logo Sign In

Making our own 35mm preservation--my crazy proposal — Page 2

Author
Time
Post link
Not all technicolor prints are dye-transfer. IIRC, Lucas had his specially made. Haines makes no mention of dye-transfer. Do you have another source that suggests there were many?

Okay, here is another quote from Richard Haines:
...anything shot and printed in Eastmancolor prior to 1983 (the year the 'low fade' negative and print stock was introduced) is going to be pretty faded by now. Under the best storage conditions, Eastmancolor negatives were good for around 25 years (depending on the lab that did the processing). Thereafter, it began to fade, first with the opticals (which were on duplicate negative stock which was thinner) and then the rest of it. Sometimes the negatives can be 'tweaked' on video but eventually those video masters will be obsolete or deteriorate too. The exceptions to this color fading problem with Kodak stock are those movies printed in the following release print processes which did not fade or deteriorate: Technicolor dye transfer prints, Cinecolor and SuperCinecolor prints and Kodachrome (16mm and 8mm). These were the only stable color processes prior to 1983.
[...]
Prior to the post-1983 'low fade' color stock, there was a method of preserving Eastmancolor negatives. In fact, it was basically a variation of the three strip camera. The color negative was reprinted on fine grain B&W separation stock. Each color was preserved in B&W which could then be re-combined to make a new color internegative that had all of the hues of the original. This technique worked quite well. The "Spartacus" restoration was derived from the B&W separations since the Eastmancolor camera negative had completely faded.
[...]
It's probable that in the case of "Star Wars" and "Alien" (both filmed on 'quick fade' Eastmancolor), there were separations made of the original versions. Whether they will ever be used to make a new color internegative is the next question. Lucas keeps re-cutting his movies and won't allow the original versions to be shown again.
[...]
Curiously, the original version of "Star Wars" can still be seen but only privately via film collectors. Even though Technicolor had shut down their process in the U.S., they continued to make dye transfer prints in England through 1978, in Italy through 1980 and in China through 1993. Therefore, some real Technicolor (dye transfer dolby stereo) prints were made of the first release of "Star Wars". The color, sharpness and contrast is far superior to the American prints. These copies look even better than the 70mm print I saw way back when. The black levels of space are pitch black and the colors really glow from the screen. It really looked sensational. The American prints have completely faded by now and the 90's re-issue looked somewhat faded with pinkish fleshtones in the first reel (good old 'color by De Luxe'). Lucas is an advocate for digital projection and wants to phase out motion picture film. I hope he has preserved the film elements because digital is not archival. It's a very unstable format and it's easy to erase or degrade digital data. Since there's no 'hard copy' like film, there's no way to restore missing computer information. It just vanishes.
[Full quote here]

Okay, so persuade Fox to give up those B&W separations (not likely) or track down a couple of collectors with dye-transfer prints.
Author
Time
Post link
Have those of you with prints at least made a video recording of them off a projection screen? It would be good to have and if you have a good video camera with very little to none video noise, you could easily capture more resolution than the laserdiscs. Especially since you could manipulate it so it could be recorded anamorphically and not have half the space be taken up by black bars.
If nothing else, it would be a great reference for future preservations and would also be interesting to see.

Take back the trilogy. Execute Order '77

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

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: THX
Not all technicolor prints are dye-transfer. IIRC, Lucas had his specially made. Haines makes no mention of dye-transfer. Do you have another source that suggests there were many?


The British Technicolor lab was still doing theatrical dye-transfer prints in the late 1970s. British audiences had the enviable opportunity to see dye-transfer prints of Star Wars up on the big screen. The reason that the print Mr. Haines mentioned was only faded at the beginning, was because there was a piece of Kodak stock spliced onto it (obviously, for use in a post-1977 theatrical revival). The rest of the print was not faded, therefore it was a dye-transfer print. If it was a Kodak print, the whole thing would have been faded. Mr. Haines is an expert on Technicolor, and has written a book about it. To him, the term "Technicolor" is synonymous with "dye-transfer".

