Print variations in '77 Star Wars — Page 5

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

TServo2049 said:

Oh wow, a rare example where the Technidisc/GOUT source has the dirtier splice.

The JSC seems cleaner overall too; excluding the splices, of course.

TServo2049 said:

Oh wow, a rare example where the Technidisc/GOUT source has the dirtier splice. I think that may be the biggest glob of cement I've seen thus far.

Yeah, this is also one of the rare examples the first frame of a shot is glued as well, the JSC source is always glued on the last frame of a shot and sometimes even when a jump cut appears - Ben's lightsaber ignites, Artoo's leg extend etc, there's glue indicating the end of the cut.

I now actually don't recall which 35mm print(s) I thought matched the Technidisc source, I know I've seen it somewhere. Anyway, Moth3r's 35mm bootleg doesn't appear to have any glue marks of the kind at all, only the negative splices which all of course were covered up by the projector aperture if screened correctly, and that appears to be the case with Technicolor IB prints as well.

TServo2049 said:

Do you have a full preservation of the "ISR" SWE? It seems to have been shrugged off for years, under the assumption that it's redundant/inferior to the JSC. But now that it's clear it's not a straight port of the JSC transfer, it really needs to be compared against the JSC in full.

I own a DVD of it someone on this board sent me. Same source, same glue marks and same damage on reel 3. IIRC, it's a different telecine, but other than that I don't know.

hairy_hen, that's great info. With your great ear have you taken a listen to the theatrical mixes and compared with the visuals at the point where the Stardestroyer is chasing the Falcon before it goes into lightspeed. The revison made to the shot I posted examples of in this thread is extremely subtle but I'm just curious if you or anyone else for that matter thinks the audio match the visual cues better in one or the other. Perhaps impossible to tell.

TServo2049 said:

Do you think the glue is positive, or printed in? I'm not sure because of the little white fringes, that suggests it could be inverted. But then the actual cement residue would have a slight blue color, which doesn't really make sense. The stuff starts out clear, and I've read stories of old cement turning yellow or brown in the bottle, so I'd assume that like many adhesive compounds, it would likely yellow as it dries?

Good question, I have no idea. And you're right about the glue turning yellow or brown with age so it wasn't as visible at one point. That coupled with the low quality of the 35mm bootleg could be a reason for not seeing them but I don't think so in this case as the bright edges would probably be visible at some points despite its quality.

TServo2049 said:

Please re-check the ISR SWE, specifically the shot of Luke turning the lightsaber back on after putting on the helmet. Russ' capture of the '91 UK LBX VHS seems to lack them, but it's also dark, fuzzy, and compressed, so I can't tell whether the splotches are truly not there, or if it's just too obscure, like with the glue marks we thought weren't there but actually were.

Not able to post any screenshots at the moment but I skimmed through it again and yes, the splotches are definitely there. It does however contain some frames missing in the JSC. So the ISR SWE is something that can be used to patch missing frames. More glue frames. Yay! ;)

I'm also not sure which pressing it is, if I recall correctly there are three of them - Pioneer USA & Japan and Mitsubishi.

TServo2049 said:

Well, the cement must not have stayed clear for very long - the PAL 35mm telecine bootleg of Empire that VideoCollector obtained a few years back had the same kind of yellowish cement gunk on at least one splice. And that was from a first-run UK theatrical print. (-1 made mention of having to crop out glue from the grind house transfer, I assume their prints are also first-run?)

I guess it was just something not meant to be noticed and usually cropped out in projection.

Also, I have read that A roll/B roll were printed from the negative by printing the A roll (with the slugs in between coming out as black), then printing the B roll onto the same film, exposing the B-roll shots on the black sections between the A roll shots. I can't find anything about interpositives being made in pieces and glued together.

If the negative was A/B, that would mean the yellow blobs are printed in, but that doesn't make sense. For one thing, it would mean the cement was actually light bluish-gray, which seems odd. More importantly, it wouldn't explain why different sources made at different times have different marks. They wouldn't be ungluing and regluing the negative multiple times, if the splices are printed in from negative then only the shots which were replacements would have different splice marks. The more I think about it, the more confused I get...

Yeah, the splicing glue on ESB seem to be fairly consistent on all prints I've seen, including the 1997 Special Edition. From what I've seen of -1's ESB it has the same old glue seen on other prints like the JSC and GOUT.

Yes, Star Wars is A-B rolled but the way I understand it the "checkerboard technique" isn't really needed or used for 35mm, see: https://books.google.se/books?id=fR--7yVROI4C&pg=PA186&lpg=PA186&dq=invisible+splices+a-b+rolled&source=bl&ots=rogbd2dNxv&sig=ZCT6gmo38ZkbT1sVSAUPIUqJ94o&hl=sv&sa=X&ei=UXDIVPirBujMygOho4KQAw&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=invisible%20splices%20a-b%20rolled&f=false But when you look at the glue frames that cover half of the frame in certain prints of SW and ESB you begin to wonder...

TServo2049 said:

If the negative was A/B, that would mean the yellow blobs are printed in, but that doesn't make sense. For one thing, it would mean the cement was actually light bluish-gray, which seems odd. More importantly, it wouldn't explain why different sources made at different times have different marks. They wouldn't be ungluing and regluing the negative multiple times, if the splices are printed in from negative then only the shots which were replacements would have different splice marks. The more I think about it, the more confused I get...

Perhaps what we're seeing on other prints like the Technidisc SWE for example might just be repairing of a worn out print, different from what we're seeing on the JSC print. I think the glue blobs at the end of shots in the JSC print have to stem from the fact that Star Wars is an A-B cut negative but I still can't wrap my head around why that IP ended up looking as it does.

For those who don't know how an A-B cut negative might be laid out and how it works:

Excuse the poor quality of the image. Anyway, the way it works is that you put all the odd numbered shots on one roll with a black opaque leader between each shot and the even numbered shots on the other, again with black spacing in between. When roll A is printed to the positive there will be no exposure where the black spacing is and where it ends the exposure from roll B starts.

As for those black marks you wondered about earlier, TServo, they do indeed appear elsewhere in the film. One classic example is right before the death star chasm shootout, as they appear inside the intended framing.

Probably a result from the optical process.

TServo2049 said:

Did those Stormtrooper shots have lasers in them?

Yes, a couple of frames later.

TServo2049 said:

They are splice marks (different kind of splicing), I'm just curious why they're BLACK. That means the splices were done on a positive generation?

I suppose so. Dirt built into the composites often show up as black in the film as well.