logo Sign In

Info & Info Wanted: GOUT film grain — Page 2

Author
Time
Post link
Arnie,

Could please PM me with the links as well?

Thanks!

You know of the rebellion against the Empire?

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Bobby Jay
Hi, Arnie.

Hate to be a pain, but if you could PM me the link I'd really appreciate it.

Anyone know if there's scans of the ESB and ROTJ sets floating around anywhere?

No problem, links send. The scans include some frames of ESB and ROTJ but most are from SW.

Fez: I am so excited about Star Whores.
Hyde: Fezzy, man, it's Star Wars.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Arnie.d
What do you mean by video noise? Is there a difference between video noise and grain? I think they are scanned pretty well. You think the scans don't show the full quality of the original 70mm frames?


Video noise is very different from grain. Film grain is what the actual film is composed of, video noise is basically interference caused by the imaging sensors and is those tiny tiny red blue and green dots you see mixed in the image. Thats not part of the film, thats created by the digital capture and its quite heavy on these scans.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: zombie84
Originally posted by: Arnie.d
What do you mean by video noise? Is there a difference between video noise and grain? I think they are scanned pretty well. You think the scans don't show the full quality of the original 70mm frames?


Video noise is very different from grain. Film grain is what the actual film is composed of, video noise is basically interference caused by the imaging sensors and is those tiny tiny red blue and green dots you see mixed in the image. Thats not part of the film, thats created by the digital capture and its quite heavy on these scans.

OK. I got mixed up because of this videonoise on film idea. But I understand what you mean. Isn't it possible it's on the 70mm frames like that?

Fez: I am so excited about Star Whores.
Hyde: Fezzy, man, it's Star Wars.
Author
Time
Post link
The scans aren't reference quality but are definitely worth having (very hi-res). I got mine from absw. In fact, I used one of the ESB scans on the back cover of my The Story of The Empire Strikes Back. It's the one of Luke in the carbon freezing chamber in the red lighting looking for Vader...

You can go about your business. Move along, move along.

http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/4962/nowplayingbannermasterzc2.jpg
The Story of Star Wars
The Adventures Of Luke Skywalker

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Arnie.d
Originally posted by: zombie84
Originally posted by: Arnie.d
What do you mean by video noise? Is there a difference between video noise and grain? I think they are scanned pretty well. You think the scans don't show the full quality of the original 70mm frames?


Video noise is very different from grain. Film grain is what the actual film is composed of, video noise is basically interference caused by the imaging sensors and is those tiny tiny red blue and green dots you see mixed in the image. Thats not part of the film, thats created by the digital capture and its quite heavy on these scans.

OK. I got mixed up because of this videonoise on film idea. But I understand what you mean. Isn't it possible it's on the 70mm frames like that?


Yes, a lot of the grain on the 70mm print happens to look like video noise as well. Its not all, but theres some there.

I looked at my old SW Insiders last night and it seems as though these are all from a single print made--each frame sold is unique, so it looks like they got a 70mm print and cut it up into a million individual frames and sold those for $25 each on a mounted piece of plastic with a window cut out to view the actual film with.

I also got a 35mm strip of Episode I--it came from the limited edition widesceen VHS boxset. Even though its the only prequel shot on film the weird thing is that the strip I got is a wideshot of the podrace so I have a 35mm piece of film of an all-digital image that was created entirely in a computer. I was always really dissapointed by that. Its like cheating.

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: zombie84
they got a 70mm print and cut it up into a million individual frames

2 hours of film is more like 180000 frames.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Z6PO
Originally posted by: zombie84
they got a 70mm print and cut it up into a million individual frames

2 hours of film is more like 180000 frames.

So the only thing we have to do is collect them all, scan them and and put them in the correct order.
Fez: I am so excited about Star Whores.
Hyde: Fezzy, man, it's Star Wars.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Arnie.d
Originally posted by: zombie84
Originally posted by: Arnie.d
What do you mean by video noise? Is there a difference between video noise and grain? I think they are scanned pretty well. You think the scans don't show the full quality of the original 70mm frames?


Video noise is very different from grain. Film grain is what the actual film is composed of, video noise is basically interference caused by the imaging sensors and is those tiny tiny red blue and green dots you see mixed in the image. Thats not part of the film, thats created by the digital capture and its quite heavy on these scans.

OK. I got mixed up because of this videonoise on film idea. But I understand what you mean. Isn't it possible it's on the 70mm frames like that?

Yeah, I was going to say that those 70mm scans don't look very good. Tons of artifacting. I own about 100 of those 70mm cels (they were made by Willitts Designs in the 1990s) and they are just as wonderful as you'd expect them to be. You can still find them on eBay. I'll try to post a few scans later.

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Arnie.d
Originally posted by: Z6PO
Originally posted by: zombie84
they got a 70mm print and cut it up into a million individual frames
2 hours of film is more like 180000 frames.

So the only thing we have to do is collect them all, scan them and and put them in the correct order.


LOL! Nice, there's a commercially available 70mm OOT out there!


I own about 100 of those 70mm cels (they were made by Willitts Designs in the 1990s) and they are just as wonderful as you'd expect them to be. You can still find them on eBay. I'll try to post a few scans later.


