
- Time
- Post link
Jeesus, are they really creating a 2015 special special special special edition?
Jeesus, are they really creating a 2015 special special special special edition?
Ah yes, you may be right. And generally speaking, I haven't recruited copied elements, no. It's mostly not necessary because of the law of diminishing returns. That is, after a vertical stack, it's usually as beefed up as you can see.
View the Restoration and join the discussion at StarWarsLegacy.com!
mverta said:
All of that is either conspicuously deliberate or good evidence it's not only Special Edition, but a Special-er Edition.
That's disheartening.
But it's been really excellent getting to see all these samples of your work lately. Thanks!
No, I think he's right that it's the second, recycled shot.
View the Restoration and join the discussion at StarWarsLegacy.com!
Oh! Missed that. There's still hope!
The hope is people like mverta, Harmy and the -1 team...
(IMO anyway)
"Right now the coffees are doing their final work." (Airi, Masked Rider Den-o episode 1)
mverta said:
Much better, the painted foliage or moss near the ground of the temple looked off in your video sample. That screenshot looks perfect in my opinion. Interesting to hear it's one of Ellenshaw's favorites. Another one of those shots revised during the original theatrical run, wonder if Ellenshaw have a story to tell regarding that, if he's even aware of it.
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 agree, it looks great!
Except maybe that rock (?) on the right. It looks superimposed and the shadows don't seem as dark as the shadows in the rest of the shot.
Maybe it was always like this though?
ray_afraid said:
^I agree, it looks great!
Except maybe that rock (?) on the right. It looks superimposed and the shadows don't seem as dark as the shadows in the rest of the shot.
Maybe it was always like this though?
I think it always looks pretty bad.
Honestly, the least noticeable the rock has been was in Mike's raw scan, pre-cleanup, for the reasons he mentioned. The different elements appear to be (falsely) more in unison when the dirt, grain, and shake is consistent across them.
Really can see the empty hanger they filmed it in front of now:
http://www.bedfordshire-news.co.uk/Star-Wars-Harrison-Ford-Carrie-Fisher-Luke-Hamill-space-38-years-filming-Cardington-Sheds/story-21725256-detail/story.html
Looks like the rock is there to cover the VW Bus!
Star Wars Revisited Wordpress
Star Wars Visual Comparisons WordPress
Yeah, internally it's not a great composite... honestly it's amazing this process works at all given how variable the filmed part of it can be during the production of the composite.
View the Restoration and join the discussion at StarWarsLegacy.com!
doubleofive said:
Really can see the empty hanger they filmed it in front of now:
http://www.bedfordshire-news.co.uk/Star-Wars-Harrison-Ford-Carrie-Fisher-Luke-Hamill-space-38-years-filming-Cardington-Sheds/story-21725256-detail/story.html
Looks like the rock is there to cover the VW Bus!
"Luke Hamill". Lol! Bet he gets that a lot. :D
George creates Star Wars.
Star Wars creates fans.
George destroys Star Wars.
Fans destroy George.
Fans create Star Wars.
View the Restoration and join the discussion at StarWarsLegacy.com!
So regarding the camera work on that dive, in your opinion does that make for a more realistic shot than say the one used in the new teaser trailer for VII? I agree - I think it's kind of like CGI in general, that if it's not used to do something that "could" happen that your brain sort of discounts it as fake without you even knowing it...
Battle scene 23?
That scribbled plate, whatever it is, is an old friend, someone spotted him on the forum some time ago.
I was looking for diagrams of how an optical printer works, but so far I haven't found any.
I wonder if there was any place where a little sheet of acetate might have fallen, and it wasn't spotted because the writing was done with a weak marker. But it showed up in the picture because it shone trough the helmet's white.
It's obviously a different layer to the laser bolts, because it just stays there, stationary.
JEDIT: My mind was almost working there, it was Harmy that first spotted the marker scribbles:
ww12345 said:
So regarding the camera work on that dive, in your opinion does that make for a more realistic shot than say the one used in the new teaser trailer for VII? I agree - I think it's kind of like CGI in general, that if it's not used to do something that "could" happen that your brain sort of discounts it as fake without you even knowing it...
When I'm doing VFX work, I'm careful about the aggregate amount of non-real in a frame, which is more important than any one single element. For example, the entire idea of a spaceship flying and shooting lasers is "non-real" essentially, so I consider it important to have a lot of things in the camera motion and lighting and physics which are based in reality to help compensate for that. Too much and the entire thing becomes unreal, and cool as it may look, our brains absolutely disconnect from the experience. This is part of why our films today are insanely cool looking, and totally forgettable; it's why they need a new Avengers movie every year or whatever, whereas we're still trading in on Star Wars almost 40 years later. Your average frame of a sci-fi/action movie today is almost entirely artificial, from the CG environments and unbounded cameras to the impossible physics, and having every element color graded separately so they no longer interact with each other. The result is almost painterly and surreal, and usually fantastic looking, but also so utterly non-real that we're unavoidably detached from it. The human brain is the greatest bullshit detector in the universe when it comes to visual comparative analysis. We can't always tell what's wrong with an image, but after a lifetime of experiental, comparative data to weigh it against, we can feel it. And when that feeling is disconnected, you're not "in" the film, you're watching the film, and when you're not "in" the film, it doesn't stay with you.
