logo Sign In

Complete Comparison of Special Edition Visual Changes — Page 11

Author
Time
 (Edited)

 

Darth Mallwalker said:

Oh carp, here I've used GOUT 34139

For the visual cues to locate it, I've used red & blue indicator lamps on the panel.

At GOUT frame:
00688 - STAR WARS title card appears
34133 - only one red light beyond Ozzel's nose
34134 - 2nd red light turns on
34138 - blue light is clearly visible between nose & mustache
34139 - blue light is mostly obscured by mustache, barely seen - this is the frame shown below

I'm using DGIndex/AviSynth/VirtualDub combo to see the frame numbers

Hmm... weird, I guess I'll have to recheck my numbers then. ;)

Darth Mallwalker said:
How about those pan/scans 'eh ? They look more dotty than liney!
Was 5652-80 that way too?

I remember it looked more in line with the JSC, but I will check again and post it.

It's very interesting to see how much better the JSC transfer looks compared to its later US release. I always heard that was the case but this is actually the first time I've seen it for myself.

doubleofive said:

It looks to me that maybe its ALWAYS been dots, just bad laserdisc transfers before.

I agree, looks like it. Somehow the vertical lines are not that pronounced in the JSC transfer...

doubleofive said:
We seem to be eliminating a lot of these change/change backs. The only one that is obvious is the direction of the scanlines in the Conference, which still blows my mind.

...and I suspect that may also be the case with these holograms, if you look at them in motion there seems to be both vertical and horizontal ones in there, maybe Mallwalker's caps will prove it right or wrong.

Thanks for the trouble, Mallwalker. 

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

'92 US pan & scan LD (5652-80)

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
 (Edited)

Darth Mallwalker said:

Oh carp, here I've used GOUT 34139

For the visual cues to locate it, I've used red & blue indicator lamps on the panel.

At GOUT frame:
00688 - STAR WARS title card appears
34133 - only one red light beyond Ozzel's nose
34134 - 2nd red light turns on
34138 - blue light is clearly visible between nose & mustache
34139 - blue light is mostly obscured by mustache, barely seen - this is the frame shown below

I'm using DGIndex/AviSynth/VirtualDub combo to see the frame numbers

Not that it really matters but I did check my GOUT frame counts again and this is what I get in HCenc:

00688 - STAR WARS title card appears

34118 - only one red light beyond Ozzel's nose

34119 - 2nd red light turns on

34123 - blue light is clearly visible between nose & mustache

34124 - blue light is mostly obscured by mustache, barely seen

so why does it differ for you? or for me. ;)

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

msycamore said:

Not that it really matters but I did check my GOUT frame counts again and this is what I get
Oh but it does matter to me. Thank you geeky friend for wasting the time to do it :-)

Anybody happen to read my VOB vs VOB rambling over in the Tech section?
Well it just came back and bit me in the ass! LOL

I'll eat crow on this one. I've got PGC_2 (15 frames) inserted at my beginning, which shouldn't have been there.
PGC_2 just happens to be 'VOB ID 1' and its location in the disc's filesystem is at the beginning of VTS_03_1.VOB so it got DGIndex'd with the rest. Once I remove it, then my STAR WARS card appear at 688 like it should ;)

So subtract 15 from all my numbers: the frame I captured was 34124.
Apologies if I asplode anyone's brain


msycamore said:

The 'conference call' scene is: 75235
Using my 'new math', I reckon that would translate to
The 25th frame of that camera shot
Perhaps that could be a better nomenclature to specify them as 'the Nth frame of the shot' What do you think?

However, in practice you must take into account the “fuckwit factor”. Just talk to Darth Mallwalker…
-Moth3r

Author
Time

Darth Mallwalker said:

Oh but it does matter to me. Thank you geeky friend for wasting the time to do it :-)

So subtract 15 from all my numbers: the frame I captured was 34124.
Apologies if I asplode anyone's brain

This is why I said it didn't matter, as you captured the correct frames anyway.

I have no problem being your geeky friend. ;)

Darth Mallwalker said:

Using my 'new math', I reckon that would translate to
The 25th frame of that camera shot
Perhaps that could be a better nomenclature to specify them as 'the Nth frame of the shot' What do you think?

That would be correct, but that frame is still just my guess by going of the minor visual cues going on in that scene, trying to match my earlier cap on this thread.

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

In the caps where you can see the dot pattern--you can also see how it creates the optical illusion of horizontal scanlines. Look at the left side of the screen, near Ozzel. Very clearly looks like horizontal lines. But it's just an optical illusion, because in most of the rest of the frame you can see its actually grid-pattern dots.

