Harmy's RETURN OF THE JEDI Despecialized Edition HD - V2.5 - AVCHD DVD9 & NTSC DVD5 (Released) — Page 108

Harmy said:

Another thing I’ve already heard from several people is that the droid torture scene now has a blue tint.
That’s just not true - I think it now has very nice natural colors with a hint of blue from the lighting, where the old version had a strong sepia tint. This should really put it into perspective:

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/161419/picture:0
http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/161419/picture:1

Look at that and tell me if v2.5 has a blue tint 😉

Definitely not a blue tint. There are blues in the highlights (and I think they are that way in the original, perhaps even in the GOUT, though I may be thinking of the 97SE). But your comparisons make it clear that it’s nothing like the Blu-ray.

I think people are often just on alert for blue coloring in the OT after what happened to the films in 2004.

Harmy said:

All in all, exactly like I said - 99% of the movie is brighter than v1.0, not to mention the BD.
A few newly despecialized shots are marginally darker but it’s nothing as tragic as some people make it out to be - there’s usually minimal shadow detail loss and a huge gain in fine detail, or it is dark, because it’s supposed to be so.

Yeah sorry for the confusion with the file numbers.

Now I didn’t go and post the numbers of every file that had some loss of detail, I tried to just pull out the ones that seemed to be most affected. But if you feel that if those changes/losses are in fact the way it is supposed to be viewed (based on all your viewings of the movie and source material), then I will accept that. Your work, and your knowledge of the films is truly amazing.

Harmy said:

Look at that and tell me if v2.5 has a blue tint 😉

Uh, no. Definitely no blue tinting.

Harmy said:

dogdoctor said:

Now I didn’t go and post the numbers of every file that had some loss of detail, I tried to just pull out the ones that seemed to be most affected.

Yeah, I know. Most of the 35mm shots have slightly crushed blacks compared to the previous version and the GOUT but it’s only a small part of the movie and it’s nowhere near as bad as some people make it out to be. Someone on facebook said the new version looked “disgusting” because of the crushed blacks. Seriously.

OK. Well I certainly wouldn’t call it disgusting. But it’s all in what your memory recalls as being “normal”. I’m not 100% sold on the blacks, but that’s not going to stop me from appreciating everything you’ve done here. In fact, I really need to spend some time watching it on the big screen that I have calibrated vs. comparing images on my lowly laptop monitor. 😉 Again, I think it comes down to reprogramming the mind to accept the new “corrected” images as normal.

Image 176, Still 187 - that to me is normal. I’ve always recalled Leia’s jacket as being a brighter green than Luke’s. Just seeing the new (less green) images side by side is very hard for me to accept that as a new normal.

I did want to ask you - if you said that most of the scenes that caught my eye due to blacks/contrast were the 35 mm LLP - what is the technical reasoning behind using that as a source?

Yeah I’m not understanding alot of the criticism of the color here. I think the colors are great Harmy. I’m not seeing anything that jumps out as seeming inaccurate.

Harmy said:

LOL, yeah, I noticed that. And actually, no, in v1.0, I put a cut out video of Leia’s HD face from other frames over the GOUT footage used for the missing frames - it looks trippy for sure when swiching back and forth with the real thing like that but on it’s own it actually blended really well and because most everything else was out of focus, putting in Leia’s face in HD really helped to make the transtion less obvious.
I did the same thing with Luke later, which is why in v1.0 he’s smiling with his teeth in that comparison (Still291).

That is very trippy! Thanks for the explanation and a bit of trivia.

dogdoctor said:
I did want to ask you - if you said that most of the scenes that caught my eye due to blacks/contrast were the 35 mm LLP - what is the technical reasoning behind using that as a source?

Huh?

It’s the only source in existence that is the original film in high definition. Maybe I’m not understanding the question.

towne32 said:

Huh?

It’s the only source in existence that is the original film in high definition. Maybe I’m not understanding the question.

You answered it. It was a total NOOB question. I was just curious about the origins/reason for the sources used. I’m was not familiar with “35 mm LLP” as technical jargon. Thanks.

Not meaning to beat a dead horse regarding the “darker image” of some of V 2.5, but there were just a few scenes that really jumped out as too dark. Mainly the Emperor’s face when Vader and Luke’s lightsabers are ignited and clash. His face was almost blacked out completely. Also a few scenes during the space battle, noticeably when the Falcon flies past the rebel blockade runner. I finished watching V 2.5 and put in V 1.0 to compare. My question is, was the emperors face supposed to be so dark?

Regarding the 3.0 releases, are there still shots where you’ll be mixing Blu-ray footage with 35mm footage? Or are we now at a point where it’s only gonna be complete shot replacements?

My God, Harmy, I am surprised and embarrassed that it is you who replied, since I consider myself one of your biggest fans. As an artist myself who enjoys to draw, I don’t like when anyone has an issue with my vision of what I am drawing. I guess it’s just that I’ve watched your Jedi V 1.0 many times and am used to seeing the image a certain way, ex. the Emperor in that scene, where in V 1.0 it was brighter and then experiencing it in a different version . I am NO expert like some on here with knowledge of processes that are involved with creating these reconstructions. I am honored though, to have had this brief correspondence!

Hi Harmy,

I don’t understand the people here that are complaining over colors, crushed blacks etc. Wtf are they talking about? I mean you gave us the best experience of ROTJ ever and people are complaining the Shit out of that. We have to be so thankful for what you have done and the time you spent for this version. I think the colors are awesome, ROTJ never looked better imo!!

Some people really have 1st world problems…

TR2N said:

Hi Harmy,

I don’t understand the people here that are complaining over colors, crushed blacks etc. Wtf are they talking about? I mean you gave us the best experience of ROTJ ever and people are complaining the Shit out of that. We have to be so thankful for what you have done and the time you spent for this version. I think the colors are awesome, ROTJ never looked better imo!!

Some people really have 1st world problems…

I agree. I also think many just aren’t used to how a 35mm film looked in the cinemas, because that’s something that’s, regrettably, largely been lost to digital projection. Many are used to today’s pin-sharp ‘perfection’ and if looking for ‘flaws’ will certainly find them. Harmy has succeeded magnificently in restoring these films very closely to how I remember them looking. But people do seem to like to look for faults on internet forums. Easy to criticise than to praise I guess. Not a good trend.

I was not complaining. My post was in the “feedback” thread. You’re supposed to spot things and report back. Harmy is one man, and he needs help sometimes, too.

I was wrong with my post and didn’t spot anything wrong. My post was more to get clarification on a couple of things (a scene being blue, and matte-boxes).

The guy “complaining” about crushed blacks and what not can help others with his post if any others come here with the same issue. Harmy can answer, and correct, any misunderstandings. Maybe we all might learn something in the process. I know I have…