Info Wanted: Best source for the Mos Eisley speeder pass-by shot? — Page 2

That's different, that's just blown out whites. I think it's the scan that's fuzzy here, not the print, I've seen different scans of this shot from two different 35mm prints and it looks way sharper and more detailed than the GOUT. This may be soft and have a flat smeared look because of compression though, it looks like it's from a heavily compressed file.

Yeah, that's just lots of JPG compression.

Laserschwert said:

Man, I'd love to get my hands on the raw capture of that shot and the fly-by... cleaning up the JSC fly-by for Harmy's version was a challenge, but it might be a bit easier with a higher res source.

Well, the thing is...if/when this project gets released, Harmy won't need to despecialize the Special Edition anymore ;)

My apologies for ever doubting you negative 1.

Obviously you have been a man of your word. Well done.

Here's  the latest version of the flyby shot from DeEd v2.0:

http://uloz.to/xzMDjDE/flyby-deed-v2-0-mp4

Laserschwert said:

Asaki said:

Yeah, that's just lots of JPG compression.

 

Laserschwert said:

Man, I'd love to get my hands on the raw capture of that shot and the fly-by... cleaning up the JSC fly-by for Harmy's version was a challenge, but it might be a bit easier with a higher res source.

Well, the thing is...if/when this project gets released, Harmy won't need to despecialize the Special Edition anymore ;) 

 

There's a lot more left to be done once the 35mm stuff is all captured... thus, for now I only would like to have those two shots, which were two of the biggest SE victims ;)

check your pm... same for Harmy..

later

-1

again, a few more samples ..

still working on it...

-------------------

later

-1

here's a better comparison of the shots

gout on the top, frame below:

in our shots, the lighting might be off,

there's a lot of grain, and there is no

color correction...

---------------------------------------------------

later

-1

-1 wasn't the whole point of the blog so that this kind of stuff would be privatized and it could not be traced back to you?  Your posting all sorts of images recently goes against your previous habit of deleting ALL YOUR POSTS.

negative1 said:

here's a better comparison of the shots

gout on the top, frame below:

 

in our shots, the lighting might be off,

there's a lot of grain, and there is no

color correction...

---------------------------------------------------

 

These shots look so terrible on film because they were comp'd too many times resulting in an increased graininess and a much softer picture. Hence why they look super bad when Lucas wanted them smoothed over in the 90's to match surrounding shots better. For the special edition I *believe* they went back to the original film elements before being comp'd and did it digitally. A long story short; I don't think this shot needs to or even should look too much better, the fact that you've got it pretty much how it originally looked is great I think!

BTW if you wanted to post a clip or two some time I'd love to have a play with it in AVS and see what could be done with it. :)

bkev said:

-1 wasn't the whole point of the blog so that this kind of stuff would be privatized and it could not be traced back to you?  Your posting all sorts of images recently goes against your previous habit of deleting ALL YOUR POSTS.

 there are tons of scans of frames.

it's not really an issue.

if people need references. like moth3r requested this.

here it is.

later

-1

Imperial Slug said:

I'm surprised how much more information there is on the sides of the 35mm scan compared to the GOUT shots. Just when you thought you've seen all there is to see of Star Wars...

you lose 5%-15% or more, due to the cropping in the theater.

and also due to the cropping for home versions.

viewing at home, and in the theater is very different.

there's a whole thread of cropping and images here:

=====================================

http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Cropping-the-Original-Trilogy-35mm-vs-dvd-gout/topic/13945/

=======================================

this is the standard practice.

about overscan:

----------------

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overscan

--------------------------------------------------

----

There is no hard technical specification for overscan amounts for the low definition formats. Some say 5%, some say 10%, and the figure can be doubled for title safe, which needs more margin compared to action safe. The overscan amounts are specified for the high definition formats as specified above.

Different video and broadcast television systems require differing amounts of overscan. Most figures serve as recommendations or typical summaries, as the nature of overscan is to overcome a variable limitation in older technologies such as cathode ray tubes.

However the European Broadcasting Unionhas safe area recommendations regarding Television Production for 16:9 Widescreen.^[7]

The official BBC suggestions^[8] actually say 3.5% / 5% per side (see p21, p19). The following is a summary:

---------

and for movies:

==============

2.39:1

For a correct presentation, the area within the red rectangle (projector aperture of 0.825" by 0.690") is projected with a 2x horizontal unsqueeze onto a 2.39:1 sized screen.

Examples: Star Wars, October Sky.

by the way, good resources about projecting:

-----------

1

http://hsvmovies.com/static_subpages/formats/anamorphic_format.html

2

http://hsvmovies.com/static_subpages/formats/aspect.html

3

http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/lbx.htm

later

-1

The GOUTKILLER strikes again!!

TServo2049 said:

What's with the black area on the upper right corner of the first frame? Surely that's not what the actual frame looks like, it's covering picture information that shows up in the GOUT.

yeah, don't worry about that.

these are just test shots, taken with

a camera that didn't have manual focus,

and we were doing quick captures..

we'll have much better scans and shots

a little bit later on. again these are just

reference shots to show the colors of the scenes.

not the quality or detail, which will be higher of course.

also, note in the later shots, a lot of those

areas are cropped off. i'll post that comparison

next.

later

-1

the ratio of gout vs 35mm

is about 10%-15% cropped from these frames:

==================================

http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Cropping-the-Original-Trilogy-35mm-vs-dvd-gout/post/568604/#TopicPost568604

samples:

--------

later

-1