At what point do you stop counting something as a colour difference and start counting it as a change? I don't even know if you could colour time that shot so that it looks like that...
^ One logic for inclusion to the change list is they seem to have left Yavin's blue color the same, and all the shadow/surrounding table frame has been blueified. So it's less about color timing of the whole shot more about hey I want this table blue not whatever it was before.
About the idea that finding an IP with no subtitles is somehow the best, "first gen" source or something...I don't get it. I thought the whole point of having the subtitles on their own hi-con roll was so that it just runs "alongside" the negative when it gets printed. Otherwise wouldn't every foreign movie ever just be one long dupey effect shot? That doesn't sound right.
It would be funny if the reason the GOUT source seems so shitty is because it was actually some second tier, "B team" that actually made it, and who knows when. And LFL was so dogmatic about getting a title-less IP (which makes it easier for home video) they actually used the worst possible one.
On the spreadsheet, was able to move the Script scenes into the Spreadsheet:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AtjXdIjRQo5NdGt3cjV5VWdPblAwN2txNVJWV2ZmQ0E&hl=en_US#gid=0
Question for those into this, did I use the right script? Used the Revised Fourth Draft: http://starwarz.com/starkiller/2010/03/star-wars-the-adventures-of-luke-starkiller-revised-fourth-draft/ Which is the version from the Annotated Screenplay, should be fairly close. Was there ever a final as on screen script?
This version is ringing in at over 500 noted scenes. (even though the last scene is labeled 252) There's probably 20-40 OMITTEDs being counted. In the previous version was doing the actual film and needed to add three shots from a sequence of 10 scenes.
none said:
^ the thing with this color timing is later shots of the table from a different angle are not as blue... ...and who knows if the GOUT was tweaked...
Someone in another forums has been ranting about this continuity, so figured i'd bring it up.
I would say GOUT is more how it should look, as that is the way it looks in the wide shots and it appears as gray in earlier transfers as well. Look at the white level on that 2004 close-up shot, incredible. :) It's just that you have these weird inconsistencies which appears in other transfers as well, makes you wonder if there was slight print variations on how certain shots looked back in the day.
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
"Scene" does not equal "shot" though...none said:
On the spreadsheet, was able to move the Script scenes into the Spreadsheet:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AtjXdIjRQo5NdGt3cjV5VWdPblAwN2txNVJWV2ZmQ0E&hl=en_US#gid=0
Question for those into this, did I use the right script? Used the Revised Fourth Draft: http://starwarz.com/starkiller/2010/03/star-wars-the-adventures-of-luke-starkiller-revised-fourth-draft/ Which is the version from the Annotated Screenplay, should be fairly close. Was there ever a final as on screen script?
This version is ringing in at over 500 noted scenes. (even though the last scene is labeled 252) There's probably 20-40 OMITTEDs being counted. In the previous version was doing the actual film and needed to add three shots from a sequence of 10 scenes.
Star Wars Revisited Wordpress
Star Wars Visual Comparisons WordPress
doubleofive wrote: "Scene" does not equal "shot" though...
Right the list currently is Scenes. When I checked the first 10 Scenes of the DS Attack I ended up adding 3 Shots to the list. This is a preliminary idea to give a sense how this list will blossom when converting from Scene to Shot.
So if there's 500 Scenes listed currently, and the idea is that for every 10 there will be 3 unlisted shots, that's another 150 shots, so the totals now 650 shots. If the SE change number is around 275, that's 42%. But I think the Shot total is going to be closer to 1k.
Baronlando said:
About the idea that finding an IP with no subtitles is somehow the best, "first gen" source or something...I don't get it. I thought the whole point of having the subtitles on their own hi-con roll was so that it just runs "alongside" the negative when it gets printed. Otherwise wouldn't every foreign movie ever just be one long dupey effect shot? That doesn't sound right.
Maybe. I don't know about you, but just about every foreign film I've ever seen subbed in 35mm looks rougher than a domestic film...could this be why? Otherwise, you mean to tell me that every time they sub a movie they have to print a new batch of subtitles right off the negative? After exporting this way to Italy, Germany, France, Sweden, Romania, Poland, Russia, China and Japan the negative would be falling apart. You would make a blank interpositive instead and then just reprint that with a subtitle optical to produce a unique internegative for each country to make prints off of. At least, that is what I presume.
And maybe that's what this print was for? A blank one used initially for foreign versions but then later used for video? This still doesn't explain where every single other home video print came from, which are also blank.
