Actually if you only know his website at http://starwarslegacy.com/archive/ the articles were written for a completely different project.
Actually if you only know his website at http://starwarslegacy.com/archive/ the articles were written for a completely different project.
Yes, now I realized that. That’s the URL in the subject of this thread so I thought one might have something to do with the other. 😃
“I want to watch Empire on my refrigerator’s LCD screen but listen to the Austrailan audio thru my USB phonograph setup and it worked on the other two movies” -yoda-sama
Actually if you only know his website at http://starwarslegacy.com/archive/ the articles were written for a completely different project.
Yes, now I realized that. That’s the URL in the subject of this thread so I thought one might have something to do with the other. 😃
Well, the forums over there are still relevant at least.
We can call it whatever we want. I call it an empty spot on my movie shelf that needs to be filled asap.
And an empty spot in my heart.
I personally define the terms by their semantic meaning -
Preservation - to preserve something is to make sure it stays in its current state - so scanning the film, not cleaning it and only correcting the colors to what is on the print is a preservation.Restoration - to restore is to return something to a previously existing state - in this case then it would mean to scan the print, color-correct it to original colors, if there’s fading, and clean any dirt and scratches that happened to the print itself.
Alternatively restoration could mean to use whatever sources to get to the quality of an earlier generation copy but not to get something that is better than the original copy when it was new - anything beyond that isn’t, at least semantically, a restoration any more, so from this point of view, Legacy is neither a preservation, nor a restoration - the closest term IMO is Remastering - creating a new master, which may well be better than the original master.
I think you are petty close on that. Remastering is what Lucas did with all the recomped effects shots that really don’t look much different, but subtle flaws are removed, such as the slightly transparent snow speeder cockpits. Mike is doing much the same thing except he doesn’t have the original components and is attempting to do it by isolating and fixing each component in the shot.
What Lucas did is not remastering, it’s revisionism.
We can call it whatever we want. I call it an empty spot on my movie shelf that needs to be filled asap.
I’ll go with this.
+1 But I compeletly respect what Mikes plan is and understand why the distribution of this won’t be like Depseiclaized.
And I still have no idea why anyone cares about it. If no one will ever see it then who cares what he does? #movealong
While it’s too bad we won’t get to see it, and I personally doubt the likelihood of Disney/Fox picking it up (but that’s just me), it’s still nice to see the project progress and maybe have a glimmer of hope that one day we’ll enjoy something like this.
Palpatine: Make the galaxy great again!
[…] Remastering is what Lucas did with all the recomped effects shots that really don’t look much different, but subtle flaws are removed, such as the slightly transparent snow speeder cockpits. Mike is doing much the same thing […]
As far as I understand from his videos, he didn’t touch the original special effects. His motto was “cleaning dirt and scratches, keeping what was on the negative”. He did fix color channel misalignments, though.
Anyway, I wonder if the fact we didn’t get any new update could be a good sign: he might’ve signed a deal with Disney/LF/Fox on Legacy, so right now he can’t further comment on his project with us.
The Original Trilogy’s Timeline Reconstruction: http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Implied-starting-date-of-the-Empire-from-OT-dialogue/post/786201/#TopicPost786201
John Doom said:
he might’ve signed a deal with Disney/LF/Fox on Legacy, so right now he can’t further comment on his project with us.
No way. Surely if this was the case we’d at least get a vague teaser or at worst a “no comment”
[…] Remastering is what Lucas did with all the recomped effects shots that really don’t look much different, but subtle flaws are removed, such as the slightly transparent snow speeder cockpits. Mike is doing much the same thing […]
As far as I understand from his videos, he didn’t touch the original special effects. His motto was “cleaning dirt and scratches, keeping what was on the negative”. He did fix color channel misalignments, though.
Anyway, I wonder if the fact we didn’t get any new update could be a good sign: he might’ve signed a deal with Disney/LF/Fox on Legacy, so right now he can’t further comment on his project with us.
He did fix some things like flickering that he believes were on the original negative, or something along those lines, in the shot right before “All Wings Report In”: https://vimeo.com/117582796
Palpatine: Make the galaxy great again!
Indeed, that’s one of his videos I was referring to, where he also mentions he’s corrected color channel misalignments.
The Original Trilogy’s Timeline Reconstruction: http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Implied-starting-date-of-the-Empire-from-OT-dialogue/post/786201/#TopicPost786201
Aren’t channel misalignments a product of the Technicolor IB print, not the photography, though? So fixing that shouldn’t be at all controversial. Though I must say I’m not offended by fixing flickering etc. that may have been a product of the original photography.
I would put this in my sig if I weren’t so lazy.
Aren’t channel misalignments a product of the Technicolor IB print, not the photography, though? So fixing that shouldn’t be at all controversial. Though I must say I’m not offended by fixing flickering etc. that may have been a product of the original photography.
I believe he mentioned the models were misaligned differently than the background plate, so in that case ut would be on the negative.
Aren’t channel misalignments a product of the Technicolor IB print, not the photography, though? So fixing that shouldn’t be at all controversial. Though I must say I’m not offended by fixing flickering etc. that may have been a product of the original photography.
