logo Sign In

Harmy's STAR WARS Despecialized Edition HD - V2.7 - MKV (Released) — Page 82

Author
Time
Post link

so there will be two then?

looking for HDTV of the  Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith.  Also HDTV of The Lord of the Rings trilogy

Author
Time
Post link

If you are indeed doing two versions, Harmy, that's absolutely wonderful. Giving people a choice is the best option; hopefully, it's not too much work. Seeing the video you uploaded earlier with film grain was nice; the grain and few dust specks were subtle and undistracting.

I do agree with Hairy Hen's idea for adding a bit more film grain to the multi-generational special effects sequences, at least for your "vintage version" that is; for instance, the Mos Eisley flyby seems to by nature be grainy because of so much composited.

Author
Time
Post link
I don't know. ;-) (somebody watches your videos!)
Author
Time
Post link

The added grain in the sample seems to be very minimal, so I don't have a real problem with it. But I'd be perfectly happy if no additional grain is added. The specs and dirt I'm not a fan of though.

About the shake on the subtitles: If the picture element was shaking when the subtitles were originally added, then you've got 2 elements shaking independently. It's possible that by stabilizing the frame, the relative shake of the subtitles will be worse. I think the shake is good, but maybe you can just have a little less of it.

You know of the rebellion against the Empire?

Author
Time
Post link

Looked the sample. The grain looks ok. It's not that much. It would be easier to judge if it was 2 separate videos, one with grain applied to the full image, so that we can watch each fullscreen without the other.

Author
Time
Post link

Erikstormtrooper said:

About the shake on the subtitles: If the picture element was shaking when the subtitles were originally added, then you've got 2 elements shaking independently. It's possible that by stabilizing the frame, the relative shake of the subtitles will be worse. I think the shake is good, but maybe you can just have a little less of it.

Hmm, that's actually a very interesting point.  Harmy, have you considered that possibility?

"Close the blast doors!"
Puggo’s website | Rescuing Star Wars

Author
Time
Post link

If I want to track the subs movement, it's sort of a package deal, you can't track something less, it just doesn't work that way. I would have to create the shake artificially in order to make the subs less shaky.

Author
Time
Post link

Harmy said:

If I want to track the subs movement, it's sort of a package deal, you can't track something less, it just doesn't work that way. I would have to create the shake artificially in order to make the subs less shaky.

Perhaps in those scenes that have burned in subs, the sub shake would look more natural if the shake in the rest of the image were also maintained.

The point is that if both the frame and the subs are wobbling independently, but limited to some small range, stabilizing the entire thing based on ONE of the two wobbles can cause the other wobble to increase.  That would happen at each instant where the wobble of one was opposite the wobble of the other.  At that moment, if you stabilize one, the wobble of the other is lengthened.

So, if you don't want to decrease the wobble of the one that isn't being stabilized, then the only way to avoid that is to not stabilize the other.

"Close the blast doors!"
Puggo’s website | Rescuing Star Wars

Author
Time
Post link

I think there is going to be a little wobble in the subtitles, that is to be expected, but what I want to know is... Did Harmy stabilize the shots of greedo and han from the PG so they match the shots fom the 2004 masters pixel for pixel?

If he didn't, then you have the added gate weave from the transfer from 35 to 16mm and then the transfer from 16 to dv.

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

Author
Time
Post link

I did actually. I took the PG footage and aligned it with the HD footage and then stabilized it, rendered the stabilized version and then tracked from there.

Author
Time
Post link

With regard the the subtitle shake (and please someone correct me if I am wrong).  But wouldn't the subs be burned into the film itself and the shake would be caused by it going through projector?  If so, then wouldn't the whole film have such a shake (opening credits, etc)?  I understand you are trying to do a high quality restoration of the original trilogy, which I am grateful for - but to replicate what was caused by the projector and not what was was actually in the film itself seems like a bad idea to me.  It would be similar to adding cigarette burn marks in the corners, because they were seen in theaters from when the film had to be spliced together.

Please understand I mean no disrespect, and it is likely I am misunderstanding what caused the subtitle shake.  But if the shake wasn't on the actual film print then I don't think it should be part of the restoration/reconstruction.

Author
Time
Post link

Good choice in the grain-thing, to make two versions for people to choose. Myself I wouldn't like the grain being there unless I knew it was in the source.

Author
Time
Post link

Although shake is certainly added by the projector, Harmy's corrected for that by stabilizing PuggoGrande to the very-still HD footage, and the subtitles still shook. You're right in saying that the subtitles are burned in, but remember that this burning in process also required running film across sprockets and all that... introducing its own shake. So even if you could run a 35mm print of Star Wars through a projector with absolutely no shake, the subs would still shake, because of how they were made.

ROTJ Storyboard Reconstruction Project

Author
Time
Post link

Infinity said:


With regard the the subtitle shake (and please someone correct me if I am wrong).  But wouldn't the subs be burned into the film itself and the shake would be caused by it going through projector?  If so, then wouldn't the whole film have such a shake (opening credits, etc)?  I understand you are trying to do a high quality restoration of the original trilogy, which I am grateful for - but to replicate what was caused by the projector and not what was was actually in the film itself seems like a bad idea to me.  It would be similar to adding cigarette burn marks in the corners, because they were seen in theaters from when the film had to be spliced together.

