logo Sign In

team negative1 - star wars 1977 - 35mm theatrical version (Released) — Page 73

Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link

Harmy had one, but I don't know how to search for it. In short, 35mm prints are copies of copies of copies. Each copy creates degreadation in the form of additional film grain. This grain eats up fine detail with each generation. The bluray, on the other hand, is directly from the film negative. So while its colors might be messed up, you can see the actors' pores, each individial hairs etc. The 35mm prints don't have all of this detail. Yes, they were meant to be shown on big screens, but they weren't meant to be pixel peeped. 

What’s the internal temperature of a TaunTaun? Luke warm.

Author
Time
Post link

It actually hadn't occurred to me that the loss of detail was due to added grain. Interesting.

If theatre prints are copies of copies, etc., what's the intermediary? Interpositive?

Author
Time
Post link

Mavimao said:

Harmy had one, but I don't know how to search for it. In short, 35mm prints are copies of copies of copies. Each copy creates degreadation in the form of additional film grain. This grain eats up fine detail with each generation. The bluray, on the other hand, is directly from the film negative. So while its colors might be messed up, you can see the actors' pores, each individial hairs etc. The 35mm prints don't have all of this detail. Yes, there were meant to be shown on big screens, but they weren't meant to be pixel peeped. 

 I'd like to hear your thoughts on this.

Now obviously Legacy is working with the combined information of a number of different scans stacked onto each other. But it still is all based on various later generation prints.

The blu-ray which is supposed to be based from the negative is just awful in comparison.

Forum Moderator
Author
Time
Post link

That's right, all the comments about the Bluray having the most detail is correct.

No amount of interpolating or using multiple sources will put the detail back into it, despite the claims made.

On the other hand, for most cases the 1080p versions don't have more detail than the 720p on the Bluray as Harmy has shown.

We're never going to have that kind of detail from scans of prints.

Team Negative1

Author
Time
Post link

Whatever. Some of that negative detail would probably have been partially obscured by the grain the Blu Ray stripped away, and depending on your distance from the TV you might not even notice the difference. 

Author
Time
Post link

It's kind of sad how down you are on your own preservation at times. If you want a realistic yet hopeful idea of how good a print preservation can look, check out Criterion's Blu Ray of Solaris. The production credits don't specify if it was scanned at 2K or 4K but it looks excellent regardless.

Even if your work or Mike's work technically isn't on the same level as the original negative, keep in mind none of us really know how well the original negative looks, what with the official Blu Rays being 720p for all intents and purposes, DNRed, and kind of lifeless. You could very well have an amazing preservation when all is said and done--and with those pesky cue marks gotten rid of. ;)

Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link

Tobar said:

Mavimao said:

Harmy had one, but I don't know how to search for it. In short, 35mm prints are copies of copies of copies. Each copy creates degreadation in the form of additional film grain. This grain eats up fine detail with each generation. The bluray, on the other hand, is directly from the film negative. So while its colors might be messed up, you can see the actors' pores, each individial hairs etc. The 35mm prints don't have all of this detail. Yes, there were meant to be shown on big screens, but they weren't meant to be pixel peeped. 

 I'd like to hear your thoughts on this.

Now obviously Legacy is working with the combined information of a number of different scans stacked onto each other. But it still is all based on various later generation prints.

The blu-ray which is supposed to be based from the negative is just awful in comparison.

To answer that specifically, the comparison that Mike does in that video, of the detail visible in the door frame is really interesting, that detail level is not there in the LPP print for instance, but is there on the IB Tech prints. It shows how even the prints can hold certain details that are not on the BD.

In this case however, it isn't that they did a bad job, or that the detail wasn't on the neg, that detail is less than one pixel high @ 1080P, so to give the Bluray a break (although it has many, many issues) this detail would be basically impossible to portray at BD resolutions. You really need a 4K version to be able to see that level of detail. At 2K the horizontal 'stripes' are less than a pixel in width, so by necessity end up lost in the lack of resolution, especially once you add the compression of Bluray into the equation.

There are areas on the BD where these is detail lacking on the prints, and vice versa. I have been happy with stacking multiple prints to rescue some of that detail from the grain noise, but ultimately, some of that detail *was never meant to be seen*. Just because it is on the neg, doesn't mean it was intended to be in the final product. Grading is done specifically (at times) to hide detail that is on the OCN, so that you don't for instance, see a matte line, or to hide skin blemishes,  or to draw your eye to a particular part of frame etc.

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

Author
Time
Post link

Yeah, I mentioned in the Star Wars DE thread how some orange blotches could be seen on Mark Hamill and Harrison Ford's faces at times. Harmy said the actual discolouration was due to limitations of dealing with the official BD transfer, but those blotches are very clearly over-applied makeup. Filmmakers in 1977 weren't anticipating a future of Blu Rays and 4K, so some of these details weren't meant to be seen.

