Eh. To me the BD is a lost cause.
"Right now the coffees are doing their final work." (Airi, Masked Rider Den-o episode 1)
What's so "lost" about it? Yes they edited even more scenes. But it's not like theres no scenes at all that havent been edited.
I'm thinking something along the lines of the deedited versions but hopefully with alot less rotoscoping/mixing frames.
Granted I haven't actually watched the full blu ray versions.
jero32 wrote: What's so "lost" about it? Yes they edited even more scenes. But it's not like theres no scenes at all that havent been edited.
Every pixel bit of the blu-ray has been modified. These revisions/changes go beyond the re-editing of scenes or the updating of a special effect, the global appearance is noticeably different then what existed before. That's why many people share Molly's opinion.
There is a version in progress working to de-specialize (deedit as you suggested) the movies. You can get into that conversation here:
http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Harmys-STAR-WARS-Despecialized-Edition-HD-AVCHD-DVD9-and-NTSC-DVD5-AVAILABLE-see-1st-post/topic/12713/
The issues you bring up are not really a part of this thread, here's a suggestion where to take this type of issue:
http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Which-version-release-of-the-SW-movies-do-you-watch-and-why/topic/12446/
I am fascinated by this statement:
I think "ideally" we'd use this copy mostly for backup/archiving.
So you’re saying people don’t “agree” with the blu-rays “feel” so to speak? Due to excessive editing to colors contrast/brightness and that this was done heavily on a frame by frame basis (or even pixel by pixel as you mention)
I was aware of harmy’s project which is why I brought up the de-specialized versions (I messed up and typed de-edit)
The reason I brought up the backup/archiving thing was that whilst I feel that this will be great for having a digital version of the movie to compare changes etc to. It’s not neccesairly the best version to watch in terms of quality. (on acount of the 35mm film simply being somewhat dirty. It stil looks very good though.)
keep in mind that by “archiving this copy” I meant archive the transfer mentioned in this thread.
I think that's what he meant. The changes made by Lowry Digital were so vast and went well beyond what Lucas changed. The cleanup of the "nylon" look of Mos Eisley and the "blueness" of Hoth, Tantive IV, etc. were way beyond the creative changes George Lucas made.
I think, properly cleaned up, this project is the best "film" preservation we'll have for a while! :)
To each their own. I'd stil like to see apropriate scenes cleaned up real good and inserted instead of the cgi footage though. (I'm not so much a "purist" as I'm someone who really really hates not having good high def footage of the movies with no cgi )
And yes this should look great once it comes out.
On a side note: I once saw this documentary on scanning film. I think they projected from within an emulsion. The emulsion had aprox. the same "thickness" as the emulsion on the film. This mean that alot of the emulsion scratches were physicly filtered. Is this something worth looking into?
edit: It was dry cleaning fluid: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FiCB6BWbd2k
red5-626 said:
Lucasfilm will not do it that is the problem.
But -1’s work will be much better than GOUT.
As for colour inaccuracy. The colour in the faded film
is vary much inaccurate it self, and will have to be manually
Corrected.?
From what I understand, and that is not much.
This process is not perfect but is pretty darn good.
And at the leased, if Harmy ever gets a computer that can do 1080p,
He will not need to use GOUT, for Despecializing.
Oh good, now there are two of them.
:-/
jero32 said:
To each their own. I'd stil like to see apropriate scenes cleaned up real good and inserted instead of the cgi footage though. (I'm not so much a "purist" as I'm someone who really really hates not having good high def footage of the movies with no cgi )
And yes this should look great once it comes out.
i've run some comparisons with the bluray,
and some scenes might match the quality of it,
while others are more grainy, and darker.. although
still light years better than the GOUT.
it's too jarring a transition going from the pristine
clarity of the bluray back to sampled film. i don't think
it would mesh well. but i'm sure people will try.
later
-1
[no GOUT in CED?-> GOUT CED]
That's why I mentioned doing it to specific scenes. Obviously making everything match would be a nightmare. But it might be possible for some of the shorter segments to get everything looking about the same so you can insert the footage.
Worst comes to worst it'll be a better source than GOUT to rotoscope things from though.
jero32 said:
So you're saying people don't "agree" with the blu-rays "feel" so to speak? Due to excessive editing to colors contrast/brightness and that this was done heavily on a frame by frame basis (or even pixel by pixel as you mention)
I think you just answered your own question ;)
This signature uses Markdown syntax, which makes it easy to add formatting like italics, bold, and lists:
jero32 said:
The reason I brought up the backup/archiving thing was that whilst I feel that this will be great for having a digital version of the movie to compare changes etc to. It's not neccesairly the best version to watch in terms of quality. (on acount of the 32mm film simply being somewhat dirty. It stil looks very good though.)
This is what I originally thought when I started doing my 16mm transfers, but was surprised to discover that many people enjoy, even prefer watching them to the DVDs/BDs. There is some inherent appeal to an authentic film look, and not everyone likes the ultra-scrubbed waxy sterile modern look, especially when watching an older film.
You might want to peruse the lengthy Blu Ray thread. Restoring a classic film means just that - restoring it to its original Academy Award winning form, no more and no less. -1's work is at the very leading edge of this effort.
"Close the blast doors!"
Puggo’s website | Rescuing Star Wars
jero32 said:
On a side note: I once saw this documentary on scanning film. I think they projected from within an emulsion. The emulsion had aprox. the same "thickness" as the emulsion on the film. This mean that alot of the emulsion scratches were physicly filtered. Is this something worth looking into?