"It was a British Technicolor copy (all US prints were on DeLuxe at the time and totally faded). The problem was that the opening title through the ships coming over head was replaced faded Eastmancolor. For re-issue Lucas had 'quick fade' Eastmancolor spliced in to put in "A New Hope" title. It continued through the first actual shot splice which was the ships coming over head which is my favorite shot in the movie. I couldn't watch it with that fade opening even though the rest looked great in Technicolor." (Richard W. Haines)

The Technicolor labs in the US had stopped doing dye-transfer prints in the early 1970s. That's why there are no American dye-transfer prints of Star Wars. It would have made no financial sense for the British lab to have only made 1 or 2 dye-transfer prints of Star Wars. It was an expensive process, and many prints would have had to have been made in order to recoup their expenses.

Today, "Technicolor" exists in name only. "Technicolor prints" ceased to exist after they stopped making dye-transfer prints. All they do now is process other company's prints (like- Kodak, Fuji, Agfa), just like any other lab.

Even if you were able to find (and afford) a dye-transfer print of Star Wars now, it still might have scratches, splicing, or other signs of wear from theatrical use.

Here's another bit of depressing info:

"The camera negative on Universal's 1960 Spartacus was totally faded, totally unusable. Nothing could be done to produce any printing material from that element. We worked from black-and-white separations and had to create the equipment to manufacture a 65mm preservation internegative on the film. We worked from the seps but those seps had been produced defectively. They had been vaulted 30 years before and never tested. I will not go into the problems that were encountered, but the lesson learned was simple and dramatic: black-and-white master separations, when produced, were routinely vaulted and forgotten, assuming they would yield beautiful results when needed. We now know that this simply is not accurate in all cases.

No one knows what materials can be produced from separation masters unless they have been printed, not selectively tested or reviewed on a Rank [film-to-tape transfer machine], but printed. This should be done before the negatives that they protect are no longer viable printing elements. If the protection is defective and the negatives have gone, nothing further can be done. Without doing so, we may have no protection for the last 40 years of color film history. Every film worth saving which has not been backed up should be looked into with immediacy." (Robert A. Harris, 1993)

Full article

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: zombie84
Owning a 35mm print is legal.

Scanning a private print is legal.

Just as owning a laserdisk is legal and digitizing a laserdisk is legal. There is nothing at all unique about this situation at all other than it is on a different format. VHS, laserdisk, DVD...35mm film.
In Canada? I know that "backing up" a commercial DVD is illegal in Canada, the US, the UK, Australia, here, and just about anywhere that respects copyright - I really don't think backing up film would be legal either. Also I agree with Lucasfilm's right to decline to allow anyone to show Star Wars publicly - I don't agree with the reasons - however it's illegal to show it publicly without their permission, so they can say no if they like. And that makes sense.

Now if you could borrow the best digital telecine available in 1000k radius of where you live, and obtain the best quality 35MM prints from collectors - and then spend thousands of dollars and years of your time "restoring the movie" - your resulting frames would probably only be about as good as a good-quality 16MM print. The september DVD's will have the resolution of a good-quality 16MM print, and they were professionally digitally mastered back in 1993 - so I really don't think you'd be able to achieve much better. The film stock is old anyway, so if Lucasfilm did a new transfer of the OOT (which I might add they may do like they did the 2004 SE and therefore take away the authentic look) it would undoubtedly look better - but I really don't think that fans would be able to achieve anything near that quality. Did you know that camera-shake (while FILMING onto the original negatives) was removed for the 2004 DVD's - they might even try to remove the camera-shake when doing a full OOT restoration (it may not sound like a big deal to you - but to me who believes restoration is about bringing the film back to it's original condition - not surpassing it, it is). He may do the highest level of grain removal on the OOT like he did with the 2004 SE - something I wouldn't like to see either.

