Sign In

Best source for the Mos Eisley speeder pass-by shot

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Sort of a follow-up to this thread; what is the best source for the ~140 frames of the infamous Mos Eisley speeder pass-by shot?

This shot is one of the best examples from the GOUT DVD showing the detail loss as a result of DVNR smearing (upscaled to 720p):

Here's the same frame from the French THX laserdisc release - more detail is retained, but overall it still looks like shit:

Guidelines for post content and general behaviour: read announcement here

Max. allowable image sizes in signatures: reminder here

Author
Time
 (Edited)

I suspect this has no practical use for your project whatsoever but you might enjoy a comparison shot with the 82 FS LD while you wait on a more practical reply:

http://i43.tinypic.com/rjl94p.jpg

Author
Time

Perhaps a cleaned up Puggo? But I think negative 1 might trump all sources in the coming months....

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

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Mavimao said:

Perhaps a cleaned up Puggo? But I think negative 1 might trump all sources in the coming months....

yup, we hope so.

will definitely get back to you,

once we get around to it.

 

moth3r check your pm.

 

later

-1

[no GOUT in CED?-> GOUT CED]

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Moth3r said:

Sort of a follow-up to this thread; what is the best source for the ~140 frames of the infamous Mos Eisley speeder pass-by shot?

This shot is one of the best examples from the GOUT DVD showing the detail loss as a result of DVNR smearing (upscaled to 720p):

Here's the same frame from the French THX laserdisc release - more detail is retained, but overall it still looks like shit:

How's this:

DeEd v2.0:

 

Done using a cleaned up version of JSC (thanks to Laserschwert).

I'm actually considering graining it up a bit for the final version, since this clean, it seems inaccurate.

  • www.facebook.com/despecialized
  • IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE DESPECIALIZED EDITIONS, PLEASE READ THE FIRST POSTS OF THESE THREADS, WHICH HAVE UP-TO-DATE INFORMATION: SW, ESB, ROTJ, 97SE RE-ED
    IF YOU DON’T FIND WHAT YOU’RE LOOKING FOR THERE, TRY ASKING IN THE APPROPRIATE THREADS - MOST REGULAR POSTERS KNOW ALL THE ANSWERS AND SOMEONE WILL LIKELY BE ABLE TO HELP YOU.
    IF I GET A PM WITH A QUESTION, WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN ANSWERED THROUGH THESE MEANS, IT WILL BE IGNORED. SORRY BUT I AM NOT THE LOCAL INFO BOOTH. THANK YOU.
Author
Time

Moth3r said:

Sort of a follow-up to this thread; what is the best source for the ~140 frames of the infamous Mos Eisley speeder pass-by shot? 

If we're talking laserdisc, I would say it's either the SC

or SWE (Technidisc)

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

Author
Time

I've been wondering about this recently too.  Personally, I think the SWE has the edge over the JSC.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

The SWE seems to have more horizontal resolution than the JSC but less vertical. It's hard to decide what looks better. Also, I think the JSC seems to look worse because it's less contrasty, compare it with the DeEd, which uses the JSC but it's cleaned up and the colours are tweaked:

 

JSC

SWE

DeEd

 

  • www.facebook.com/despecialized
  • IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE DESPECIALIZED EDITIONS, PLEASE READ THE FIRST POSTS OF THESE THREADS, WHICH HAVE UP-TO-DATE INFORMATION: SW, ESB, ROTJ, 97SE RE-ED
    IF YOU DON’T FIND WHAT YOU’RE LOOKING FOR THERE, TRY ASKING IN THE APPROPRIATE THREADS - MOST REGULAR POSTERS KNOW ALL THE ANSWERS AND SOMEONE WILL LIKELY BE ABLE TO HELP YOU.
    IF I GET A PM WITH A QUESTION, WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN ANSWERED THROUGH THESE MEANS, IT WILL BE IGNORED. SORRY BUT I AM NOT THE LOCAL INFO BOOTH. THANK YOU.
Author
Time

SWE has more horizontal resolution?

JSC has more vertical resolution?

?Some one needs to make some software that can combine the to of them.

Author
Time

 

red5-626 said: Some one needs to make some software that can combine the to of them.

 

Yes, I was wondering if it would be possible to warp one to fit the other, but I was thinking about doing it to clean one up.

@Harmy

I see your point, and it is hard to decide, but I wonder what would the SWE would look like if you were to give it the same treatment as you gave the JSC.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Well, this shot always looked like crap, having just seen what this shot looks like on a well preserved IB print, it doesn't get much better that these DVNR-less LD captures.

  • www.facebook.com/despecialized
  • IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE DESPECIALIZED EDITIONS, PLEASE READ THE FIRST POSTS OF THESE THREADS, WHICH HAVE UP-TO-DATE INFORMATION: SW, ESB, ROTJ, 97SE RE-ED
    IF YOU DON’T FIND WHAT YOU’RE LOOKING FOR THERE, TRY ASKING IN THE APPROPRIATE THREADS - MOST REGULAR POSTERS KNOW ALL THE ANSWERS AND SOMEONE WILL LIKELY BE ABLE TO HELP YOU.
    IF I GET A PM WITH A QUESTION, WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN ANSWERED THROUGH THESE MEANS, IT WILL BE IGNORED. SORRY BUT I AM NOT THE LOCAL INFO BOOTH. THANK YOU.
Author
Time
 (Edited)

Might be one situation where a super-resolution filter might clean up the edges, even if it can't restore any real detail.