View the Restoration and join the discussion at StarWarsLegacy.com!
doubleofive said:
Really can see the empty hanger they filmed it in front of now:
http://www.bedfordshire-news.co.uk/Star-Wars-Harrison-Ford-Carrie-Fisher-Luke-Hamill-space-38-years-filming-Cardington-Sheds/story-21725256-detail/story.html
Looks like the rock is there to cover the VW Bus!
LOL!
Before:
After:
I agree 100% - it's amazing the process works at all, it really is an art form. The thing I don't like about this painting, isn't the rock, it's the left wall that is recessed behind the vertical "door" that just looks so fake because there's no depth to it (it doesn't look like the wall is going back behind the door). And also for consistency the right-hand wall should be coming further forward. I guess this is the problem when a painting is done "in-place" and there's no time to go back and do another one to fix those things...
[ Scanning stuff since 2015 ]
The Batt 23 thing is fascinating. This is a composite shot, correct? Can it be that something was written on the same "layer" which was used for the green laser shot and the "compositor" (is that a word?) missed it?
By the way I've always wondered why that hanger door was so low, now I know.
[ Scanning stuff since 2015 ]
mverta said:
ww12345 said:
So regarding the camera work on that dive, in your opinion does that make for a more realistic shot than say the one used in the new teaser trailer for VII? I agree - I think it's kind of like CGI in general, that if it's not used to do something that "could" happen that your brain sort of discounts it as fake without you even knowing it...
When I'm doing VFX work, I'm careful about the aggregate amount of non-real in a frame, which is more important than any one single element. For example, the entire idea of a spaceship flying and shooting lasers is "non-real" essentially, so I consider it important to have a lot of things in the camera motion and lighting and physics which are based in reality to help compensate for that. Too much and the entire thing becomes unreal, and cool as it may look, our brains absolutely disconnect from the experience. This is part of why our films today are insanely cool looking, and totally forgettable; it's why they need a new Avengers movie every year or whatever, whereas we're still trading in on Star Wars almost 40 years later. Your average frame of a sci-fi/action movie today is almost entirely artificial, from the CG environments and unbounded cameras to the impossible physics, and having every element color graded separately so they no longer interact with each other. The result is almost painterly and surreal, and usually fantastic looking, but also so utterly non-real that we're unavoidably detached from it. The human brain is the greatest bullshit detector in the universe when it comes to visual comparative analysis. We can't always tell what's wrong with an image, but after a lifetime of experiental, comparative data to weigh it against, we can feel it. And when that feeling is disconnected, you're not "in" the film, you're watching the film, and when you're not "in" the film, it doesn't stay with you.
Good points. Think about all of the great "sci-fi" movies of the past: 2001, SW, Time Machine, etc. They all had an element of realism that allowed our brains to figure out what's real and what's not. I agree too, about the "bullshit detector" in our brains - I was watching a few movie trailers with my brother and he put on one of the new superhero film trailers. The combination of the subject matter, the camera angles, and the physics-defying all added up to make a film I couldn't deny was all fake. Contrast that with Star Wars, where the ships were foreign, but physics still worked the way it should and the camera moved pretty conventionally and my brain has come to accept that as close to reality. Anyway, I guess what I'm trying to say is I wish more VFX artists took your view and tried to make the images seem real, rather than showing what the newest, coolest computer could do.
RU.08 said:
The thing I don't like about this painting, isn't the rock, it's the left wall that is recessed behind the vertical "door" that just looks so fake because there's no depth to it (it doesn't look like the wall is going back behind the door). And also for consistency the right-hand wall should be coming further forward. I guess this is the problem when a painting is done "in-place" and there's no time to go back and do another one to fix those things...
Why does the wall on the left need to match the wall on the right? There's no need for symmetry there. Also, who said that was a door? I've always thought it was just a wall with a garage like door retracted underneath.
I don't see much problem with that part of the composite myself.
ray_afraid said:
^I agree, it looks great!
Except maybe that rock (?) on the right. It looks superimposed and the shadows don't seem as dark as the shadows in the rest of the shot.
Maybe it was always like this though?
Yeah, it's simply a bad comp. The matte painting never successfully matched the foreground elements.
Here's how Ellenshaw describe the shot in the making of: “I had done squares, almost Mayan-like. I put it together, showed it to George … and he sat there in dead silence, which means he doesn’t like something. Then he said, ‘Would it be possible to make it look more like Ralph’s?’ So I went back and repainted it to make it look exactly like Ralph’s painting. But when we put the painting with the plate of the men walking along the bottom of the frame, it didn’t quite come off as it should. So it was decided to add some foreground foliage that would move on bluescreen, and the whole thing ended up being put together on the optical printer: the VistaVision plate on the bottom, the painting, and then the foreground foliage. And that helped it.”
Still, no matte painting was ever made to stand up to our level of scrutiny. I think it worked the few seconds it was on screen.
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
Ah, based on that pic, I can see how the stepped wall on the right doesn't match the one on the left...
I never realized it was supposed to be a repeating structure.
But, it's still a great painting and a cool shot if ya ask me.
Whoa, I never knew that was supposed to be a circular building!