So when I think about all the things that could go wrong with a new OOT transfer, and recognize that the best source without these problems will continue to be the laserdiscs - it makes me happy that Lucas is at least releasing it without touching it up at all first. So that's why I'll be happy with the September DVD's. Even if I do eventually get an HD set - and use an up-converter to view them, they'll still look great. 16MM resolution is good enough. Lucas is right, it would cost millions to fully restore the OOT back to it's original condition. And one day, I hope that they will. But I would much rather see this then see their restoration go wrong.
Some were not blessed with brains.
<blockquote>Originally posted by: BadAssKeith

You are passing up on a great opportunity to makes lots of money,
make Lucas lose a lot of his money
and make him look bad to the entire world
and you could be well known and liked

None of us here like Lucas or Lucasfilm.
I have death wishes on Lucas and Macullum.
we could all probably get 10s of thousands of dollars!
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: boris
Did you know that camera-shake (while FILMING onto the original negatives) was removed for the 2004 DVD's - they might even try to remove the camera-shake when doing a full OOT restoration (it may not sound like a big deal to you - but to me who believes restoration is about bringing the film back to it's original condition - not surpassing it, it is). He may do the highest level of grain removal on the OOT like he did with the 2004 SE - something I wouldn't like to see either.
Yeah, even John Lowry admitted that they went overboard when they removed grain during their "Citizen Kane" restoration. I'm not crazy about those computer algorithm-based "restorations". They're too imprecise. Nothing can substitute for a slow, careful, hands-on restoration that only a human being can provide.

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: boris
In Canada? I know that "backing up" a commercial DVD is illegal in Canada, the US, the UK, Australia, here, and just about anywhere that respects copyright - I really don't think backing up film would be legal either.

Canada does not have DMCA-style copyright legislation (as it shouldn't), so I don't think you can automatically lump Canada in with those other anti-consumer copyright regimes. I have never read that making a backup of a DVD you own is illegal in Canada. I'm quite sure, in fact, that the 'fair dealing provision' still allows it.

Also I agree with Lucasfilm's right to decline to allow anyone to show Star Wars publicly - I don't agree with the reasons - however it's illegal to show it publicly without their permission, so they can say no if they like. And that makes sense.


I disagree. For music, there is no way an artist can say, "I recorded that song in 1977, and released a new live version in 1997, so you may not ever play the 1977 version again." I'm quite sure there is statutory licensing that prevents that sort of nonsense. A similar thing happens (at least in Canada) for showing films in public: you get a license from a clearinghouse to be able to show x number of films over the duration of a year, and then you can show your own copy or rent a copy from the clearinghouse of the film you want to show.

'Star Wars' is not the frickin' Mona Lisa; there isn't just one copy, owned by Lucas, sitting in a vault someplace. It is a commercial work, from which George Lucas has made more money than God. I would agree that he has the exclusive right (under the monopoly that is copyright) to never sell copies of the 1977 film anymore, but I don't believe copyright alone should be enough to prevent public exhibition of something you own, as long as all the statutory licensing fees are paid.
Author
Time
Post link
Thanks for the info, Mielr. Here's yet another depressing quote from Robert Harris:
For the record, the use of a dye transfer print as a transfer element, would not yield an acceptable image. Any discussion of prints, in general, for transfer would be heading in the wrong direction.
[original context]