A "rank" transfer is when the film is passed through a thin sheet of water, and the water fills in and mitigates many of the scratches. There are a few transfer houses that can do rank transfers for a fee - but you aren't likely to find one that would touch a "Star Wars" print with a 10-foot pole.
"Close the blast doors!"
Puggo’s website | Rescuing Star Wars
Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:
You might want to peruse the lengthy Blu Ray thread. Restoring a classic film means just that - restoring it to its original Academy Award winning form, no more and no less. -1's work is at the very leading edge of this effort.
Where is that thread? I tried searching for blu ray and it gets 1000+ results
:(
Brooks said:
Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:
You might want to peruse the lengthy Blu Ray thread. Restoring a classic film means just that - restoring it to its original Academy Award winning form, no more and no less. -1's work is at the very leading edge of this effort.
Where is that thread? I tried searching for blu ray and it gets 1000+ results
:(
Go to the "General Star Wars discussion" forum (the first one). There's a thread with a great big "Ohhhh Nooooo!!!" in the title, with over 300 pages of posts. Last I checked it was only about 6 or 7 threads down. No need to search.
"Close the blast doors!"
Puggo’s website | Rescuing Star Wars
Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:
jero32 said:
The reason I brought up the backup/archiving thing was that whilst I feel that this will be great for having a digital version of the movie to compare changes etc to. It's not neccesairly the best version to watch in terms of quality. (on acount of the 32mm film simply being somewhat dirty. It stil looks very good though.)This is what I originally thought when I started doing my 16mm transfers, but was surprised to discover that many people enjoy, even prefer watching them to the DVDs/BDs. There is some inherent appeal to an authentic film look, and not everyone likes the ultra-scrubbed waxy sterile modern look, especially when watching an older film.
This.
the 16mm transfer is by far my favorite version!
i wish you guys could see more of the tests and full
reels we have now, but of course it's better to wait for the full thing.
everytime i get a reel from the excellent lpp print, i have to watch
it with my jaw dropping, not because of how cool it looks, but to relive
that feeling of seeing it as close to the original. and knowing it will
be complete again.
even the red faded reel 5 test looked amazing when
i saw the first few seconds of it transferred! it really feels
you are going back in time, and experiencing it for the first
time again! of course i've only watched this movie in the theaters
twice since it came out. and only a handful of times on dvd, and
laserdisc... (i've watched the special editions a lot more, so i'm
more used to them).
watching the bluray version is actually pretty cool, when you
notice a lot of the detail in some of the shots.. i guess the colors
are distracting to a lot of people (not to mention the additional
changes)... but since i'm not that great at noticing the color
changes, it doesn't bother me that much. i can live with most
of the cgi additions also.
that's why we are using a professional color corrector to regrade the
film.. his decisions, and one other person (mr brown), and myself all
contribute on what we think... too dark, too light, etc.. but in the end,
it should be a lot closer to the original presentation, which is what we
are trying to capture.
i think you can tell, most people will prefer to experience this as
a whole project. but don't let it deter you from starting up a
splinter related project. i'm sure there will be many offshoots,
as people will want to adjust some of the shots to their own
preference.
later
-1
[no GOUT in CED?-> GOUT CED]
negative1 wrote: i'm sure there will be many offshoots,
as people will want to adjust some of the shots to their own
preference.
Give it 10 years and there will be wikipreservation.org which will allow everyone to take part in the restoration process. From dirt removal to color adjustment, all will click click click until some version of the film is returned.
With regards to color correction, would it be a good idea to talk with Harmy, as he had several samples from a tech IB print?
Chicken Boo said:
With regards to color correction, would it be a good idea to talk with Harmy, as he had several samples from a tech IB print?
he knows!
he's not directly involved. but we're all working
towards the same goals.
later
-1
[no GOUT in CED?-> GOUT CED]
Would that site with all the 70mm frame scans be a good resource?
Where were you in '77?
Anyway regardless of what everyone will do to the footage when it is released. Is there any sort of ETA or are you guys not willing to say because you'd feel "commited" to such a date?
I would definitely check out the PS78 too. It's a videotape filmed one year after Star Wars was released- being one year later, the film didn't have time to fade and being a videotape, it didn't lose its color. It seems like it would be a great reference. Frank was a theater projectionist back then and he said that it matched his memory of the movie, especially the heavy bias towards blue- green....
I want to see this as untouched as possible. The more grain the better!
I wish that I could just wish my feelings away...but I can't. Wishful wishing can only lead to wishes wished for in futile wishfulness, which is not what I wish to wish for.
SilverWook said:
Would that site with all the 70mm frame scans be a good resource?
been there, seen that!
it's too inconsistent to be useful though..
jero32 said:
Anyway regardless of what everyone will do to the footage when it is released. Is there any sort of ETA or are you guys not willing to say because you'd feel "commited" to such a date?
it's done, when its done.
we're hoping later this year if all goes as planned.
ESB is about 80% done, but that will be next year perhaps.
ROTJ is 0% but who knows?
1990osu said:
I want to see this as untouched as possible. The more grain the better!
we'll release the raw files too, but they will be huge!
later
-1
[no GOUT in CED?-> GOUT CED]
SilverWook said:
Would that site with all the 70mm frame scans be a good resource?
Did you this post by Harmy?
Compare those to the 70mm scans like they look on that site, and you'll instantly know the scans' color can't be trusted.
Example:
Oh crap! I didn't think they could be that off. Is scanning them inside the little lucite holders the culprit?
The other problem is, all the loose 70mm frames I've ever seen are faded to pink.
Where were you in '77?