- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
RU.08 said:
They removed a lot more than just the "offensive" vaseline blob.
OK, this is something that has bugged me for years. I'm not buying the "vaseline" story. If there were really vaseline on the lens, the blur would be in the same place on every frame.
Don't quote me on this, but I've always assumed that animation department had to take every frame and create a piece of fake ground where the wheels were, then maybe blur it so it would blend in with the live footage. Unlike the mirror in the Death Valley pickups, it did not show up the same color due to the flaws of optical duping.
Then, after that pass, they had to dupe it *again* to add the shadow under the speeder. The problem is that this was on regular 35mm stock, while all the effects scenes were 8-perf VistaVision with twice the image area. Thus, the grain buildup and generation loss was much less noticeable, and the effects blended in with the live scenes once reduced to 35mm. Not so with this scene.
Therefore, the amount of duping this poor 35mm footage endured resulted in this extreme amount of grain. Combine with the extra grain from the negative to the actual theatrical prints, and this scene did almost look like blown-up 16mm.
According to Mike Verta, this shot always looked like garbage. Even with his tools, it's probably going to look natty even in Legacy. (He also identified other shots that look bad on every print; off the top of my head, they were the long shot of the Sandcrawler rolling over the dune, and the shot of the Rebel ships coming at the camera before they approach the Death Star - the second part of the two-shot reveal that was replaced with that CGI flyby in the SE).
That said, I am amazed that Darth Editous was able to sharpen the scene, but the main version of this transfer should have it looking like crud because it always looked like crud. It will look both better than the old transfers (sharper, higher resolution, no DVNR or artificial sharpening like the GOUT) and worse than the old transfers (extra grain due to being from a print and not an IP), but still crud compared to the adjacent shots.
I have faith, I think -1 and his partner already said they're going to try to preserve as much of the printed-in dirt and damage as possible (as opposed to the dirt and damage that this specific print has accumulated). Again, don't quote me on that; I'm sure -1 can clarify.