I tend to agree with boris: I'm glad these masters are being released on DVD as I fear what would be done by LFL as "restoration". However, bear in mind that the Definitive Collection itself is not theatrically authentic. Aside from the issue of the mix, which is discussed in other threads, the films received extensive color-correction (which is why color varies from scene to scene by comparison to earlier LD releases). Though nowhere near as far out as the '04 DVDs, this does change the look of the film (of course this has to be balanced against the higher quality telecine made for the DefCol).
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Karyudo
Canada does not have DMCA-style copyright legislation (as it shouldn't), so I don't think you can automatically lump Canada in with those other anti-consumer copyright regimes. I have never read that making a backup of a DVD you own is illegal in Canada. I'm quite sure, in fact, that the 'fair dealing provision' still allows it.
It's not anti-consumer, it protects the copyright holder. Anti-consumer is region-coding, and encrypted video-out. There's nothing anti-consumer about preventing your product from being copied. I don't have a single problem with HD-DVD and Blu-Ray using the highest levels of encryption to prevent 1:1 digital copies - but I do have a huge problem with them using regions (imagine if home PC's were region-coded) and enforcing encrypted video-out (if free-to-air TV can't do that, why can they?) Although backing up CD's appears to be legal in Canada - backing up DVD's certainly isn't - unless you have intangible legal proof?
Some were not blessed with brains.
<blockquote>Originally posted by: BadAssKeith

You are passing up on a great opportunity to makes lots of money,
make Lucas lose a lot of his money
and make him look bad to the entire world
and you could be well known and liked

None of us here like Lucas or Lucasfilm.
I have death wishes on Lucas and Macullum.
we could all probably get 10s of thousands of dollars!
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: zombie84
As for the physical act of scanning a 35mm print--i work as a motion picture camera assistant and as such i frequently deal with and meet people in film labs and transfer houses. Lets just say i know more than a few people that would be willing to give this a shot.


So the only problem is getting a print that's in good condition, not all of them look like the picture Zion posted. There are so many collectors with Star Wars prints, surely there are a bunch who got their hands on prints that haven't been worn out, and have them stored properly. And if you have one of those you don't have to do "years of cleaning up", just put the laserdisc audio with it, done. We just have to start a crusade to find one of those people...

That's no moon. It's a LaserDisc.

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Karyudo
'Star Wars' is not the frickin' Mona Lisa; there isn't just one copy, owned by Lucas, sitting in a vault someplace. It is a commercial work, from which George Lucas has made more money than God. I would agree that he has the exclusive right (under the monopoly that is copyright) to never sell copies of the 1977 film anymore, but I don't believe copyright alone should be enough to prevent public exhibition of something you own, as long as all the statutory licensing fees are paid.
They don't OWN the movie - they own a copy for private use only. Do you think TV just shows movies they "own"? no, they pay royalties. And what if someone doesn't want their movie shown on TV? Then that's their right to do so. Personally, if I was faced with the prospect of having a movie I made from scratch on TV I probably wouldn't want it shown with commercials and a watermarked channel-logo (although I might be persuaded by nice royalties). I would suppose Lucas feels simerly about Star Wars - he doesn't want it shown in it's old version publicly - while I disagree with him doing it in that instance, it's still his right to do so. He owns the films, no one else does, no one can force him to let them show it in public.

If it means that much to you - go and buy 16MM or 35MM prints of the film, if you can, and buy yourself a projector and a screen, invite all your friends over and watch them through it in the 'authentic' way. Honestly, in either case, I really doubt it would look even slightly better then the upcoming DVD's - and that's if you're able to ignore things like scratches, faded frames, misalignment, etc. Every DVD-R of the OOT has gone through this process:

Master Reels
--> Digital Master
--> Laserdisc Master
--> Laserdisc
--> DVD Authoring
--> DVD-R

The Sep DVD's will have gone through this process:
Master Reels
--> Digital Master
--> DVD Authoring
--> DVD

Do you remember, when DVD first came out many people argued that Laserdisc was actually still better quality and people wouldn't upgrade because they were happier with the quality of their LD's?