Please understand I mean no disrespect, and it is likely I am misunderstanding what caused the subtitle shake.  But if the shake wasn't on the actual film print then I don't think it should be part of the restoration/reconstruction.


Yes, the film would shake as it went through a projector, but the subtitles on the film print were done optically, meaning that there is going to be a natural weave to the subtitles regardless of how stable the main picture is.

As Mverta pointed out, a film camera is not as rock steady a medium as a digital camera. In essence, for a 24th of a second, a frame is exposed, the shutter closes and the next frame is physically pulled down and exposed again. Film is a mechanical process and there are inherent minute differences between exposures. This causes the picture to move around a little and this is called gate weave.

Nowadays, thanks to digital technology, we are used to seeing more steady images and composites.

Just go look at the speeder scene on Return of the Jedi and you will see the speeders bobbing up and down. Or look at the star field in the throne room. Same thing.

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

Author
Time
Post link

Damn, that closing celebration matte has never looked good, has it? I can see why you were torn... there's not a lot to work with. That original matte looks horrible in the original film print and has always stood out. I have to say that I would probably prefer the way it was in 1.0 since darkening the sides is hugely distracting... I mean everyone knows that scene and how it's supposed to look. It just appears to be noticeably altered and will be distracting when viewing the film. I sympathize, because this must be a tough, touch call.

If it were me, I'd actually go with the SE shot as it's not an offensive inclusion and it looks so much better and more natural in HD. Have you considered freezing the SE shot to create a new matte? That way the guards wouldn't be moving and would emulate the original shot, but wouldn't look as horrific.

Author
Time
Post link

Have to say I prefer the 1.0 matte.  If the goal of this is to re-create the theatrical experience, then startlingly obvious cardboard cutouts are part of that experience.

Project Threepio (Star Wars OOT subtitles)

Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link

2.0 looks good (though maybe just a hair *too* dark?). Ginge and others who have actually seen the film in a theater can correct me, but I've always assumed that on a cinema screen, those painted people wouldn't be as bright and obvious as they were in the GOUT and other video transfers. All of the transfers had brightness, contrast, gamma and other level adjustments to account for the fact that video (and specifically analog video) has a narrower dynamic range than film, and it often played havoc with the black levels. It's the same reason that garbage mattes are so obvious, when they should be virtually invisible in the cinema.

(Also, the adjustments were not the same for every scene. Notice how in the pre-GOUT transfers, you can see the picture getting brighter as it wipes from 3PO in the desert to R2 in the canyon...)

Ginge, could you see the painted troops clearly in the Senator screening?

Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link

@ CatBus: Yes, but its a whole original mattepainting, not just the soldiers and I bet that the soldiers are so obvious in the GOUT because of the screwed up black levels - I think they didn't paint much detail on the soldiers because they were meant to be mostly lost in the shadow.

EDIT: TServo beat me to it.

Author
Time
Post link

Ginge said:


Damn, that closing celebration matte has never looked good, has it? I can see why you were torn... there's not a lot to work with. That original matte looks horrible in the original film print and has always stood out. I have to say that I would probably prefer the way it was in 1.0 since darkening the sides is hugely distracting... I mean everyone knows that scene and how it's supposed to look. It just appears to be noticeably altered and will be distracting when viewing the film. I sympathize, because this must be a tough, touch call.

If it were me, I'd actually go with the SE shot as it's not an offensive inclusion and it looks so much better and more natural in HD. Have you considered freezing the SE shot to create a new matte? That way the guards wouldn't be moving and would emulate the original shot, but wouldn't look as horrific.
No SE, in every possible case. That's what I will encourage.

Star Wars Revisited Wordpress

Star Wars Visual Comparisons WordPress

Author
Time
Post link

Harmy said:

@ CatBus: Yes, but its a whole original mattepainting, not just the soldiers and I bet that the soldiers are so obvious in the GOUT because of the screwed up black levels - I think they didn't paint much detail on the soldiers because they were meant to be mostly lost in the shadow.

EDIT: TServo beat me to it.

I get that, but I think the shadow in your 2.0 demo is way too dark.  Dim is okay, black looks weird.

Project Threepio (Star Wars OOT subtitles)

Author
Time
Post link

TServo2049 said:

Ginge, could you see the painted troops clearly in the Senator screening?

 

You could see them if you looked right at them, and they did look pretty bad, but not on the level we see in V1. You're right about the the matte not being as bright and obvious, it wasn't as bright. It wasn't as terribly distracting as it is now though, especially on a giant screen where your main focus is on the center of the screen.

This is one of the few alterations I actually agreed with, I though the SE shot made the scene more natural. It's a shame a new matte can't be created from that. 

Author
Time
Post link

For the end shot, I like the Ver 1.0 better. V.2 is way way too dark.