Yes, hairy is correct about the audio. As for Empire and Jedi, I'm warming to the idea; I talk about it a bit on the Legacy site.
View the Restoration and join the discussion at StarWarsLegacy.com!
hairy_hen said:
The answer to this is 'all of the above', but the source must remain undisclosed.
HELL-o...!
Now, maybe it's just because I'm stupid but I don't understand what that means. Not that that's important. I guess I'll find out if (or when, hopefully) it ever gets a sanctioned release.
Lust-in-Phase, you're not stupid - he's saying that the audio source(s) for Legacy are all of them/multiple versions!
_Mike
View the Restoration and join the discussion at StarWarsLegacy.com!
Hello, Mike.
First of all, I have the utmost respect for what you're doing with the movie. It's amazing to see someone go into such ridiculous detail. You're probably the best hope we got when it comes to (maybe... one day) getting Star Wars looking as best it could possibly look, especially given your connections with Lucasfilm etc. Considering the time and effort (and expertise) you put into it I hope the end product is gonna satisfy at least yourself.
I've got a few questions.
On a scale of one to ten, how good would you say are the chances of your work ever to be seen publicly, of us seeing Legacy?
Also, assuming that Disney/Lucasfilm gets a hold of your work, pays you for it, and wants to release it... what exactly would they be selling it AS? From what I've gathered it's not exactly your goal to get "Legacy" as close as possible to the original version as released in 1977. Now I'm perfectly confident that whatever version you're turning out will be the best-looking version ever (and I myself couldn't care less about a longer or shorter corridor for example), but Disney sure couldn't sell it as the OUT that people are expecting.
Do you see it as a best-of-both-worlds version or is it more of a "Look what I can do with what I got, now do it better" situation? Apologies if you already addressed this. You've said that you're doing this mostly for yourself, but in the more recent posts it sounds like you're hoping to get in contact with Lucasfilm, so I'm curious as to what the marketing possibilities might be.
On a slightly unrelated note, would you happen to have seen the "Frames" books that were released a while ago? I don't own them myself so I'd be interested to know your take on the shots included. As much as I'd hope for them to be reference, I'm curious whether the coloring could be as off as it is on the Blu-ray. Oh well, it's an entirely different medium, so I suppose the shots were enhanced to look good on paper.
Can't answer your other questions but as far as I know, in the "Frames" books, the shots are taken directly from the Blu-Ray masters.
Tolvo, I am not answering for Mike, but my opinion is that this is the best representation of the first movie of the original trilogy that will be available. In my opinion it is a restoration and some of the restoration requires a lot of work to "recreate" the original because parts of it were lost like in the scroll at the beginning, but it still is the same as the original with the end product. Mike hasn't added anything new. Some of it just looks better than ever before. So, in summary, this is the OUT (first movie only at this point) in the best form it will ever probably look in my opinion.
My goal is absolutely to get it as close to the 1977 version as possible, with two caveats: 1) There is no such thing "THE 1977 version" and 2) I can only do the best with what I have.
To point 1, no two prints look alike (not even two prints struck the same day from the negative), there is no consistency among home releases and the original elements no longer serve as any kind of reference source. So THE look of the original 1977 defies any absolute definition. I make my color and exposure choices based - as anyone has to, now - on best guesses, but those guesses are exhaustively researched, revised, and guided by decades of familiarity with the aesthetic.
To point 2: I am not looking to improve the film, add things, or revise shots. There are two ways this becomes hard to stick to - one is when it comes to certain types of damage on the film. Very rarely can I say with absolute certainty that a particular piece of damage is "original negative damage." Say it's one of those white spots we see in some shots, one that shows up on every print that's ever been struck (that we've SEEN). Should that be preserved? Even then, I can't say that white spot was on the original negative as it first came out of the camera after shooting. And if it wasn't, then it's not original negative, it's damage/dirt/dust. Even if it happened on the way from the camera mag to the developer, it's not original negative. It was shit floating in the air. And finding some clear definition for where in the process shit on the negative is good shit and where it's bad shit becomes random and insane and arbitrary. What, one hour after filming is good shit, but if it showed up two days later while striking IP's it's bad shit? It's impossible to say, I mean literally impossible. So in this case, I've decided to follow my own definition, which asks the question: Is it IN the scene, or ON the scene? If it's on the scene (physically on the emulsion of the negative), then it goes. Nuked from orbit; the only way to be sure. If it's something that's IN the scene (a crewmember in the shot) it stays. It is, technically, much more likely that any true definition of THE 1977 version - the one on the original negative as it came out of the camera - is much closer to my cleaned up version than not.