Music is another issue entirely. I know of many raids that happened over in Australia a couple of years ago, cracking down on the use and sale by DJ's of unauthorised remixes.
Some were not blessed with brains.
<blockquote>Originally posted by: BadAssKeith

You are passing up on a great opportunity to makes lots of money,
make Lucas lose a lot of his money
and make him look bad to the entire world
and you could be well known and liked

None of us here like Lucas or Lucasfilm.
I have death wishes on Lucas and Macullum.
we could all probably get 10s of thousands of dollars!
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: THX
Thanks for the info, Mielr. Here's yet another depressing quote from Robert Harris:
However, bear in mind that the Definitive Collection itself is not theatrically authentic. Aside from the issue of the mix, which is discussed in other threads, the films received extensive color-correction (which is why color varies from scene to scene by comparison to earlier LD releases). Though nowhere near as far out as the '04 DVDs, this does change the look of the film (of course this has to be balanced against the higher quality telecine made for the DefCol).
I have a set on DVD-R made from the pre-thx DVD's. You're right that there was a lot of colour correction done in 1993, but the state of the colours pre-thx was anything but theatrically authentic.
Some were not blessed with brains.
<blockquote>Originally posted by: BadAssKeith

You are passing up on a great opportunity to makes lots of money,
make Lucas lose a lot of his money
and make him look bad to the entire world
and you could be well known and liked

None of us here like Lucas or Lucasfilm.
I have death wishes on Lucas and Macullum.
we could all probably get 10s of thousands of dollars!
Author
Time
Post link
Yes, the colors were off in the pre-THX LDs, but consistently. There was scene-by-scene color correction applied to the Definitive Collection, which means it's a much more complex task to return to theatrical color from them (as I'm sure Zion & MBJ will testify). Now it's probable this would have been done between a D1 master and a D2 intermediate (probably along with the DVNR), so sourcing the DVD from the D1 would get you arguably closer to the theatrical color. However, it's possible that the color correction was applied to undo fading present in the IP, in which case the inverse would be true (but you'd have to put up with DVNR smearing and composite video). If anyone has more info about the DC CC or the exact source of the DVD, I'd like to know. Apologies to all for going off topic.
Author
Time
Post link
Yes, belbucus posted that excerpt here. But Red5 posted some info in this thread which suggested there was a D2 intermediate used for the LD & VHS releases.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: boris
[DMCA-style copyright legislation] is not anti-consumer, it protects the copyright holder.


When the copyright legislation allows consumers to make personal backups as part of fair use / fair dealing, and DRM/DMCA prevents the consumer from making that backup, then that is anti-consumer.

backing up DVD's certainly isn't [legal in Canada] - unless you have intangible legal proof?


I do have "intangible legal proof": Bill C-60, which was first read in Parliament in June, 2005, but has not yet been passed, contains language that might make it illegal to circumvent DRM. Ergo, it is not currently illegal to do so.

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: boris
They don't OWN the movie - they own a copy for private use only.

Of course they just own a copy. And that copy can be shown publically, if one obtains the proper license.

And what if someone doesn't want their movie shown on TV? Then that's their right to do so.

We're not talking about TV broadcast; we're talking about public performance. There are clearinghouses for obtaining public performance licenses (at least in Canada there are), and I'm not sure they can discriminate as to what commercially-available titles you can and cannot show publicly once you hold a license. Which is exactly how it should be.




Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: THX
Yes, the colors were off in the pre-THX LDs, but consistently. There was scene-by-scene color correction applied to the Definitive Collection, which means it's a much more complex task to return to theatrical color from them (as I'm sure Zion & MBJ will testify). Now it's probable this would have been done between a D1 master and a D2 intermediate (probably along with the DVNR), so sourcing the DVD from the D1 would get you arguably closer to the theatrical color. However, it's possible that the color correction was applied to undo fading present in the IP, in which case the inverse would be true (but you'd have to put up with DVNR smearing and composite video). If anyone has more info about the DC CC or the exact source of the DVD, I'd like to know. Apologies to all for going off topic.