As I'm typing this I'm feeling even better about these restorations.

Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link

We are very happy with our restoration of the movie. And the quality of it will be better than the other current ones out there.

However, we have to be realists. People that see Harmy's version, and the Bluray will be seeing a lot more detail.

The movie NEVER looked like that in the theater.

The scope of our project is to approach that feeling of the original viewings, and that type of presentation.

With that in mind, that is why we are calling these 'Theatrical'. Anything more, or a different nature would be called something else.

Team Negative1

Author
Time
Post link

Well now we're getting into that murky, almost philosophical territory of what the movie's ideal presentation is supposed to be: what's on the negative or what's visible to an audience via a 35mm or 70mm blowup print. "The negative" seems the obvious answer, but as we've learned, depending on the film, some parts of the frame aren't even meant to be seen (i.e. theatrical cropping). That could extend to detail as well.

Author
Time
Post link

DavidMerrick said:

It actually hadn't occurred to me that the loss of detail was due to added grain. Interesting.

If theatre prints are copies of copies, etc., what's the intermediary? Interpositive?

 Here's the usual process: 

Original Camera negative (OCN) -> interpositive (color correction is done here) -> internegative -> release print. 

IB prints were apparently closer to the negative: 

OCN -> "Matrix" 3 strip film -> release print

This is why Mike Verta is using these prints for his own restoration. 

What’s the internal temperature of a TaunTaun? Luke warm.

Author
Time
Post link

DavidMerrick said:

Yeah, I mentioned in the Star Wars DE thread how some orange blotches could be seen on Mark Hamill and Harrison Ford's faces at times. Harmy said the actual discolouration was due to limitations of dealing with the official BD transfer, but those blotches are very clearly over-applied makeup. Filmmakers in 1977 weren't anticipating a future of Blu Rays and 4K, so some of these details weren't meant to be seen.

As I'm typing this I'm feeling even better about these restorations.

 There were similar problems with other restorations using the OCN: with The Wizard of Oz, the wires that were propping up the lion's tail were visible and they had to digitally erase them. The same issue came up with The Godfather Part 2 where the wires for the squibs were visible in the scene when Fanucci is killed by Vito.

What’s the internal temperature of a TaunTaun? Luke warm.

Author
Time
Post link

Given that Harmy was able to seamlessly blend 35mm scanned footage with the Bluray footage in his TESB v2.0, I'd say that (with the right tools and skills) enough detail can be pulled from these preservations to easily give the Bluray a run for its money.

George creates Star Wars.
Star Wars creates fans.
George destroys Star Wars.
Fans destroy George.
Fans create Star Wars.

Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link

It's not exactly seamless, but very close. If you know what to watch for, you can tell right away what footage is what.

It is not possible to match the Blurays detail, period. Observation has show that.

Also, remember these are all 720p versions, there might be some more differences depending on the scenes above that.

Team Negative1

Author
Time
Post link

Ok, so it hasn't got as much detail as the blu rays. I'm fine with that. It'll probably still look MILES better than anything that has ever been released before. And that is something that makes me VERY excited. It is unprecedented what you guys are doing and I can't wait until the final release. (but do take all the time you need, though)

Thanks,

Laszlo

Author
Time
Post link

As much as we'd like to match the quality and detail of newer releases, we would rather be happier with a much more authentic, and closer match to the theatrical version, despite lower detail.

I think all the preview clips convey a feeling that is much closer to that in our opinion, than any released version since the Laserdiscs of the originals came out.

Those were the peak of audio and video quality at the time. We still remember the deluxe boxsets and all the care that those versions had when they came out.

We hope you get that feeling also, of stepping back into that original era of when the movie came out.

Team Negative1

Author
Time
Post link

Has anybody considered an attempt to combine the 2004 HDTV, 2011 Blu-ray and Team -1 35mm once the ladder is fully released? I'm pretty sure each source has ups and downs, but shouldn't we try to get the most detailed picture possible?

Nobody sang The Bunny Song in years…

Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link

Maybe there is some way to combine them. But why? The Bluray already has the most detail overall.

Maybe someone can run the Diff tool on the current ones to check.

Team Negative1

Author
Time
Post link

While the blu-ray may technically have more detail, this restored 35mm version will blow the doors off it in every other way (natural filmic appearance, infinitely superior rich accurate colors, absence of needless digital artifacting, etc.) to such an extent that any advantage the blu-ray might have in that one area will be irrelevant.

The Star Wars trilogy. There can be only one.

Author
Time
Post link

Dunedain said:

While the blu-ray may technically have more detail, this restored 35mm version will blow the doors off it in every other way (natural filmic appearance, infinitely superior rich accurate colors, absence of needless digital artifacting, etc.) to such an extent that any advantage the blu-ray might have in that one area will be irrelevant.

 exactly.