The other way it's hard to stick to this principle stems from the fact that I am attempting to compensate for working from prints. Prints are not the negative. They lose information in the generational copy. Even Tech IB, which is MUCH closer to the original negative than normal prints, is still not representative of the negative either. To compensate for this, I pull data from multiple prints, and from adjacent frames, in an attempt to build up new complete frames with all the data originally lost in the dupe. Sometimes this process inadvertently improves some elements of a shot - for example, stabilizes some elements or improves flicker. In the former's case, we know for sure the shot has been improved, in the latter case, we're not so sure - these are old prints, after all; perhaps the flicker is print-based. Wherever possible, I try to mitigate any accidental improving of elements which are byproducts of my process. In truth, it's a small percentage, and I've decided they're acceptable compromises compared to the extreme gain in quality. So in this case, in pursuit of the negative, we take 100 steps forward, 1 step back. I already do my damndest to mitigate this. What I can't, I live with.
But in the final analysis, I feel that my version can absolutely be said, with clear conscience, to be representative of "the" 1977 version, and not a revision, whereas the SE sure as shit cannot.
View the Restoration and join the discussion at StarWarsLegacy.com!
In the scene vs on the scene is probably the best reasonable definition anybody can come up with for what should be repaired or not. I have no sentimental attachment to dirt or scratches, regardless of what stage of the production they were introduced, so I agree things like that can be safely excised without any harm to the aesthetic of the film, as long as real detail is used to repair the damage rather than the temporal blurring of DNR.
My audio engineering mentor has a philosophy about mistakes in a production, which I think applies to this kind of thing too. There are three options—you can either: 1) get rid of it, 2) ignore it, or 3) embrace it. A truck driving by got in the microphone during the take with the singer's best performance? High-pass filter out the rumble. The filter is making the singer's voice sound too thin? Dial it back to only get rid of the lowest frequencies. Now you can hear the midrange of the truck but not the bass, and it just sounds plain weird? Try some different EQ to see if you can bring it down a bit. Still can't do it without destroying the singer's voice? Turn off the filters and just get used to it being there. Nobody else can hear it but you? Maybe it wasn't much of a problem after all. The truck noise is getting into the reverb send on the vocals and making this neat effect in a key part of the song that wouldn't have been there otherwise? Go with it and maybe even find a way to emphasize it a little more to make it sound even cooler.
Sometimes the little idiosyncrasies of an artistic work can add up to create a whole that was unintended but awesome all the same. Even the mistakes can turn out to contribute to the overall effect. You have to decide whether something like that is enough of a problem to warrant fixing, and also consider whether the result is truly better for being fixed or if the solution does more harm than the original problem. Maybe there was a worse flaw hiding underneath, and by re-compositing or painting over something you've exposed the problem that was previously covered up. Putting a microscope on any work is going to find all kinds of things that aren't perfect, and it's easy to go down rabbit holes trying to fix them. Determine what makes the vibe of the work, and do your utmost to preserve that without getting in the way of things that are important. Don't put yourself above the work in importance—avoid getting caught up in 'improving' things, but figure out how to present it in its best possible light. That's the best anybody can do, and with the proper dedication and tools it should turn out just fine.
Well said hairy_hen.
:)
hairy_hen said:
They were probably commissioned to do work for the planned 3D theatrical screenings, and then when that project fell through, the work was scrapped before completion. They could well have had it up on their website just to show that it was something they had done, but weren't expecting people to latch on to it as an indicator about a new release.
That's certainly a possibility.
This signature uses Markdown syntax, which makes it easy to add formatting like italics, bold, and lists:
So, when can we expect that beer rain we learned about on the previous page? Because I can't think of anything that would go better with burger rain than beer rain.
TV's Frink said:
So, when can we expect that beer rain we learned about on the previous page? Because I can't think of anything that would go better with burger rain than beer rain.
French fry rain.
hairy_hen said:
...Try some different EQ to see if you can bring it down a bit. Still can't do it without destroying the singer's voice? Turn off the filters and just get used to it being there. Nobody else can hear it but you? Maybe it wasn't much of a problem after all. The truck noise is getting into the reverb send on the vocals and making this neat effect in a key part of the song that wouldn't have been there otherwise? Go with it and maybe even find a way to emphasize it a little more to make it sound even cooler.
Sometimes the little idiosyncrasies of an artistic work can add up to create a whole that was unintended but awesome all the same. Even the mistakes can turn out to contribute to the overall effect. You have to decide whether something like that is enough of a problem to warrant fixing,...
Very well spoken.
Thats exactly the inspirational talk I"m looking for.