This does of course make one re-evaluate the shots where its fully scanlines with no trace of dots. It really does look like an alternate version of the shot without dots, but based on the optical illusion seen in the shot with dots, this is in severe doubt.

The Emperor hologram...maybe same thing. It's all a bit difficult to say now. There are other instances of the poor verticle resolution of the GOUT--one that comes to mind is that in Moth3r's transfer of the LD, the final shot of the film you can see extra details on R2's pannelling that in the GOUT is just a solid blob (I think this is on the stickied screenshot page in the forums).

So, it's possible. But what's not possible is the verticle scanlines becoming horizontal. That's not a resolution thing. I might lump the changed graphics colours as well with this. So we are for sure dealing with an alternate print of ESB nonetheless (even if the alt graphics colours are just a video problem). This once again opens the door for a plausible likelihood that some or all of the aformentioned problems aren't verticle resolution or DVNR after all but the genuine absence. And hence we come full circle into a standstill.

As far as 005's page is concerned, my recommendation is to present all the apparent variants as displayed by home video, but with the captioning mentioning the dillemma I mentioned in the previous paragraph. Maybe it's just resolution for (most of) the GOUT examples, but it's plausible that it's not too, but we just don't have any truely reliable way of knowing for sure. In my opinion, anyway. This could change in the future as more stuff becomes available though.

Msycamore said: "...and I suspect that may also be the case with these holograms, if you look at them in motion there seems to be both vertical and horizontal ones in there, maybe Mallwalker's caps will prove it right or wrong."

This is another thing. None of us can really see them in motion. Caps are great, but when you see a video in motion you notice things in the detail that either simply aren't there or in a cap or aren't obvious (or aren't obvious enough to make definitive statements about without lots of doubt).

I guess this will go on. Are there any other transfers that we can check or is that basically all of them? Also: can anyone check the new Making of ESB book and see if the hologram work is ever mentioned? Might be a longshot source of further clarification.

Author
Time

zombie84 said:

In the caps where you can see the dot pattern--you can also see how it creates the optical illusion of horizontal scanlines. Look at the left side of the screen, near Ozzel. Very clearly looks like horizontal lines. But it's just an optical illusion, because in most of the rest of the frame you can see its actually grid-pattern dots.

This does of course make one re-evaluate the shots where its fully scanlines with no trace of dots. It really does look like an alternate version of the shot without dots, but based on the optical illusion seen in the shot with dots, this is in severe doubt.

The Emperor hologram...maybe same thing. It's all a bit difficult to say now. There are other instances of the poor verticle resolution of the GOUT--one that comes to mind is that in Moth3r's transfer of the LD, the final shot of the film you can see extra details on R2's pannelling that in the GOUT is just a solid blob (I think this is on the stickied screenshot page in the forums).

 

I agree about these other shots, it's hard to now for sure but trust me on this, the Emperor hologram have scanlines, that's no optical illusion on my part, they are clearly defined in every transfer minus the GOUT. Yes we do know the PAL LD's show better vertical detail/resolution in some shots, like R2's panneling in the end ceremony but this is an NTSC LD rip coming from the same master that have better detail in this shot than the GOUT, how the hell is that even possible, George Walton Lucas, Jr.?! The GOUT transfers never ceases to amaze me in their quality.

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 hope y'all can see this

http://hotfile.com/dl/85328353/6108903/

codec is FFVH (ffdshow's Huff)
It contains the first forty-nine frames from PVI pressing 1425-84
(which might or might not be same as GOUT's first forty-nine)

I suspect it was always a grid pattern (i.e. scanlines in both dimensions)
We just don't have enough horizontal resolution to see the vertical lines in the wide LD caps.

Remember in the best-case scenario (if you had a HLD-X0 that wasn't twenty years old, or maybe aleksbmw's Hercules) you'd only get ~425 lines of horizontal resolution.
What would happen if you shrunk the SE image to ~425 width, then blew it up again. Would the vertical lines still be distinguishable?

GOUT might have shown them . . . if DVNR hadn't smeared them away already.

Perhaps dark_jedi's pan/scan cap should have shown the vertical lines, but maybe his old player was a hunk of junk or otherwise under-performing, and that's why he upgraded to CLD-79 Elite....

However, in practice you must take into account the “fuckwit factor”. Just talk to Darth Mallwalker…
-Moth3r

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Darth Mallwalker said:

I hope y'all can see this

http://hotfile.com/dl/85328353/6108903/

codec is FFVH (ffdshow's Huff)
It contains the first forty-nine frames from PVI pressing 1425-84
(which might or might not be same as GOUT's first forty-nine)

I suspect it was always a grid pattern (i.e. scanlines in both dimensions)
We just don't have enough horizontal resolution to see the vertical lines in the wide LD caps.