I believe he mentioned the models were misaligned differently than the background plate, so in that case ut would be on the negative.
In that case some of it would be on the negative, but it’s impossible to tell which channel misalignment happened during compositing abd which happened as a result of the tech ib process, which is why he corrected all of it, just to be safe.
I am not sure why but I find all of this nitpicking entertaining, and I am happy to be a part of it. In my opinion, the best thing to do is to make it look as good as possible without changing what was originally intended. In other words, if there are color channel misalignments on the original negative, fix them. If there are scratches or burn marks, fix them. If there are matte lines, fix them. Fix any artifacts that are as a result of putting the movie together and something going screwy. Just don’t add, change or remove scenes like the SE’s did.
I would hate that so fucking much!
I would also add that it’s very likely all of that color channel misalignment could very well have happened on the separation masters, and as such, would be very unlikely to be on that ORIGINAL negative (as in the film that went through the camera) but would still be on every print because it would be on the dupe negative, so if the goal is to restore the original negative, then fixing EVERY instance of channel misalignment is the proper move.
I am not sure why but I find all of this nitpicking entertaining, and I am happy to be a part of it. In my opinion, the best thing to do is to make it look as good as possible without changing what was originally intended. In other words, if there are color channel misalignments on the original negative, fix them. If there are scratches or burn marks, fix them. If there are matte lines, fix them. Fix any artifacts that are as a result of putting the movie together and something going screwy. Just don’t add, change or remove scenes like the SE’s did.
Fixing channel misalignments, yes. Scratches and burn marks, yes. Matte lines, hell no.
Everything on the original negative, keep. Anything that happened as a result of duping the negative or creating various prints, fix.
Interesting! I guess everyone has different opinions on what is optimal.
I never noticed the matte lines when it was in the theater, but I was not looking for them. I do remember noticing Vader’s eyes showing through quite well, but don’t notice it as much with today’s digital versions. I think the brightness/color of the bulb might affect what was seen and to what degree. If the matte lines were always visible, I guess they could stay, but they weren’t intended to be seen. I would definitely keep Vader’s eyes being seen since removing them would be altering it. Matte lines are more debatable for me at least.
I would also add that it’s very likely all of that color channel misalignment could very well have happened on the separation masters, and as such, would be very unlikely to be on that ORIGINAL negative (as in the film that went through the camera) but would still be on every print because it would be on the dupe negative, so if the goal is to restore the original negative, then fixing EVERY instance of channel misalignment is the proper move.
Even compositing elements together wouldn’t cause color channel misalignment, so that’s either a result of improper combining of the color separation masters for the dupe negative, improper combining of the color stock for the IB Tech process, or in some cases, both. But in no instance should there be color channel misalignment on the original negative.
Not necessarily - these are composites, so the piece of film that is part of the original negative has already been through a printer and other processes and could very well have channel misalignment on it.
There is no way to have separate elements to be misaligned differently within one frame, unless it happened in compositing. Basically anything that requires digitally extracting and manipulating separate objects cannot possibly be returning it to the original negative.
Interesting! I guess everyone has different opinions on what is optimal.
Well to remove matte lines and such would be remastering, because you are taking those elements and recombining them in a way that is not what was originally done.
Matte lines are a result of the process used to create the film, so they should be kept.
Things like channel misalignment come from the process of creating prints from the already finished film, so fixing them is the correct move if your goal is to get back to what was on the negative.
I am not sure why but I find all of this nitpicking entertaining, and I am happy to be a part of it. In my opinion, the best thing to do is to make it look as good as possible without changing what was originally intended. In other words, if there are color channel misalignments on the original negative, fix them. If there are scratches or burn marks, fix them. If there are matte lines, fix them. Fix any artifacts that are as a result of putting the movie together and something going screwy. Just don’t add, change or remove scenes like the SE’s did.
Fixing channel misalignments, yes. Scratches and burn marks, yes. Matte lines, hell no.
Everything on the original negative, keep. Anything that happened as a result of duping the negative or creating various prints, fix.
Exactly this - anything beyond is revisionism. But like I said above - fixing channel missalignments yes, but only if it doesn’t require separating elements.
I edited my comment above with more thoughts and everyone is still posting, so I thought I would mention it lol. Maybe what I am thinking of as matte lines is something different than what they are. When I was scanning the SE trailer, the Millenium Falcon was flying away from the Deathstar and I saw lines around it. Is that a matte line?
Not necessarily - these are composites, so the piece of film that is part of the original negative has already been through a printer and other processes and could very well have channel misalignment on it.
There is no way to have separate elements to be misaligned differently within one frame, unless it happened in compositing. Basically anything that requires digitally extracting and manipulating separate objects cannot possibly be returning it to the original negative.
I wonder if it’s possible that they reconposited everything for the tech prints. It certainly seems to be a possibility because mike has talked about how the blue shadow on the text in the credits is different between tech prints, but the same across all other prints.
If that is the case, then the original negative used for Eastman prints wouldn’t have the misalignment, but the tech prints would.