Sign In

Harmy's STAR WARS Despecialized Edition HD - V2.7 - MKV (Released) — Page 239

Author
Time

O,ok sorry :(

One day we will have properly restored versions of the Original Unaltered Trilogy (OUT); or 1977, 1980, 1983 Theatrical released versions (Like 4K77,4K80 and 4K83); including Prequels. So that future generations can enjoy these historic films that changed cinema forever.

Yoda: Try not, do or do not, there is no try.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

negative1 said:

sunday256 said:

 

Oh and in response to -1, those look really dark. Way darker than I remember. But until I see them in the full context of the video it would be hard to comment more. If you post that scene (corrected) in one of your 35mm threads, let me know.

the original IS a lot darker than people remember it.

also, due to the nature of the print, and the bulb used

to project it. that has a big impact on it. we will try to

simulate that also in our version.

 

i'm sure harmy's version is very close to the ib tech

as it would have looked.

 

later

-1

I'm sure this has been asked before, but if Harmy ever decides to go for round three, could parts of your 35mm project potentially be used as a superior source? I understood that the end result is supposed to look kind of grungy, from what I read in your thread.

“I find your lack of faith disturbing.”

Author
Time

bilditup1 said:

pat man said:

This is a non-faded Technicolor 35mm pint.From 1977,there was not many made for a home release. 

http://petergaultney.smugmug.com/Movies/historic/Star-Wars-at-The-Senator/13089279_nXePV#!i=948664666&k=B94PY 

  This is how Harmy made his V2.0.Just his is a shad brighter.I would say lower the brightness by 2% or lower the gamma just a hair,but this is Harmy and others edited's,so it's their opinion.      

...That's an IB Tech print, not 35mm. The one Harmy timed it to is in better condition and doesn't have the vagaries of how the digital camera processed the image or whether the Senator used the right bulb

 sorry I didn't know :(

One day we will have properly restored versions of the Original Unaltered Trilogy (OUT); or 1977, 1980, 1983 Theatrical released versions (Like 4K77,4K80 and 4K83); including Prequels. So that future generations can enjoy these historic films that changed cinema forever.

Yoda: Try not, do or do not, there is no try.

Author
Time

pat man said:

bilditup1 said:

pat man said:

This is a non-faded Technicolor 35mm pint.From 1977,there was not many made for a home release. 

http://petergaultney.smugmug.com/Movies/historic/Star-Wars-at-The-Senator/13089279_nXePV#!i=948664666&k=B94PY 

  This is how Harmy made his V2.0.Just his is a shad brighter.I would say lower the brightness by 2% or lower the gamma just a hair,but this is Harmy and others edited's,so it's their opinion.      

...That's an IB Tech print, not 35mm. The one Harmy timed it to is in better condition and doesn't have the vagaries of how the digital camera processed the image or whether the Senator used the right bulb

 sorry I didn't know :(

Yeah, dw about it dude.

“I find your lack of faith disturbing.”

Author
Time

I'm not worried 

One day we will have properly restored versions of the Original Unaltered Trilogy (OUT); or 1977, 1980, 1983 Theatrical released versions (Like 4K77,4K80 and 4K83); including Prequels. So that future generations can enjoy these historic films that changed cinema forever.

Yoda: Try not, do or do not, there is no try.

Author
Time
 (Edited)
I tried your suggestion. In changing the monitor's default gamma modes it basically minimized the white balance I've been seeing on the computer monitor but it crushed the blacks in the darker scenes.
It does look somewhat better on my Vizio tv upstairs after using PlayOn to stream the MKV up there. Same situation with the 1080p projector in the basement using TVersity. They look better, but still very bright.
Author
Time

sunday256 said:I tried your suggestion. In changing the monitor's default gamma modes it basically minimized the white balance I've been seeing on the computer monitor but it crushed the blacks in the darker scenes.


It does look somewhat better on my Vizio tv upstairs after using PlayOn to stream the MKV up there. Same situation with the 1080p projector in the basement using TVersity. They look better, but still very bright.

are you talking adout my calibration topic, if so just increase the brightness on you computer monitor,and if you are not sorry, :(

One day we will have properly restored versions of the Original Unaltered Trilogy (OUT); or 1977, 1980, 1983 Theatrical released versions (Like 4K77,4K80 and 4K83); including Prequels. So that future generations can enjoy these historic films that changed cinema forever.

Yoda: Try not, do or do not, there is no try.

Author
Time

pat man said:

Thanks for the myspleen invite

Cobra Kai

Have you heard of this new invention called the PM?

Author
Time

yes

One day we will have properly restored versions of the Original Unaltered Trilogy (OUT); or 1977, 1980, 1983 Theatrical released versions (Like 4K77,4K80 and 4K83); including Prequels. So that future generations can enjoy these historic films that changed cinema forever.

Yoda: Try not, do or do not, there is no try.

Author
Time

I was on my Ps3 on you can't PM on the internet,

One day we will have properly restored versions of the Original Unaltered Trilogy (OUT); or 1977, 1980, 1983 Theatrical released versions (Like 4K77,4K80 and 4K83); including Prequels. So that future generations can enjoy these historic films that changed cinema forever.

Yoda: Try not, do or do not, there is no try.

Author
Time

I won't be off topic no more

One day we will have properly restored versions of the Original Unaltered Trilogy (OUT); or 1977, 1980, 1983 Theatrical released versions (Like 4K77,4K80 and 4K83); including Prequels. So that future generations can enjoy these historic films that changed cinema forever.

Yoda: Try not, do or do not, there is no try.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

finally got to watch this today, for the third time, in proper fashion (51" plasma, 5.1). my friends, this thing not only has to been *seen* to be believed...you've gotta hear it, too. I need to get a better sub, I've discovered.

