logo Sign In

Post #755507

Author
TV's Frink
Parent topic
Harmy's STAR WARS Despecialized Edition HD - V2.7 - MKV (Released)
Link to post in topic
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/755507/action/topic#755507
Date created
28-Feb-2015, 11:09 AM

BuddhaMaster said:

May I be very rude.

BuddhaMaster said:

Nocturnaloner said:

Harmy knows a lot about color grading, and a lot about every single shot of Star Wars.  Although it may give you some satisfaction to try to point out the shortcomings of his efforts at some length, I don't think it's necessary.  He knows them very well.

Of course. He probably knows a million more things than I do and is an absolute expert. That considered, it's even harder to believe why this exact shot looks so totally off with the whole movie.

I know the goal restoration is to restore everything with even their faults, Star Wars is an old movie full of flaws (and charme). May I know where Harmy did his sandcrawler shot reference from?

To be truthful, it looks like the correction was based on an old photograph, taken itself by a bad scan. That is not necessarily to be reference material.

BuddhaMaster said:

Danfun128 said:

http://savestarwars.com/technicoloribscreening.html

As far as I know, no member of this community has that print though.

 

The sandcrawler scene in harmy's release does match up a lot with the Senator Print. I've seen those pictures several times and never get away the feeling that does pictures itself are a) a proper reference b) way too overbright. A lot of detail seems lost in the bright levels and it looks wrong to me.

The sandcrawler scene matches nicely up to the look of those. Don't tell me thats what SW is supposed to look.

Those "scans" of a original print simply look like someone turned a light-bulb on 200% and thats wrong. I strongly even prefer the look of muted GOUT

I'm trying to say the picture is result of the screening, not the image-source itself. The resulting look will be caused by the equipment used. But a digital projector (monitor, screen) is not a canvas. So making it to look like canvas is wrong in the beginning.

Harmy is supposed to "match" the I.B. print. But not "literally".

 

BuddhaMaster said:

Yeah but hear. The picture is obviously a top-reference and the way to go, but don't actually "literally" match the photos taken by those screenings right?

Your version is supposed to look like the reference material that print is, not how it will look when screened on canvas

 

BuddhaMaster said:

Harmy. Which sources did you use for the sandcrawler scene?

BuddhaMaster said:

I'm not trying to prove anything

I know, you will just completely take me as offensive ;)