -- meaning they can broadcast an "older print/version" that they have after a newer print/version is released. This often happens with new & improved home video releases (like "restorations") that don't broadcast until some significant time afterwards. So, the 1st version could be broadcasting while the 2nd version is being released on home video. -- Is that too weird an extrapolation?

 

Author
Time
Post link

Spaced Ranger said:Keep in mind that stations can have unlimited play rights -- meaning they can broadcast an "older print/version" that they have after a newer print/version is released.  So, the 1st version could be broadcasting while the 2nd version is being released on home video. -- Is that too weird an extrapolation?

It sounds plausible.   I wish TV stations would do that more often nowadays.

Author
Time
Post link

I wish they didn't. I see why it may be desirable for the preservation projects, but otherwise, it makes my skin crawl, when I see a movie that came out on DVD in wide screen like 15 years ago, still being broadcast in 4:3 - and it happens all the time in my country.

Author
Time
Post link

Ha!  You should start capping if anything interesting shows up. :D

I guess my perspective's different because I never watch a film on television these days.  There's always a BD or DVD or some such.

Author
Time
Post link

Harmy said:

I wish they didn't. I see why it may be desirable for the preservation projects, but otherwise, it makes my skin crawl, when I see a movie that came out on DVD in wide screen like 15 years ago, still being broadcast in 4:3 - and it happens all the time in my country.

There are several new channels that are broadcast here as SD subchannels of HD stations. Their programming is mostly made up of old tv shows, and 4:3 transfers of movies. I never thought I'd ever see Lawrence of Arabia in pan and scan ever again! I don't think there was even a full frame VHS of the restored version.

I've only found one that broadcasts in 16:9 and they tend to show movies in their proper ratio, (or close to it) but some of the old shows like Charlie's Angels are horribly cropped 16:9 remasters.

Would be nice if a pre 2004 version of THX aired somewhere in the world.

 

Forum Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link

Chewtobacca said:

Ha!  You should start capping if anything interesting shows up. :D

I guess my perspective's different because I never watch a film on television these days.  There's always a BD or DVD or some such.

Well, I'm in the same boat, it just irritates me on principle.

And the worst thing is, they even do this on HD stations here - they broadcast a horrible, over-sharpened HD upscale of an old P&S master in pillar-boxed 1080i. I'd understand this with old 4:3 TV shows, but they often do this with older widescreen movies that already came out on BD.

Author
Time
Post link

TCM almost always shows old video masters, especially since they are not an HD channel (their HD version is upscaled). I first saw THX many many years ago for the first time this way so this would be the surest bet if they program it any time soon.

VADER!? WHERE THE HELL IS MY MOCHA LATTE? -Palpy on a very bad day.
“George didn’t think there was any future in dead Han toys.”-Harrison Ford
YT channel:
https://www.youtube.com/c/DamnFoolIdealisticCrusader

Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link

The last time THX aired on TCM, it was the 2004 version. Really goes against the grain of what they stand for.

There were running "Future Shock" themed films on the weekends last month, but THX was curiously absent.

If it ever airs again, there's always the off chance they pop in the wrong tape. They have inexplicably shown Close Encounters of the Third Kind in pan and scan more than once.

Forum Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time
Post link

SilverWook said:

I've only found one that broadcasts in 16:9 ... but some of the old shows like Charlie's Angels are horribly cropped 16:9 remasters.

I'm sure many of those old TV programs wouldn't be horrible in widescreen if they did them right ... by going back to the negatives.

The Star Trek (the original series) remastering for HD was a herculean effort and a missed opportunity for an awesome widescreen version. In those debates, the "integrity of the director's framing" is the oft-made argument but that is a phony defense (it's always a money issue of tight-wads who roll in the dough).

Here's a Star Trek you have never seen unless you have a film strip. This is was the way the cameras photographed it:

The reason you never saw this much was because it was framed for television -- the so-called "Director's framing" of the shots:

But you never saw even that much (at least, when it aired on the TV's of it's day) because the imprecise analogue technology forced a tighter "safe area" to guarantee what could actually be seen. This is the true "Director's framing":

So making a widescreen Star Trek means merely extending the edges of the safe area to the edges of the remaining image on film. Sure it might need the inevitable fix-up, but as this sample demonstrates, the TV show was cleanly shot:

 

Author
Time
Post link

I think the thread is getting a little off track. There's a whole thread debating this contentious issue at the Home Theater Forum though.

Forum Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time
Post link

SilverWook said:

There's a whole thread debating this contentious issue at the Home Theater Forum though.

Come on, SilverWook! Where's the link?  :)

HTF is a nice place to talk about the weather.  [Stimulating rhetoric? The theater of noise is proof of our potential.]  But here at OTF we actually do something about it!

Author
Time
Post link

Not to derail the thread further, but I would imagine that most "old school" cinematographers shot like that. Personally, I shoot still photography with a 1930's Leica rangefinder, and the viewfinder on it is not what you will see on the finished frame. As a result, I always over-frame shots, knowing that I can crop it in the darkroom to the image that I really wanted. I would imagine that a lot of cinematographers who came over from still photography (a la Stanley Kubrick) knew and practiced these methods.

Author
Time
Post link

 

I am curious if whoever(AntcuFaalb?) is doing the LD capping would need a copy of the Japanese LD? I have it, and would like to help out any way I can.

