logo Sign In

team negative1 - star wars 1977 - 35mm theatrical version (Released) — Page 35

Author
Time
Post link

thorr said:

I respectfully disagree that they are soft.  If you ignore the "softness" of the movie, and look more closely at the fine details of the image, it is very sharp.  There is some print damage on the frame and you can see it clearly.  I don't think a 4K, 10K or whatever is going to get much more out of it.  It is what it is.

 

Remember that often a 2K or 4K scan includes the sprockets and soundtrack areas of the film so the final resolution can be considerably less.

Even on a print that won't resolve 4K, it is better to scan in 4K, it gives you finer control when stabilising footage etc. as you can adjust at a pixel level, so you get twice as fine an adjustment without having to resort to sub-pixel alignments which lose detail in the resampling process.

The same with repairing damage, the torn area of the film is resolved at twice the detail allowing any warps or movements of part of a frame to be done without resampling, or if you do have to resample you get a better result.

It is also easier to discern what is grain and what is dirt and other crud.

So there are advantages to scanning at a higher resolution even if the print isn't the sharpest.

Donations welcome: paypal.me/poit
bitcoin:13QDjXjt7w7BFiQc4Q7wpRGPtYKYchnm8x
Help get The Original Trilogy preserved!

Author
Time
Post link

I know Mike, he must have finally found the scope version he has been looking for for ages.

Donations welcome: paypal.me/poit
bitcoin:13QDjXjt7w7BFiQc4Q7wpRGPtYKYchnm8x
Help get The Original Trilogy preserved!

Author
Time
Post link

Yep, just what I was thinking.  :)

I've always had a kind of curiosity to hear what they would think of projects like this. Especially Mike - he is pretty adamant that film can't be surpassed by digital copies. 

Author
Time
Post link

ww12345 said:

...he is pretty adamant that film can't be surpassed by digital copies.

Maybe so, but not everyone can afford the luxury of having their own Star Wars trilogy on film...

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

Author
Time
Post link

Yeah, but his answer would just be to do without or find a friend that has it. He draws a hard line - I guess it's nice to have as deep of pockets as that...  :)

Author
Time
Post link

If you have a great 4K digital projector, you can scan the film and process the resultant scan and calibrate the digital projector so that it will be indistinguishable from the original print projected.

There is no question about that, I have had directors view side by side originals and scans and not be able to reliably tell the difference.

Shooting on digital is another thing altogether, I won't get into that :)

 

Donations welcome: paypal.me/poit
bitcoin:13QDjXjt7w7BFiQc4Q7wpRGPtYKYchnm8x
Help get The Original Trilogy preserved!

Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link

poita said:

Remember that often a 2K or 4K scan includes the sprockets and soundtrack areas of the film so the final resolution can be considerably less.

Makes sense, but I was saying that if the final resolution was 4K for the film area that remained in the final product, it is possible there would not be much if any appreciable difference with the additional resolution because there is only so much resolution to begin with.

 

Even on a print that won't resolve 4K, it is better to scan in 4K, it gives you finer control when stabilising footage etc. as you can adjust at a pixel level, so you get twice as fine an adjustment without having to resort to sub-pixel alignments which lose detail in the resampling process.

The same with repairing damage, the torn area of the film is resolved at twice the detail allowing any warps or movements of part of a frame to be done without resampling, or if you do have to resample you get a better result.

It is also easier to discern what is grain and what is dirt and other crud.

So there are advantages to scanning at a higher resolution even if the print isn't the sharpest.

Good thoughts, and I totally agree with all of the above.  My post was simply defending the sharpness of the sample image because I don't know that it would look much sharper at 4K scanning.  I know this first hand with the trailer I am working on.