So what official VHS/Laserdisc/DVD release has the most accurate color compared to the theatrical versions? And do people really, honestly remember the colors exactly? Even with comparison to theatrical reels, I can't imagine the color on those being the same, genuine non-faded color of the original originals.
http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/1113/userbar381851ln2.gif
http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/8653/userbar381853dp6.gif
Super Mario Bros. - The Wicked Star Story
"Ah, the proverbial sad sack with a wasted wish."
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: andy_k_250

So what official VHS/Laserdisc/DVD release has the most accurate color compared to the theatrical versions? And do people really, honestly remember the colors exactly? Even with comparison to theatrical reels, I can't imagine the color on those being the same, genuine non-faded color of the original originals.

I think the 70mm film cels from Willitts Designs are a good reference tool. They're probably the most accurate you're going to get as far as color goes.

Author
Time
Post link
As far as official releases go, the Japanese Special Collection is supposed to be the closest, color-wise. Remembering the colors accurately is apparently a neurological impossibility. Comparison to theatrical reels won't help unless you have a non-faded print, hence Lucas's dye-transfer reference print.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: THX
As far as official releases go, the Japanese Special Collection is supposed to be the closest, color-wise. Remembering the colors accurately is apparently a neurological impossibility. Comparison to theatrical reels won't help unless you have a non-faded print, hence Lucas's dye-transfer reference print.

Originally posted by: THX
Thanks for the info, Mielr. Here's yet another depressing quote from Robert Harris:For the record, the use of a dye transfer print as a transfer element, would not yield an acceptable image. Any discussion of prints, in general, for transfer would be heading in the wrong direction.
[original context]

Yeah, from what I understand, a dye-transfer print makes an excellent source for color reference, but not to create new film elements. I don't fully understand why they can't be used to create new negatives, etc., but it must have something to do with the fact that they are made so differently than chemical-based prints with emulsion layers.

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Karyudo
When the copyright legislation allows consumers to make personal backups as part of fair use / fair dealing, and DRM/DMCA prevents the consumer from making that backup, then that is anti-consumer.

I do have "intangible legal proof": Bill C-60, which was first read in Parliament in June, 2005, but has not yet been passed, contains language that might make it illegal to circumvent DRM. Ergo, it is not currently illegal to do so.
First, copyright legislation here in NZ does not make any provisions for "fair use", etc. Nor is circumventing DRM specifically illegal - however unauthorized copying is - and always has been - illegal. As I understand it, it is certainly illegal to create unauthorized copies for private use of commercial DVD's in Canada.

Again, it's not anti-consumer to prevent copies being made - it's good business. DVD publishers are required by law to replace any defective DVD. And I know some people may just want to copy DVD's so their kids don't scratch up the originals, etc - however there is no need to legalize that. Some people, take "consumer rights" way too far. If so many consumers weren't so neglectfully disrespecting copyrights all the time - hiding under the term "consumer rights", then the studios wouldn't have been inspired to protect their products more - and take it too far. Yes they take it too far - but consumers take what they think their rights are way too far as well. All I want is for there to be no region-coding - I don't believe Hollywood has that right - and no encrypted video/audio outs, so that I - and everyone I know can enjoy legally purchased products the way we would like. I don't give squat about not being able to copy it - I'll live, it won't bother me one little bit.

We live in a capitalistic world Karyudo, and if you think they should be forced to sell people their product "ie: forced to let them use it publicly" - then you're not embracing capitalism at all, but you think that you (consumers) should be able to dictate what publishers and copyright holders (businesses) have to do. It is their sovereign right to choose who they want to sell their products to, and who they don't want to sell their products too. Hell, if some kid comes in to buy alcohol and he's got a valid ID to show he's 18 and you think "well you look 13" - it's your sovereign right to tell him where to stick it, and to refuse sale. In fact, anyone in any business anywhere has that right.
Some were not blessed with brains.
<blockquote>Originally posted by: BadAssKeith

You are passing up on a great opportunity to makes lots of money,
make Lucas lose a lot of his money
and make him look bad to the entire world
and you could be well known and liked

None of us here like Lucas or Lucasfilm.
I have death wishes on Lucas and Macullum.
we could all probably get 10s of thousands of dollars!
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: boris
you're not embracing capitalism at all, but you think that you (consumers) should be able to dictate what publishers and copyright holders (businesses) have to do.