 

(Does a little research and realizes negative-1 has already been experimenting with the idea for general up-scaling. Oops! )

Author
Time

This shot should be grainy, clean it up, and you just make the effect stand out as even more fake, I can understand why Harmy needs to do it as it needs to fit the rest of his footage. Personally I think it's a little too clean, fine detail is gone along with a slightly flat and blurry quality, especially were the sky meets the buildings.

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

Author
Time

Well, yeah, it had to fit with the SE footage within the same shot. Like I said, I'm gonna add the grain back for the final version (though probably not as much).

  • www.facebook.com/despecialized
  • IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE DESPECIALIZED EDITIONS, PLEASE READ THE FIRST POSTS OF THESE THREADS, WHICH HAVE UP-TO-DATE INFORMATION: SW, ESB, ROTJ, 97SE RE-ED
    IF YOU DON’T FIND WHAT YOU’RE LOOKING FOR THERE, TRY ASKING IN THE APPROPRIATE THREADS - MOST REGULAR POSTERS KNOW ALL THE ANSWERS AND SOMEONE WILL LIKELY BE ABLE TO HELP YOU.
    IF I GET A PM WITH A QUESTION, WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN ANSWERED THROUGH THESE MEANS, IT WILL BE IGNORED. SORRY BUT I AM NOT THE LOCAL INFO BOOTH. THANK YOU.
Author
Time

Harmy said:

Well, yeah, it had to fit with the SE footage within the same shot. Like I said, I'm gonna add the grain back for the final version (though probably not as much).

 Oh, I see. I guess it also looks much better in motion.

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

Author
Time

Yeah, it does.

  • www.facebook.com/despecialized
  • IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE DESPECIALIZED EDITIONS, PLEASE READ THE FIRST POSTS OF THESE THREADS, WHICH HAVE UP-TO-DATE INFORMATION: SW, ESB, ROTJ, 97SE RE-ED
    IF YOU DON’T FIND WHAT YOU’RE LOOKING FOR THERE, TRY ASKING IN THE APPROPRIATE THREADS - MOST REGULAR POSTERS KNOW ALL THE ANSWERS AND SOMEONE WILL LIKELY BE ABLE TO HELP YOU.
    IF I GET A PM WITH A QUESTION, WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN ANSWERED THROUGH THESE MEANS, IT WILL BE IGNORED. SORRY BUT I AM NOT THE LOCAL INFO BOOTH. THANK YOU.
Author
Time

BTW if some are interested in specific smearfree scenes from the Technidisc, I can always upload them in lossless avi for you. But if you think the Special Collection is dirty you haven't seen this one. ;)

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

Author
Time

darnit, still getting to that shot..soon,

but here's a previous one... sample over

60 frames, every 10 frames..

-------

 


 

later

-1

 

[no GOUT in CED?-> GOUT CED]

Author
Time
sorry that should be in caps -   WOW!
Author
Time

-1 what type of denoising are you using or is the smooth look just a result of downscaling, would love to see one or two raw.

 

 

 

Author
Time

Thanks -1

Interesting to see how much more is visible in the 35mm compared to the GOUT even after cropping the rounded corners, right side should perhaps be cropped slightly more and it also depends on how much you can keep due to the overall condition of the print, it still looks a bit to smooth though probably due to rescaling/compression.

 

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Actually, the reason the 35mm looks "too smooth" to you compared to the GOUT is because the GOUT came from an interpositive. Even with the low resolution, the excessive grain, the clipped whites, the DVNR and the other problems with the GOUT, there is still some visible detail in it that was not in evidence on actual projection prints, due to the fact that there are at least two additional generations of duping between an IP and a print.

EDIT: What I just said is incorrect - listen to Harmy, not me.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Yeah, no.

A) We're talking high resolution here, a good 35mm theatrical print should have resolution equivalent to up to 1080p but at least 720p, so a non anamorphic SD telecine can not compete with it in terms of detail, even if it was telecined from the original negative.

B) The medium of capturing image on film is grain, so a print will never be less grainy (smoother) than an earlier generation source - it will have the grain of all the previous generations + another layer of grain of its own.

  • www.facebook.com/despecialized
  • IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE DESPECIALIZED EDITIONS, PLEASE READ THE FIRST POSTS OF THESE THREADS, WHICH HAVE UP-TO-DATE INFORMATION: SW, ESB, ROTJ, 97SE RE-ED
    IF YOU DON’T FIND WHAT YOU’RE LOOKING FOR THERE, TRY ASKING IN THE APPROPRIATE THREADS - MOST REGULAR POSTERS KNOW ALL THE ANSWERS AND SOMEONE WILL LIKELY BE ABLE TO HELP YOU.
    IF I GET A PM WITH A QUESTION, WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN ANSWERED THROUGH THESE MEANS, IT WILL BE IGNORED. SORRY BUT I AM NOT THE LOCAL INFO BOOTH. THANK YOU.