Author
Time
Post link

THX11384EB said:

 

I am curious if whoever(AntcuFaalb?) is doing the LD capping would need a copy of the Japanese LD? I have it, and would like to help out any way I can.

Thanks. I appreciate the offer, but I've already purchased three copies of the US LD (for a proper two-out-of-three pass).

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
 (Edited)
Post link

Since I'm still waiting for my Panasonic LX-900 to return, I've decided to put together a different LD capturing setup.

Part 1: The LD Player

LD Player Requirements:
  1. Pure analog video output
  2. Minimal CLV smear
  3. Cheap!
  4. "Balanced" video noise density
  5. At least 420 lines of horizontal resolution and at least 46dB video SNR

The only LD player that I can afford (after all of the money I've spent on my Panasonic LX-900) which meets these requirements is the Pioneer CLD-1010. I've already acquired one and had it professionally calibrated and reconditioned by Kurtis Bahr.

Here's a blurb on it:

Ty Chamberlain said:

The CLD-1010 is a totally solid state player with a CCD Time Base Corrector. It also incorporates the same, superior analog video noise reduction circuitry that is contained in the LD-W1 and the Pioneer Elite LD-S1. The laser uses the Accu-Focus system, and achieves a .55 micron laser spot for 420 lines of resolution. In addition, the LaserRF amp is attached directly to the pickup, for RF-noise rejection. The player also incorporates Video Noise Coring, that eliminates video noise (snow) in dark parts of the picture. This helps tremendously with imperfectly pressed CLV/CAA Extended Play titles. One extra special aspect of the CLD-1010, and what sets it apart from all other Solid State LD players, either before or since, is its Laser Diode uses a RED laser of 6228 Angstroms. No other LD player or CD player with a Diode Laser has used a red laser. Red Lasers are VERY expensive and difficult to produce. But, they achieve an incredibly tight beam, and have excellent noise rejection. Plus, the red color of the laser makes most scratches and blemishes on the surface of the disc invisible to the photo diode system. Strangely, Pioneer never talked about this feature nor did they promote it.

Here's another quote from Ty:

disclord said:

I have a DVL-700 modded by MSB, an LD-1100, a CLD1010 and Sony Lasermax Pioneer LD-700 clone and none have CLV smear on my Sanyo Z3 projector, Toshiba LCD 1080p flat panel or my Sony 35 inch XBR Wega.

gumbyandpals on LDDb claims that the CLD-1010 exhibits a little CLV smear. Here's a quote from a PM from him on LDDb on that:

AntcuFaalb said:

Does your CLD-1010 exhibit any CLV Smear?

gumbyandpals said:

It does, but very minimal

About the same as the ld-s2 if you've seen that. Less than a Cld-95 or 97. Drastically less than a cld-d704.

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
 (Edited)
Post link

Part 2: The Comb Filter

An excellent comb filter is needed to split the luma and chroma of the Pioneer CLD-1010's "pure" composite video output. Unfortunately, the one that's included with my capture card of choice (see Part 3) is pretty bad.

I find 3D comb filter artifacts (e.g., checkerboarding on fast shot-changes and smearing) more objectionable than the composite video artifacts (e.g., cross-color) that a 3D comb filter is designed to remove from stationary frames. Frankly, I'd rather see rainbowing than smearing.

The last thing I'd want to do is introduce a temporal anomaly (e.g., smearing) that can't be fixed later. OTers who love 3D comb filters can always use a Leitch DPS-475/575 or tritical's TComb on the raws I'll be posting to Usenet.

Now, poita suggested the Extron YCS-100 and I agree with him that it's the best standalone 2D comb filter available: Adaptive 2D, 5-line; 10bpp processing; full chroma resolution; and a time base stabilizer to boot. Hell, it even manages to do a rather good job with the S&W Zone Plate which is really a better test of 3D comb filters than 2D ones.

Here's a hyperlink to the brochure: http://media.extron.com/download/files/brochure/ycs_100bro.pdf

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
Post link

[Reserved for Part 3: The Capture Card]

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
Post link

[Reserved for Part 4: Cables, etc.]

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
Post link

AntcuFaalb said:

[Part 1: The LD Player]

[Reserved for Part 2: The Comb Filter]

[Reserved for Part 3: The Capture Card]

[Reserved for Part 4: Cables, etc.]

Awesome -- lookin' forward to this!
Got all my monitors on ...

Author
Time
Post link

ww12345 said:

... "old school" cinematographers shot like that. ... I always over-frame shots, knowing that I can crop it in the darkroom to the image that I really wanted. ... a lot of cinematographers who came over from still photography (a la Stanley Kubrick) knew and practiced these methods.

George Lucas never had that background -- he began on motion pictures. What he framed was what he wanted (or the best he could get). Interesting that you mentioned Kubrick. I read where he was on the set of 2001: A Space Odyssey with a square camera viewfinder composing the shots for his cinematographer! How's that technique for a Cinerama extravaganza.  :)

 

THX11384EB said:

... the Japanese LD? I have it, and would like to help out any way I can.

Thanks! I don't have the project resources yet but I'll keep in mind anyone who would like to help -- which I imagine would be mostly in the extras now (that still would include comparisons to previous & contemporary versions).