Print variations in '77 Star Wars — Page 4

50500


50600


50700

"This is ridiculous…"

Darth Mallwalker said:

50500


50600


50700

Interesting, it definitely looks like different compositing in the GOUT with the rolling bars not in sync with the JSC LD. Could it be the result of the DVNR that is fooling us perhaps? The SWE (Technidisc) that otherwise always match GOUT, match the JSC LD in this case. Will check other sources...

Tack said:

"This is ridiculous…"

Yeah, I can certainly understand that this may seem "ridiculous" to most people but I personally find it quite fascinating. It's about ILM'ers still working on the film when prints were already being struck in order to improve on what first came out of the optical printer.

These visual effects artists didn't have the luxury seeing how the shot came out until it was done, they basically had to hope for the best. If there happened to be a mistake in the compositing then they had to live with it or just start from scratch.

While the revisions on the films audio presentation has been well documented over the years, these subtle last minute visual revisions have gone undocumented, no mention in any behind the scenes interviews or books as far as I know, so I think it's nice trying to document them. In this case it's not about Lucas being his usual tinkering self either, subtle revisions on films during their theatrical run wasn't something unique for Star Wars.

TServo2049 said:

OK, so does this mean the Technidisc/GOUT IP retained its color into the 90s? How does that explain the somewhat desaturated and neutral look of the GOUT?

My original assumption was that either the source element wasn't fully timed, or that it was done in telecine to compensate for fade. The 1983 Spanish-dubbed LPP print and the 1989 French widescreen laserdisc seem to come from a source that had the same variations as the GOUT, and both have certain scenes with pinkish or bluish casts (the French LD is worse, I had assumed it had been due to another 6 years of fading on the source element).

The 70mm cells show the gold cast on Tatooine, the green-blue tinge to the Death Star interiors, and so forth - quite close to the IB Technicolor (including another IB print which made its way into the hands of a British film-cutter, who has been selling it piece by piece on eBay UK). And as I said, the blowup that was chopped up to make the cells was printed on 1995 stock.

So was the GOUT neutralized in telecine even though it came from a fully timed IP? The Technidisc does seem to have more of the original color timing in evidence, but even that isn't perfect. I don't know what to believe anymore...

I choose to reply to your question in the Legacy thread here instead... For all we know the Technidisc/THX LD (GOUT) - source could've been a beat up internegative instead of an interpositive (despite the mention of an IP in that article). I have a hunch that could be the case. It would also explain the rough state of it.

The IP talked about that they found could have been for the subtitleless Greedo sequence.

TServo2049 said:

I was bringing this up in the Legacy thread, but it got kind of off-topic so I'm moving it here.

Has anybody seen a Derann or Cineavision Super 8 print, and can recall if either had the glue at every cut like the JSC, and/or if they are missing the orange marks in the Tantive corridor? I am still interested in determining whether:

1.) all the versions with the early composites have the same cement blobs as the JSC and other video transfers

2.) the presence of the blobs corresponds with the Tantive orange things NOT being there.

As I said, the few bootleg transfers that come from sources with the early composites are vertically cropped so the glue isn't shown. I'm still wondering if the "glue" source was actually a very early element, predating the orange marks being introduced (on an earlier generation?)

I believe the Derann prints are cropped at the bottom of the frame, so the splicing will probably only be visible on a few select frames where the marks cover a big chunk of the frame. I have personally only seen a few short segments from one. They probably match the JSC in terms of compositing though.

I'm sorry for sitting on the Derann scan. I'll get around to uploading it as soon as I get some free time.

TServo2049 said:

Has the Cineavision print ever been scanned?

I believe so, yes, but I don't know if there are any plans to release the scan.

AntcuFaalb said:

I'm sorry for sitting on the Derann scan. I'll get around to uploading it as soon as I get some free time.

Looking forward to it! No need to be sorry, I'm sure we're all waiting patiently on it. Life gets busy sometimes.

TServo2049 said:

I am still interested in determining whether:

1.) all the versions with the early composites have the same cement blobs as the JSC and other video transfers

2.) the presence of the blobs corresponds with the Tantive orange things NOT being there.

As I said, the few bootleg transfers that come from sources with the early composites are vertically cropped so the glue isn't shown. I'm still wondering if the "glue" source was actually a very early element, predating the orange marks being introduced (on an earlier generation?)