Maybe it's just a matter of multiple IPs being made over the years, and this one was in the worst condition, hence why it was sealed away and forgotten. Previous transfers used other blank prints, either IPs or derivative copies, that were in better condition for one reason or another.
It would seem the Fox team in 1993 made one of two mistakes if we take seriously the idea that this print was indeed unusually rough.
1) For whatever reasons, the oldest surviving IP was worse off than subsequent IPs and prints. Maybe due to bad film stock, or high dirt at the time it was printed, or high dirt accumulated through use. The mistake Fox made was assuming the earliest print would be the cleanest, when in fact it had the most "miles" on it. Maybe this is why it was retired to a vault and forgotten.
2) They simply made a mistake and this isn't any "original" IP, but some later-generation copy. Fox again assumes that this must be the best, because they believe it first-generation when in fact it isn't.
In either case, once they start the transfer they are surprised at how bad it is. Maybe they start to doubt the authenticity of it, but whatever, it's a print, we have DVNR machines now, and let's just go through with it. It might look bad if after all that searching they realized that the better material was the ones they had sitting around from earlier transfers all along.
I guess we'll never know. There are endless theories to be proposed here.
zombie84 said:
At what point do you stop counting something as a colour difference and start counting it as a change? I don't even know if you could colour time that shot so that it looks like that...
That's a good question, it's near impossible to tell sometimes with that '04 disaster, there is so many weird color issues in it so you're not actually sure what is a screw up or bad decision/alteration, but I think that close up of the table can be counted as a deliberate change, it appears like that in other shots so it is at least consistent in its stupidity. (appears gray in '97SE)
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
I almost forgot to post these, spotted these two extremely subtle changes when going through the trench run a couple of days ago.
original on top.
^^isn't this one included in Rinzler's Making of book. ;) I may be wrong.
This one below is right after Biggs line "Hurry, Luke. They're coming in much faster this time..."
The second shot of Luke's motion blurred glove when turning off his targeting computer is not on your list.
All of them '97 tweaks.
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
If you're interested 005, this recomposite was indeed used on page 305 in Rinzler's making of.
This is how starwars.com described some of it in their old article.
"Color Reversal Internegative: Opticals created on CRI stock, which had deteriorated, were recomposited in various shots including the Star Destroyer capturing Leia's ship and X-wings flying through the Death Star trench."
The effect is almost an exact match to the original shot, only the slightly different position of the background and the lack of mattelines tell the difference.
The other shot I pointed out is even more subtle with the mattelines being the only difference as far as I can see, "the black garbage" seen in front of the cockpit was oddly enough not cleaned up.
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
It's funny how they fixed bad opticals in some scenes but not in others. In that bird's eye shot of Luke and Vader dueling on that catwalk platform in ESB, when Luke blocks Vader and their sabers hit the railing, in the brightest flash-frame you can still see the bright light suddenly stopping at the boundary between the live footage and the matte painting. It was not recomped to make the light spill over into the painting, not in 1997, 2004, or 2011. Just interesting how they continue to make unnecessary changes while neglecting actual annoying flaws.
I remember seeing ANH on TV back in the late nineties. It was the end of the movie, but I wasn't sure if this was the SE or not. I saw some HUGE garbage mattes and told myself "This is obviously the original then, because they whole point of the SE was to fix all that, right?" Then the CG Falcon peeled away from the Death Star and everything I thought about the SE was suddenly different.
Star Wars Revisited Wordpress
Star Wars Visual Comparisons WordPress
See, that's what the SE should have been all along! Simple recomps that may look marginally better, not CG effects that stand out!
A Goon in a Gaggle of 'em
That's what it was supposed to be, until Muren said "I could probably do some of the space battle better."bkev said:
See, that's what the SE should have been all along! Simple recomps that may look marginally better, not CG effects that stand out!
Star Wars Revisited Wordpress
Star Wars Visual Comparisons WordPress
Aha! I knew there were more recomps in the trench run!
I'm sure there is more than that too. It's just so damn hard to spot. Good eye there.
Minor order thing in the SW guide: The Tantive 'smoke' wipe and Tantive SD bay shots should be swapped.
For the SE were all the laser gun fire bolts recomp'd? (in example look at top left blast and it's relationship to the bottom of the protruding wall box)
The lightsaber core issue which was addressed for the BD, could the same be thought of the laser blasts?