I don't embrace capitalism whole-heartedly (especially regarding control over artistic creations) and I do think that consumers should be able to dictate what publishers and copyright holders have to do.

We live in a digital world. What is so freaking hard about making a digital version of everything (such as, all 20 billion versions of Star Wars floating around) that anyone can buy, and then making it available online for free download and/or purchase? What is so wrong with the idea of perpetual license? How many versions of Star Wars do fans have to buy before they are "bestowed" access to that one single work and all the litter (alternate audio, deleted scenes, outtakes, etc.) that came along with directing it?

So, what were we talking about again?

http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/1113/userbar381851ln2.gif
http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/8653/userbar381853dp6.gif
Super Mario Bros. - The Wicked Star Story
"Ah, the proverbial sad sack with a wasted wish."
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: boris


We live in a capitalistic world Karyudo


That's good to hear! So there will no longer be any artificially-created monopolies legislated into existence? Now anybody can take a commercial product, make it better, and sell it? That's "market forces;" that's capitalism.

Copyright is a wholly artificial construct that actually works against free-market capitalism -- originally for the common good. It originally struck a fair deal for content producers: they would get a limited, legislated monopoly period in which to make their money, in exchange for releasing their work publically and letting it enter the public domain at some point. Whereupon it could be "ripped, mixed, and burned" into whatever the next round of content producers felt like using it for, regardless of how the original creator felt.

Now, huge, multi-billion-dollar corporations use copyright to quash any and all innovation by anyone other than people they deign to "approve".

And that is bullsh!t.

You can see just how ludicrous it is to let original creators control works indefinitely and arbitrarily (like Lucas controls Star Wars) if you consider the other big branch of intellectual property: patents. How insane would it be if designers and engineers had to bend to the whims of the inventor of something like the laser? Someone proposes using a laser to play optical discs, but the inventor of the laser says no, so that's it. Or, the CD player's invented, sold for a few years, and then the laser inventor declares that he's decided that nobody can use his invention anymore, so all CD players are now illegal. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

If Star Wars were covered by a patent, it would have run out by about 1994, entered the public domain, and George Lucas would have had to either come up with newer, better ways of marketing the same exact copies of Star Wars that everyone else could produce (possibly for cheaper), or he'd have had to go back to the drawing board and make up something newly-patentable that people wanted.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: THX
As far as official releases go, the Japanese Special Collection is supposed to be the closest, color-wise. Remembering the colors accurately is apparently a neurological impossibility. Comparison to theatrical reels won't help unless you have a non-faded print, hence Lucas's dye-transfer reference print.


I don't know if they color corrected that, I suppose not, but the prints were already 10 years old by then. I expect it to be like this: the earlier the release the closer to the original. My first issue PAL LD's look so damn clear and authentic, it really stunned me though I had already seen nearly all other SW LD's. The crawl and opening shot are even anamorphic widescreen, all the stars are there, I can tell you that. I'm sure that's the best LD representation of the crawl. To the X0 guys: I have three copies of the ANH LD, and a 2950 or 909 to cap it with. I'm planning to capture the whole trilogy and release it next week. I'm telling you guys, this is really something to look forward to! But the point is, I expect that one to be very close to the original: ANH was released in '82 (one of the three copies I have was still in 24 years old shrinkwrap when I got it).

That's no moon. It's a LaserDisc.

Author
Time
Post link
Congratulations BORIS....YOU have successfully derailed another thread off topic....where's Darth Mallwalker when you need him? (little joke...I have great respect for Darth and have learned a lot from his posts....)

You are one of the most annoying individuals I have EVER known....All you do here is cause problems and argue about everything with anybody. You want to argue about Fair Use rights and copyright legislation? Fine. Start your own thread, but that is NOT what this thread is about. Got it?

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