So far I love mvertas project for exactly those inspirational things. Doesn't matter if I can never watch his restorations, but the social commentary sure inspires me a shitload! :-)
Love your videos Mike. But you don't have to be apologetic about complaining about the BDs. I think those are the best ones, very informatic, great comparison and also shows to any non-believers what's really going on. Hopefully we can expect more of them in the future in addition to the "regular" videos.
And in the time of greatest despair, there shall come a savior, and he shall be known as the Son of the Suns.
Good Lord, what astounding work!!
I haven't had the time to read through 61 pages, so forgive me if this has already been said, but hearing that this project may end up in the hands of Lucasfilm, Fox or Disney scares me.
I understand that you have done an unimaginable amount of work and on the bright side of things would hope that this eventually becomes available to all through the massive distribution power of the Disney/Lucas/Fox networks. But I'd have to say that I would be more concerned that...
a) Lucas made Disney sign off on an agreement that they would never distribute the 'unfinished' theatrical releases - speculation but he made no bones about this issue over the years.
b) The quality of this work suffers when they try and deliver it through horrible compression techniques to blurt it out via their digital distribution channels.
of course there is also the bright bright hope in the future where they take Mike's amazing work and put him in charge of leading a team of technicians to complete this standard of work on the whole OT.
Again sorry if this has already been said somewhere in this massive thread.
mverta said:
Very rarely can I say with absolute certainty that a particular piece of damage is "original negative damage." Say it's one of those white spots we see in some shots, one that shows up on every print that's ever been struck (that we've SEEN). Should that be preserved? Even then, I can't say that white spot was on the original negative as it first came out of the camera after shooting. And if it wasn't, then it's not original negative, it's damage/dirt/dust. Even if it happened on the way from the camera mag to the developer, it's not original negative. It was shit floating in the air. And finding some clear definition for where in the process shit on the negative is good shit and where it's bad shit becomes random and insane and arbitrary. What, one hour after filming is good shit, but if it showed up two days later while striking IP's it's bad shit? It's impossible to say, I mean literally impossible. So in this case, I've decided to follow my own definition, which asks the question: Is it IN the scene, or ON the scene? If it's on the scene (physically on the emulsion of the negative), then it goes. Nuked from orbit; the only way to be sure. If it's something that's IN the scene (a crewmember in the shot) it stays.
Very well said, I like your philosophy on this.
By the way, will this be released to the public? The videos really got me interested.
Darth Id on ‘Why “Ben”?’:
And while we’re at it, we need to figure out why they kept calling Mark Hamill’s character “Luke Skywalker,” since it’s my subjective opinion that his name is actually Schnarzle Shnuzzle. It just doesn’t make sense!
Damn you George Lucas for never explaining why they all keep calling Schnarzle “Luke”!
Damn You!!!
@griffindodd - The so-called "destroy order" is real and confirmed. It's not Disney, it's Fox which is legally obligated to destroy any obtained prints of the original version. As for distribution, that pipeline is always in flux; technologies improve. Best to have it at least ready.
@Intruder - having been warned specifically against releasing this publicly, it will be offered up the chain when the time comes. Life is crazy, think positive and don't worry. Trust me.
_Mike
View the Restoration and join the discussion at StarWarsLegacy.com!
mverta said:
@griffindodd - The so-called "destroy order" is real and confirmed. It's not Disney, it's Fox which is legally obligated to destroy any obtained prints of the original version. As for distribution, that pipeline is always in flux; technologies improve. Best to have it at least ready.
_Mike
Thanks for confirming this, I learn something new every day. So that being said and as Fox owns exclusive rights to A New Hope (I think this is true) where does that leave your options/plans for a release? Or is this all too far out to even comment on for now?
Obviously this concern has a root in my own fears of 'OMG I may never get to own this work' so I'd be lying if I pretended that wasn't part of my interest.
It makes me feel like....
Ok, so fox has these obligations legally. But aren't those obligations due to lucasfilm? Could disney/kathleen kennedy/somebody with lucasfiln not make a new deal with fox nullifying the previous obligations to never release and in fact destroy copies of the original version?
I have no idea, I assume any agreement can be amended if both parties agree to it.
View the Restoration and join the discussion at StarWarsLegacy.com!
Which there's no reason for them not to. Basically guaranteed profit. Plus your restoration is so good, there's pretty much a guarantes that they will never have to do another restoration again.
Whoa, I had no idea there was another 35mm preservation going on besides Team Negative 1's. Goodness there's a lot to look forward to.
DavidMerrick said:
Whoa, I had no idea there was another 35mm preservation going on besides Team Negative 1's. Goodness there's a lot to look forward to.
"There is another."
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
Mike, do you think there's a chance they would acquire your project just so they could bury it?