Remember in the best-case scenario (if you had a HLD-X0 that wasn't twenty years old, or maybe aleksbmw's Hercules) you'd only get ~425 lines of horizontal resolution.
What would happen if you shrunk the SE image to ~425 width, then blew it up again. Would the vertical lines still be distinguishable?

GOUT might have shown them . . . if DVNR hadn't smeared them away already.

Perhaps dark_jedi's pan/scan cap should have shown the vertical lines, but maybe his old player was a hunk of junk or otherwise under-performing, and that's why he upgraded to CLD-79 Elite....

Thanks for going through the trouble and posting a clip. I agree with you, the bad vertical resolution of the GOUT combined with the bad horizontal resolution of the '86/'92 LD's rips could very much be the reason of the things we're seeing. It was me who started this whole mystery that could easily be just an video resolution-thing, so sorry about that. But... ;) it could of course still be an alternative print as Zombie said of course, I haven't checked yet if this could possible be an alternative going by info from the making of book. Just to be geeky enough, could we have more footage from you, Mallwalker? The Emperor holo from the DC LD and the Vader "dot-screen"?

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

OKay, DC Emperor
Which shot?

"What is thy bidding, my master?"
"There is a great disturbance in the force"
"He could destroy us"
"The force is strong with him. The son of Skywalker must not become a Jedi"
"Yes, he would be a great asset"
"Can it be done?"

Choose one

However, in practice you must take into account the “fuckwit factor”. Just talk to Darth Mallwalker…
-Moth3r

Author
Time

"There is a great disturbance in the force" will do fine. :)

Ok, shield generator shot in DC/GOUT- could be an alternate, to me it looks just fucked up

Vader's screen and the conference call holograms in JSC/'92 pan & scan - could just be an resolution thing or an alternate

I guess we will not get any further with this, I haven't checked if the new making of book share some light on this yet.

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

msycamore said:


"There is a great disturbance in the force" will do fine. :)

chimp-chick.rar

However, in practice you must take into account the “fuckwit factor”. Just talk to Darth Mallwalker…
-Moth3r

Author
Time

Thanks, Mallwalker. That sinister chimp-chick was apparently make-up designer Rick Baker's at the time wife Elaine Baker. ;) 

Anyway, I still cannot understand how those scanlines went dissappearing when the GOUT was produced. Any theories?

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

This shot was digitally recomposited for the '97SE

This matte was digitally improved in two shots for the '97SE to get it to blend in better with the live action

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

Are we sure its not an issue of better transfer? I find it hard to believe that ILM recomped the lightsaber and left all of the comp mistakes in there.

Star Wars Revisited Wordpress

Star Wars Visual Comparisons WordPress

Author
Time

Well, you may be right but if it wasn't recomposited, something ugly was done when they got rid of the grain...

Technicolor print of the original film

2004 DVD

In the Special Editions, the lightsaber have these ugly sharp edges throughout that actually makes it look rather 2 dimensional, that is not the case with the original. It almost looks like they've digitally erased part of the original animation. What comp mistakes are you talking about?

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

When the lightsaber is pointing straight on the camera, it still blinks out, if I recall.

Star Wars Revisited Wordpress

Star Wars Visual Comparisons WordPress

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Yeah, you're right they're still there, but that doesn't necessarily mean it hasn't been recomped.

One more example of what I'm talking about.

JSC Laserdisc

2004 DVD

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

According to Lowry, they weren't recomped:

Whenever anyone lit up a lightsaber, it was done with an optical effect, and all of the opticals at the time were done on film--there were no digital effects. So every time you go to a lightsaber scene, bang, you drop two generations of film. It gets grainier and, as it's going through an optical printer, you have different characteristics in terms of contrast. And those are things we have to match up with the scenes immediately before and after. It took a lot of effort to match precisely the granularity, the contrast, and the sharpness. They flow very nicely now and, frankly, in the original movies, there was a distinct change. We were able to eliminate that change, and to me that's a very strong contribution to the storytelling process--removing something that prevents an audience from being drawn in.

However, Zombie reckons they were re-rotoscoped (here).

Guidelines for post content and general behaviour: read announcement here

Max. allowable image sizes in signatures: reminder here

Author
Time

Hmm... interesting, must read zombie's article, thanks.

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

Are you sure it's a change and not just a typical 2004 colour issue? Because this is what I got by just fiddling with brightness and contrast:

Author
Time

Falcon is definitely higher up and further back against the Executor model in the SE. The cockpit overlaps a different part of the ship, if you look really carefully.

Star Wars Revisited Wordpress

Star Wars Visual Comparisons WordPress