Complete Comparison of Special Edition Visual Changes — Page 36

I've just made an interesting discovery:

Apparently, Vader's face and body were brightened separately from the rest of the picture in 2004 - it is much more obvious in movement (that's why I even noticed it), because the animation of the mask and the handling of the levels are a bit sloppy (surprise surprise ;-). )

Every time I think I've been astonished by some of the changes, new ones pop up.

GL: "Vader's face is too dark in this shot."

ILM: "But we were just about to fix lightsaber colors..."

GL: "This is more important. It's too dark, I want you to lighten it."

ILM: "We just finished crushing all the blacks that you insisted on..."

GL: "Just do it!"

So, do you think I should darken Vader separately for v2.0?

I was just going to ask if you were going to.

Looks like an actual creative decision that was made in 2004, but not in 1977 through 1997. Undo it.

Should be a piece of cake ;-)

It's really that the blacks aren't quite black in the brightened area but rather a hazy dark blue -in movement it sort of looks like he has a blue tinted spotlight aimed at his face.

^^Totally agree, the way those corridor scenes in the original Empire looked was beautiful.

It's quite amazing or should I say depressing that alterations are still found, the GOUT pic Harmy posted is another one of those green-turned-pink-flaws in the THX transfer, see Vader's belt.

TServo2049 said:

I'm really not sure if those green-to-pink things were really alterations...

No, of course not, it was just something I wanted to point out.

Wow, that's a huge number! But then the article is a little vague about what redone means. Because sometimes they may only be referring to replacing part that were damaged beyond repair from other legitimate sources (IP, IN).

I found ( and undid ;-D ) more changes to this shot:

1) The temples were recomposited (they have separate gate weave visible even in the GOUT which is gone in the SE). - (EDIT: This was proved to be false)

2) A slight pan-down was added at the beginning of the shot.

3) The whole shot was re-framed to show more on the left side and less on the right.

4) For some reason, there's a thin stripe of static mask visible at the bottom of the frame in the SE.

Good eye!

Well, I noticed the reframing and as I set out to undo it, I noticed the other changes :-)

Harmy said:

 

The temples were recomposited (they have separate gate weave visible even in the GOUT which is gone in the SE).

 

Those temples weren't a composite, they were filmed on location in Tikal, Guatemala:

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

The GOUT transfer have that shaking going on even on elements in the frame that were not opticals.

WOW! That's awesome!

Oh, wow, ok, that's interesting. Here's a high res pic:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/72/Tikal_temples_1_2_3_5_2009.JPG

And that's a bummer about the GOUT. I guess it could be another by-product of the DVNR :-/

Well, it's not that weird you thought it was a composite, when the jitter is that bad, there is many places in the GOUT where elements in the frame shaking completely independent of each other, g-force superb stabilizing script couldn't fix those though, that transfer really is the source of all evil. ;)

Just wanted to point it out as I noticed that some of these are still not labeled or incorrectly marked, these are all 2004 alterations:

And these are 1997 alterations:

Why don't you comment on the pictures that should be fiexed, and I'll fixe them and delete the comments?

Oh sorry, many of those I pointed out doesn't have any descriptions and I can't see any reason to delete/correct those that do have, other than the year of change, and as all are under the same category - digital re-compositing, I didn't think it was necessary.