That reminds me though - where are we on syncing Scofield to GOUT? It would be nice to use that audio with Harmy and esp puggo grande. I would do this myself if I knew anything about syncing audio properly

“I find your lack of faith disturbing.”

Author
Time

And I could watch it again. It's almost like watching for the very first time, what with all the little nuances and details that I now pay attention to which just aren't in LD rips and upscales.

“I find your lack of faith disturbing.”

Author
Time

bilditup1 said:

I'm sure this has been asked before, but if Harmy ever decides to go for round three, could parts of your 35mm project potentially be used as a superior source? I understood that the end result is supposed to look kind of grungy, from what I read in your thread.

we'll work with harmy, of course,

once we're done with our version.

i'm sure there are some parts that

will be helpful.

 

later

-1

[no GOUT in CED?-> GOUT CED]

Author
Time

bilditup1 said:

finally got to watch this today, for the third time, in proper fashion (51" plasma, 5.1). my friends, this thing not only has to been *seen* to be believed...you've gotta hear it, too. I need to get a better sub, I've discovered.

^^THIS^^

As good as this looks on a laptop screen, there's really no substitute for watching it on a 50"+ screen.  I am green with envy hearing about people projecting this on screens over 100". 

Author
Time

I showed this to a couple friends on the 40" HDTV with THX-certified speakers and subwoofer.  They were thoroughly impressed, and one of them went and brought their external drive so they could have it.

Although everything is digital and HD, it took us back to the 1977 experience, without blatantly exposing the limitations of the cinema experience back then.

I think that is what 2.0 is all about, and my hat's off to you, Harmy!

It’s really sad when the “creative minds” behind something we hold dear are also guilty of its destruction.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

all this stuff about color timing, flicker, fps, crush black, white balances, temperatures is overwhelming.  was given an old photography book when I first got my digital camera almost 8 years ago and haven't gone through it as well as I should have.  barely know what an f stop is ;P

this thread has got me really curious regarding technicolor prints.  also kinda fascianting that there's only like 5 copies technicolor SW left and they are all in pristine condition because this type of film does not fade. 

funny thing i've been thinking about this whole time is I thought I heard that The GodFather Part II was the last movie to use technicolor?  is that incorrect?  or was that something else?

Lucas always claimed that SW was half finished and thats why he went back.  How long did color timing take back in those days?  Could he have gotten ESB that blueish color on hoth in 1980 if he wanted to or did that require the computer grading we have now? 

click here if lack of OOT got you down

Author
Time

bilditup1 said:



pat man said:

This is a non-faded Technicolor 35mm pint.From 1977,there was not many made for a home release. 

  This is how Harmy made his V2.0.Just his is a shad brighter.I would say lower the brightness by 2% or lower the gamma just a hair,but this is Harmy and others edited's,so it's their opinion.      


...That's an IB Tech print, not 35mm. The one Harmy timed it to is in better condition and doesn't have the vagaries of how the digital camera processed the image or whether the Senator used the right bulb


Uhh... It is a 35mm print. The "IB tech" part refers only to the chemical process used to create an image on the 35mm acetone base.

What’s the internal temperature of a TaunTaun? Luke warm.

Author
Time

pat man said:



bilditup1 said:


pat man said:

This is a non-faded Technicolor 35mm pint.From 1977,there was not many made for a home release.

.      


...That's an IB Tech print, not 35mm. The one Harmy timed it to is in better condition and doesn't have the vagaries of how the digital camera processed the image or whether the Senator used the right bulb


 sorry I didn't know :(



No, you were right, the IB technicolor star wars prints were regular 35 mm sized prints.

What’s the internal temperature of a TaunTaun? Luke warm.

Author
Time

Mavimao said:

 

pat man said:



bilditup1 said:


pat man said:

This is a non-faded Technicolor 35mm pint.From 1977,there was not many made for a home release.

.      


...That's an IB Tech print, not 35mm. The one Harmy timed it to is in better condition and doesn't have the vagaries of how the digital camera processed the image or whether the Senator used the right bulb


 sorry I didn't know :(



No, you were right, the IB technicolor star wars prints were regular 35 mm sized prints.

 

While we're being pedantic, there were no 35mm films made for home release. 35mm is a pure commercial format. Now 16mm, that's a different matter.... :)

Author
Time

Correct. Only collectors through grey-ish means have 35mm prints. 16 and 8 mm were home formats.

What’s the internal temperature of a TaunTaun? Luke warm.

Author
Time

And 16mm is right on the edge of that - IIRC, the legality of owning 16mm came after a court decision that because one studio had offered 16mm prints for sale, rather than rent, that all prints were fair game.

Now back to your regularly scheduled broadcast.

Author
Time

I downloaded this last week. I haven't watched it all yet just a few select scenes.

Many thanks Harmy, your work is outstanding. And your time and effort is appreciated. Good luck with your exams.

And a big thanks to those who uploaded the links on teh, much appreciated.

 

"Well here's a big bag of rock salt" - Patton Oswalt

Author
Time

sunday256 said:

Thanks for that screenshot! I'm fairly certain there's some difference in color from the IB print to my 2nd screenshot (from Harmy's MKV) below from my home monitor.

IB Print

 

Be aware that this is a photo taken by a camera of a projection of an IB Technicolor print and may have limitations in how well it represents the actual print:  there will be influences from the camera white balance, etc as well as the projector.

I see these photos as being most useful in determining the overall colour balance across the movie, before Lucas started tweaking various scenes, and less useful for absolute brightness and contrast.

It is a huge shame that a technicolor print is not permitted to be released to the public to be scanned, duplicated and distributed.

Author
Time

EXAMS SUCCESSFULLY DONE!!!! I'M FINALLY FREE!!!

Time to start encoding the AVCHD and then working on the BD :-)