Mielr, that would be just awesome if you could do that.
Author
Time
Post link
A while back, Laserman asked me to send him some scans from ANH for reference. I don't have a scanner that scans film, so I had to photograph these back-lit. Unfortunately, they came out a bit overexposed/blurry (and of course, the 35mm film I used adds another layer of grain to the images) but a few look OK :

http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/4774/hancel3lt2.jpg
http://imgcash5.imageshack.us/Himg132/scaled.php?server=132&filename=benhousebm2.jpg&xsize=640&ysize=480
http://imgcash3.imageshack.us/Himg99/scaled.php?server=99&filename=hologramgr4.jpg&xsize=640&ysize=480
Are these too small? I didn't want to make them annoyingly huge, so I scaled them down a bit.

Author
Time
Post link
Just for comparisons sake here is that shot on the GOUT.

http://www.secrethistoryofstarwars.com/cap218.bmp

Its hard to say which may be more accurate since there is obvious differences in color and brightness; the GOUT releases, IMO, actually exhibits little to no color deviation from what we know of the original release print, other than minor deviations from the telecine, so I'm inclined to say that that 70mm is way too bright, especially considering that still photos from the scene have that dim quality that the GOUT exhibits.

Using film scans is dependent on bulb intensity--a weak bulb will make it look to dim and a too bulb will basically overexpose (not accurate but its close) the image.
Author
Time
Post link
The photos I took of the 70mm cels are ALL overexposed (I back-lit them with a bulb that was too bright which is totally my fault- the cels look just stunning in person), so they're really not suitable for reference. I just wanted to show how they differ from the scans on the previous page, which seem to have some serious digital compression/color issues.

It's interesting, though, how in my photo, Han's pants look blue, and his shirt looks pale yellow (which it actually was) while in the GOUT frame, his shirt looks more beige and his pants more grey.

Author
Time
Post link
Do you think it would be possible to upload a few really high-res scans of the frames to have a better comparison? The ones from the 70mm comparison CD are scanned as high res as 1600x 705, allowing you to get huge blow ups and really inspect the frame.
Author
Time
Post link
I'll try. The problem is, the scans are so overexposed, that a lot of the detail is blown-out (and they're distorted/blurry on the edges).
http://imgcash1.imageshack.us/Himg511/scaled.php?server=511&filename=hanfalconws8.jpg&xsize=640&ysize=480
Hmmm.....I didn't re-size this one, yet it's the same size as the others (?) I just started using ImageShack (photobucket doesn't work w/my computer anymore). Does ImageShack automatically scale images down?

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Mielr
I'll try. The problem is, the scans are so overexposed, that a lot of the detail is blown-out (and they're distorted/blurry on the edges).
http://imgcash1.imageshack.us/Himg511/scaled.php?server=511&filename=hanfalconws8.jpg&xsize=640&ysize=480
Hmmm.....I didn't re-size this one, yet it's the same size as the others (?) I just started using ImageShack (photobucket doesn't work w/my computer anymore). Does ImageShack automatically scale images down?


That looks awful, where's all the grain? Seriously, it sure looks like the grain and noise in those "other" 70mm scans isn't truly representative of what the original film stock should look like.....to me anyway.

I love everybody. Lets all smoke some reefer and chill. Hug and kisses for everybody.

Author
Time
Post link
No, those other scans definitely aren't representative of what the film looks like. When I first saw those, it looked to me like what happens when you jack up the contrast/saturation in photoshop, like someone had intentionally monkeyed with the colors.

Here's another one. ImageShack is scaling down all of my uploads for some reason.
http://imgcash2.imageshack.us/Himg145/scaled.php?server=145&filename=trioid4.jpg&xsize=640&ysize=480

This one is probably the only one that's not really overexposed. Still a bit blurry on the edges, though. I won't bother posting any more of these since they're being automatically shrunken.
http://imgcash4.imageshack.us/Himg517/scaled.php?server=517&filename=tantivegn3.jpg&xsize=640&ysize=480

Author
Time
Post link
I believe image shack can resize uploaded images if you check a certain box. I've posted video screens using image shack here and at videohelp and they appeared at a larger size (654x480) unresized.

Take back the trilogy. Execute Order '77

http://www.youtube.com/user/Knightmessenger

Author
Time
Post link
Thanks! Keep in mind that these are just jpegs of 35mm photos that I TOOK of the 70mm cels and as such, they're not full-quality.

If/when I can find a scanner that will scan 70mm cels thru lucite, I will scan more and put them up.

Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link
negative1 said:

neat looking scans?

 

any more?

 

later

-1

I have some more but they came out blurry so I didn't bother posting them. They're not really scans, they're back-lit photos I took of the cels (my current scanner doesn't do film, unfortunately). Maybe I'll go ahead and post them later - just for fun.

For some reason, some of my ROTJ cels are turning reddish. :-( I guess they're on different film stock as the SW and ESB cels, as those seem to be holding up fine (so far).

Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link

Here's some more, I originally didn't post these because they didn't come out good, but - whatever, I'm bored. :-) I don't have any of the other 2 films ready to post because I did these for Laserman for the X0 project, so I only needed SW. (Let me know if these are too big- I tried doing thumbnails but I couldn't figure it out with this new posting function...)