Harmy's STAR WARS Despecialized Edition HD - V2.7 - MKV (Released) — Page 238

Harmy,

Good luck with your final exams.  As for the colors, I think it looks great and like someone else said, if others want to tweak it, they can, but I think this version of SW will be viewed as head & shoulders above other versions.  Again, thanks for your hard work.

A question for others as Harmy is busy studying - how different will the AVCHD look compared to the MKV.  From what I read, the MKV is higher quality, but I'm not a video editing know-it-all like some here so I'm curious how one will look over the other?

I've made an AVCHD disc and I really can't tell any difference. Altho, I was watching the MKV on my 17" computer screen and the AVCHD on my 54" plasma.

BTW: It took my old computer 23+ hours to convert the MKV to AVCHD. Best 23+ hours of my old computers life!

sidra said:

I've made an AVCHD disc and I really can't tell any difference. Altho, I was watching the MKV on my 17" computer screen and the AVCHD on my 54" plasma.

BTW: It took my old computer 23+ hours to convert the MKV to AVCHD. Best 23+ hours of my old computers life!

I thought the difference would be seen in Harmy's forthcoming AVCHD encoding from the lossless source.  Since you created the AVCHD from the encoded mkv, it will still have the compression artifacts.

Spock: "Logical"

Trooperman said:

Given the gazillion changes to the audio over 1977, as well as changes to the credits (apparently) over the course of that same year, is it at all possible that George Lucas went back to the original negative and had certain scenes recolored at the lab, too- and then implemented into new prints of the film, because he wasn't perfectly happy it as it was?

It could be this scene was intitally corrected for the LPP print and went uncorrected for the technicolor dye print. It could be *shock idea coming up* the technicolour dye print HAS faded in parts

Harmy said:

@sunday256: Condescending much?

Anyway, this is not about me not being able to take constructive criticism, this is about starting pointless lengthy discussions about things that have already been discussed to death and I'm simply tired of that conversation and answering the same questions for the umphteenth time.

I'm glad someone posted this picture, I forgot it was there. It is much closer to my references, though still a bit darker - this can be caused by various things ranging from the brightness of the projection bulb to the settings of the camera it was taken with). And sorry, Sunday256, but what you remember seeing in the cinema 35 years ago is quite irrelevant to the objective facts. Some people swear to remember having seen Luke throw the grappling hook twice in '77... What definitelly is relevant however, is a professional scan of frames from a perfectly preserved print that was actually made in '77 - actually  it is the most relevant evidence to date - and that's what I used as a reference to time that scene.

Also, when you post screenshots from your monitor, if my or anyone else's monitor is calibrated differently from yours, the screenshots will of course display differently than they do on your monitor.

Points taken. And apologies if you feel that I've been condescending. That's not my intent.

The most relevant comment for me to respond to however is the last. That's exactly what I'm asking you to comment on. The "adjusted image" that you posted back in January...

http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/406/ben21.png

does not match the screen capture that took from your MKV that I posted here...

http://img211.imageshack.us/img211/4266/examplemz.png

Either your "adjusted" image matches what you currently have on your final workprint now, or you scrapped that idea and went a different direction. That's what I'd like to know. If you can screengrab that same image from your final workprint, I'll then know if what you intended is what I'm seeing.

It's really as simple as that. If that adjust image is correct, and that's what you're seeing on the final print then my video settings and monitor are way off.

Harmy said:

@frank678: There were no LPP prints in '77, it was made in the 80s, probably for TV broadcast transfers, so it's very well likely its colourtiming could be different and even intentionally altered for telecine.

And don't you think it would be a bit weird that just exactly this scene from first frame of its first sot to last frame of last shot would be faded on the IB print?

Also, like I said, this stuff has already been discussed to death - it has been previously stated that due to the nature of the dye process, it's quite possible that the tech prints had slightly different colourtiming in some places than even '77 Eastman prints. But since all the surviving Eastman prints are faded, we may never know, so it's safer to adjust the colours to a print that we know looks like it did in 77.

@Sunday: Sorry if I've been a bit cross, you can imagine I'm a bit on edge :-) Yes, I did still leave it like that in my last WP and then I decided to change it in the end. That "adjusted" screenshot is really old and comes from before I had the reference scans.

 Thank you thank you thank you. That's a major part of what I was trying to determine in all my comments thus far. :) So at least I know it's not way off then. So would you say my screengrab represents the same image (brightness/colors) you're seeing on your end? or is it maybe slightly brighter? Seeing your screencapture of that same image today would help me tremendously.

For if it's exactly the same, then I will forgo watching the MKV on the computer and stick to streaming it to my 1080p projector to view on my 120" screen. The brightness wasn't as distracting as it was on my computer monitor that's for sure. But if it's slightly off, I can adjust my computer video or monitor settings accordingly which will give me another option.

apologies for posting misinformation! also i shouldnt really comment on this subject not having watched the finished scene, i just remembered that still from the senator screening.

there is something off about this sequence for me like they shot it with a really delicate contrast level and its been skewed slightly ever since. anyway i can tell this one has been done to death, so i'll bow out here

frank678 said:

apologies for posting misinformation! also i shouldnt really comment on this subject not having watched the finished scene, i just remembered that still from the senator screening.

there is something off about this sequence for me like they shot it with a really delicate contrast level and its been skewed slightly ever since. anyway i can tell this one has been done to death, so i'll bow out here

And here I thought that OT.com folks only complained about the Prequels! Maybe I'm just in the wrong thread. LOL.

sunday256 said:

frank678 said:

apologies for posting misinformation! also i shouldnt really comment on this subject not having watched the finished scene, i just remembered that still from the senator screening.

there is something off about this sequence for me like they shot it with a really delicate contrast level and its been skewed slightly ever since. anyway i can tell this one has been done to death, so i'll bow out here

 

And here I thought that OT.com folks only complained about the Prequels! Maybe I'm just in the wrong thread. LOL.

leave now before you engage in this kind of insanity (!):

http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Calling-all-Color-Correctors-Can-this-source-yield-a-different-set-of-results-to-Gout/post/577769/#TopicPost577769

1990osu said:

 

Harmy said: it's quite possible that the tech prints had slightly different colourtiming in some places than even '77 Eastman prints. But since all the surviving Eastman prints are faded, we may never know

 

That's why the new PS78 bootleg tape is so exciting- an unfaded color reference for an unfaded Eastman print....

+1

Harmy, just wanted to say I truly appreciate your dedication to restore these as close to the originals as possible.  This thread has it's share of incessant people, but please understand that for every person that offers a critique there are dozens (if not more) who you don't hear from that are enjoying your work more than you can imagine.