1.) I just checked and the 35mm bootlegs doesn't have those ugly splices. They are vertically cropped, yes, but in those instances where the glue cover a much larger part of the frame in the JSC, there's no glue to be seen in the bootlegs. So it's safe to say that no 35mm prints did have such ugly splicing. The 35mm prints I've seen matches the splices visible in the Technidisc SWE, not that surprising.

2.) It seems like they do as the ITV Broadcast print doesn't have the infamous damage either.

I double-checked the splices but this time on Moth3r's 35mm telecine bootleg, which actually is framed more or less theatrically correct in terms of vertical info (here it shows slightly too much at the bottom of the frame).

Top: 35mm telecine Middle: JSC LD Bottom: SWE LD (Technidisc)

And as you can see even the minor glue marks like this one in the JSC-print is absent in the 35mm.

As to the damage in the opening shot of the Tantive corridor. If what I've heard is correct, even the IB-Tech prints have those artifacts and those prints didn't go through the intermediate steps of regular Eastman prints. It means that they have to be on the negative and not something that originated on either the interpositives or internegatives, IB-Tech prints was made from the color separation masters.

Chewtobacca said:

So does that mean that the JSC comes from an extremely early source that was made before the negative was damaged?  I'm still as confused as ever about this.

You're not alone. :) We don't have a definitive answer, we can only speculate, but yes that appears to be the case.

It's also worth pointing out that the opening shot of the Tantive corridor is an optical effect shot, so the workflow went: negative --> IP --> IN (cut into the negative of the rest of the movie) and then --> IP --> IN --> release print.

TServo2049 said:

I thought many/most of the opticals were done on CRI so that they could skip a generation of degradation?

Ah, yes you're right about the CRI of course. Thinking about this stuff can drive you mad. :)

TServo2049 said:

Was this some kind of test assembly with every finished shot, that was signed off on and the negative subsequently conformed to match with the "cleaner" cementing that we see on the 35mm bootlegs, Technidisc, GOUT, etc.? Maybe they kept it as some kind of backup?

Yeah, this to me sounds like a very logical scenario and something that I've been thinking as well.

I can also confirm that the Fox logo and Lucasfilm and ALTA card appears to be part of the same mystery source (different splice glue before the crawl). Not that surprising really but a similar point for the revised ending credits haven't been found yet.

TServo2049 said:

I notice that this version has only appeared in non-release-print contexts - home video releases, 4:3 16mm prints like the version broadcast on ITV, and curiously enough, the 1982 reissue trailer...

Does the same splicing show up in the trailer?

TServo2049 said:

(Does Moth3r's bootleg show the same glue marks that DO appear in the Technidisc?)

I'm pretty sure it does but I'll have to double-check that.

Guess I was wrong, Moth3r's bootleg doesn't appear to have the same glue marks that appear in the Technidisc.

EDIT: Interesting about the trailer, will have to check that out.

I checked the reissue trailer and it's the same familiar glue marks in the cantina all right, maybe a coincidence but funny the year of the trailer is 1982 like the video debut and ITV broadcast from the same mystery source.

How does the splices in negative-1 prints look like? Do we have any glue frames to look at?

TServo2049 said:

Another question - do the printed-in white splice marks that show up on the original P&S home video transfer show up on transfers not from the same source, like the Technidisc? (Or is it too tightly cropped at the top?) And then there are a few printed-in BLACK splice marks - on AMPS, -1 posted a shot-by-shot breakdown spreadsheet that none did of the Spanish LPP, and he put down a note that seems to indicate that the repeated frame of Vader from the lightsaber duel has the same black line running across the top of both frames as you saw on the JSC...

The white splice marks I'm pretty sure of being visible on the Technidisc source as well in a few shots. But then again I was pretty sure of the glue marks in the Technidisc matching the bootleg telecine. Will have to get back to you on that.

Will have to check out that spreadsheet...

TServo2049 said:

Another question - do the printed-in white splice marks that show up on the original P&S home video transfer show up on transfers not from the same source, like the Technidisc? (Or is it too tightly cropped at the top?)

The same white negative splice marks show up in the Technidisc where it's too open in its framing.

Top: JSC Below: SWE (Technidisc)