Author
Time
Post link

Hello im pretty new here but i had a question to ask,i have seen -1 preview trailer and i was wondering if this is going to have some scenes not in the gout disk.The reason i say this is because i read on a post he or the team said they would put some  scenes back.But thats not all,i was looking at this video and i saw a scene that is about a second that i have never seen before at 3.02 from the empire strikes back here is the link.                                                                                        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kd5_WzYcH0

Author
Time
Post link

I don't know but the scene you refer to I think is in the movie, the sound heard in the background (Luke groaning) is not or the sound quality augmented it so that it sounds different. Or they added another sound for the trailer.

 

 

I have my own question following my previous poster:

I love this project and I've following it for about 3 weeks. I realize that this is a restauration of a original Technicolor print reel, from the original movie that was probably in the cinemas back then when the movie was released.

Did the original theatrical release, or does this Technicolor print contain any scenes or alternate takes that were NOT present in the first home entertainment release for this movie (VHS or 8mm prints).

 I see that George Lucas had a urge to change things spontaneously or post work. So do many other directors and there are many classic movies that were slightly different on their first theatrical release and on their first home entertainment release. When Empire Strikes Back came to cinemas nobody knew that Darth Vader is gonna say "I'm the father!".

Blade Runner is probably another good example and there are many more movies.

There are just a few bits and takes altered from it's original theatrical presentation.

I wanted to ask if this is true for Star Wars? I've never seen the original (really original!) theatrical.

Or was the first home release (VHS) an exact print of what was shown in the cinemas?

Can I expect to see ANY greater or minimalistic changes, like alternate timing, or sounds, alternate takes? That would be very interesting to know.

Author
Time
Post link

You would probably be interested in this thread for the theatrical visual changes in Star Wars:

http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Print-variations-in-77-Star-Wars/topic/14705/

In short, there were multiple extremely minor print variations in the theatrical version, probably due to a combination of last minute changes and poor version control, but AFAICT aside from the alternate crawl/flyover, home video releases were faithful to one of those versions, and the GOUT is moreso.

As for the audio changes, all three distinctly different theatrical soundtracks for Star Wars are well-preserved and you can listen to the alternate versions yourself.

As for the other movies, ESB of course had two totally different cuts, and we've only seen/heard the 35mm one on home video or preservations, and just a list of changes for the 70mm one from people's memories.  It's unclear to me if the 16mm mono soundtrack was the same one used for theatrical mono presentations, but if it was, there's another audio variant for you.  AFAICT nobody's spotted any differences in ROTJ presentations that would indicate home video got something different.

Oh, and this project isn't using a Technicolor print.

Project Threepio (Star Wars OOT subtitles)

Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link

BuddhaMaster said:


I have my own question following my previous poster:

I love this project and I've following it for about 3 weeks. I realize that this is a restauration of a original Technicolor print reel, from the original movie that was probably in the cinemas back then when the movie was released.

Did the original theatrical release, or does this Technicolor print contain any scenes or alternate takes that were NOT present in the first home entertainment release for this movie (VHS or 8mm prints).

 I see that George Lucas had a urge to change things spontaneously or post work. So do many other directors and there are many classic movies that were slightly different on their first theatrical release and on their first home entertainment release. When Empire Strikes Back came to cinemas nobody knew that Darth Vader is gonna say "I'm the father!".

Blade Runner is probably another good example and there are many more movies.

There are just a few bits and takes altered from it's original theatrical presentation.

I wanted to ask if this is true for Star Wars? I've never seen the original (really original!) theatrical.

Or was the first home release (VHS) an exact print of what was shown in the cinemas?

Can I expect to see ANY greater or minimalistic changes, like alternate timing, or sounds, alternate takes? That would be very interesting to know.

This project is using 35mm LPP prints, not Technicolor prints.