WG 77-04 (the 04 inner core is dramatically two toned)
TB DVB 97 (B.99) (bolts are smooth and consistent)
What's people thoughts on the colors of this explosion early on in the Tantive:
TopLeft is mthr boot, BottomRight is TB SE DVB, then Wookiegroomer. Generally the TB is darker (thru out the film) in the 2004 red shift seems pretty pronounced.
none said:
For the SE were all the laser gun fire bolts recomp'd?
The lightsaber core issue which was addressed for the BD, could the same be thought of the laser blasts?
I have also had my thoughts on this but it's very difficult to study, the GOUT and '97 transfers are heavily smeared causing some of the blasts to look off, I think you need to compare with the pre-DVNR transfers to more easily see if it's been done or not.
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
I tend to think the laser blasts were re-comped in '04. The look of the inner cores often seems distinctly different to the way they are in the original, but of course it's hard to say for sure.
If they were, might it explain why they usually stayed a proper red while the flash frames were all turned pink or purple by the screwed up colours? From the opposite angle, it could also explain why some of them ended up completely desaturated in other scenes . . .
It would make sense for recomposites to have a different balance between the inner core and the outer glow, since they're two separate pieces of film. As we can see with the lightsabers, no effort was made to match the new digital composites to the old optical composites.
The desaturated lasers...could that be a recomp mistake of only comping in the B&W "core" animation element and not the separate colored glow element? Looking at the '04 Star Destroyer flyover, the lasers not only don't have any color, they don't glow period. They're just white lines. I don't think they're just desaturated, I think someone fell asleep at the switch and forgot the glow layer entirely.
7 years later, I'm still dumbfounded at the lack of quality control.
Less a change question, more of a 'how do these colors come about' question:
top is mthr77 then TB97SE, and WG underneath.
The 2004 shows that the colors were altered selectively as the image no longer appears as one shade but has a two toned look. (whites shift pink, but skin has a orange tinge) In the 97 what created the pink tone? Blasts of light normally to shift toward white. Was the 97 colors modified digitally or photo-chemically? If it was photo-chemical, then the pink shift (in predominantly white shots) was a byproduct of whatever decision was applied to the rest of these shots. Warming them up, possibly.
*EDIT*
Then the next shot, the blasts shift red in the 97. Both the mthr77 and GOUT also seem to shift towards a similar red hue. SW was meant to be vibrant, but would the 97 version be classified as over exuberant or fairly close, in this example.
It's a good question none, ever since '97 I have wondered what kind of manipulation caused these unnatural flashes of pink, I can't recall if it was like that in the theaters back in '97, I always thought it had something to do with the contrast issues and the pink tint in the '97 telecine as many things got screwed up on that but when the DVD also had those unnatural flashes... the GOUT is washed out and have clipped whites but the kind of highly saturated flashes seen in the SE isn't normal.
Also if the lasers in the corridor shootout got recomped in '97 or '04 they did a very good job as they match the originals perfectly in timing and appearance as far as I can see, something they never bothered with in any other place in the trilogy were they recomped, they definitely look like the original elements but maybe they tried out some kind of digital enhancement on them in a few places, I don't know.
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
I read somewhere Muren saying that the lasers and lightsabers (some? all?) were subcontracted and they did not get isolated elements back.
As for the two strips of film thing, not necessarily. One exposure with it overexposed so you get the white core, then another exposure on the same frame with the red line lit normally but the camera out of focus.
Treadwell said:
I read somewhere Muren saying that the lasers and lightsabers (some? all?) were subcontracted and they did not get isolated elements back.
As for the two strips of film thing, not necessarily. One exposure with it overexposed so you get the white core, then another exposure on the same frame with the red line lit normally but the camera out of focus.
Thanks, dunno why I didn't think about the possibility of the animation being shot with multiple passes on the same piece of film. That's more likely the way it was done.
Still, the elements could have been adjusted during the recomposites, in a way that made the cores much more visible than they ended up being in the original optical composites (due to grain buildup, color shifts, what-have-you).
Star Wars: 2004 Recomp'd star field and repositioned escape pod. Each moved independently. In 77-97 escape pod starts behind guys head. 2004 escape pod is not behind guys head. And there are three stars which make an 'L'. In 77-97 it starts to the right of the doohickey in the center of the frame/window/console. In 2004 those three 'L' stars are on the left.
Beginning of shot.......................end of shot
Then in the next shot, i'd almost want to say the SD and star were redone in 1997 as they look much clearer, but the movement is the same, so probably just a transfer thing:
Maybe originally there were trying to simulate a glass dome, and in 1997 they said 'f'it just make it clear.