The theatrical prints did have some minor variations. These weren't changes made for the home video releases, but were actually minor differences between the various different prints in circulation in 1977. Some of these include:
* The composite of Yavin in ANH (cloudy vs. cloudless composite)
* The end credits of ANH (John Williams "tight" vs. "spaced" -- negative1 has the "spaced" version, same as all VHS versions)
* Many slight differences in the 70mm version of ESB (which is not what negative1 has)

Several audio variants of Star Wars exist. The mono mix (used on some theatrical prints and TV broadcasts) in particular has quite a few different audio takes and sound effects. The audio was also remixed several times for the various different home video versions.

The only major video difference you're likely to notice is the original title crawl of ANH compared to the later "A New Hope" crawl added in 1981, which was used on all VHS releases. I'm not sure which crawl the 8mm version has.

Something else you're likely to notice when compared to the various home video releases is the color timing, which was different for each home version of the movies.

What this boils down to is that the VHS versions were almost identical to the theatrically released versions. You aren't going to see any brand new scenes or even alternate takes in this release.

Author
Time
Post link

CatBus said:

AFAICT nobody's spotted any differences in ROTJ presentations that would indicate home video got something different.

But Return of the Puggo hasn't been released yet ;) I wouldn't be surprised if we had another incident like PSB's mono mix.

...in fact, I might actually be a little disappointed if it's just a boring stereo folddown =/

someperson said:

* Many slight differences in the 70mm version of ESB (which is not what negative1 has)

...or maybe they do have a 70mm and they just haven't told anyone yet ;)

They'd probably need all new equipment to capture it with, so they wouldn't want to get our hopes up.

 

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

Author
Time
Post link

That would be pretty sweet, but then 70mm is cropped to 2.20:1, so it wouldn't be ideal either.

Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link

CatBus said:

As for the audio changes, all three distinctly different theatrical soundtracks for Star Wars are well-preserved and you can listen to the alternate versions yourself.

I don't know if I would dare go as far as to say the 70mm six-track mix of Star Wars has been well-preserved (by Lucasfilm maybe). h_h's work is truly magnificent and I absolutely love it but you have to remember that it's still only a well made approximation of that mix, lots of guess work involved, especially in terms of the LFE-channel. I get what you mean but it's just that I see the words "preservation" and "restoration" tossed around so often around these parts...

CatBus said:

As for the other movies, ESB of course had two totally different cuts, and we've only seen/heard the 35mm one on home video or preservations, and just a list of changes for the 70mm one from people's memories.

There actually exist more than just a list of changes from people's memories. 8mm film sequences and even an 1980 in-theatre audio recording has surfaced. You should definitely check it out if you haven't, great stuff: http://www.wideanglecloseup.com/starwarsaudio.html

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

We mentioned earlier that we have been testing some rescans of certain scenes. Here are some examples, with the rescan being on top, and our current scan on the bottom.

No color correction was made. Also, there is some dirt on the right hand side. These are just test sequence frames.

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

http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/204/v8rp.th.jpg

http://img607.imageshack.us/img607/7176/hho4.th.jpg

http://img703.imageshack.us/img703/2650/wp78.th.jpg

http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/549/3y6h.th.jpg

http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/7776/sx86.th.jpg

 

http://www.imageshack.us/thumbnail.png

 

Team Negative1

Author
Time
Post link

OMG, guys, are we back to this? It looks like you compressed the 1080p video to 200Kbps and then took the screenshots. Samples like this are utterly pointless, because they don't show anything.

Author
Time
Post link

Agreed.  These look out of focus and compressed to shit and back.

Luke threw twice…maybe.

Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link

The change is really evident in 3P0, there's much more color there.  But the whole picture seems darker somehow.  Is it just more saturation?

Oh, and the video looks great!

Author
Time
Post link

I would like to see it a bit brighter, but other than that, I really like what I've seen, especially the colours!

Author
Time
Post link

Glad to see there's some rescanning going on, even if the samples above are crap.  I always thought your previous raw pictures from that reel looked pretty odd.

off-topic: am I the only person who seriously hates Imageshack?  Terrible, terrible interface.

A Goon in a Gaggle of 'em