I bought this 1992 vhs version from a charity shop: http://swonvideo.com/vhs/vvhs1992anh.htm
It seems to match the Technidisc in some ways. My guess is that if the playback equipment/capture method were equalized they would possibly look to stem from the same master. Of course the vhs has none of the information depth of the Technidisc.
The greedo subs were in the bottom black bar not over the image in this release.
Thus we didn't use the same interpositive as the theatrical one, because that one contains subtitling already. In tracking down the elements, we found that the only ones in the vault were ones with subtitles- these clearly weren't the first generation off the camera neg because they had to have the subtitles burned in.
My memory is failing, but I think maybe this turned out to be inaccurate. (Since it was possible to have your cut negative on A and B rolls and the subtitles on a C roll).
I finally got the chance to view this and I have to say....it's damn cool. Thanks to everyone involved with this.....nicely done.
It is a must have for any collection.
msycamore said:
Baronlando said:
frank678 said:
Looking at the comparison shots between the GOUT and Technidisc, the GOUT looks almost like its been bleached. Is this a combination of fade and DVNR or are there other factors involved?
I was wondering if that source was turning yellow and then correcting that ended up making it kind of blah?
My DVD transfers poor white balance also contributes to making it look more yellow than the actual LD really is. I actually think the elements used was turning pink/red at this point, the telecine operator may have tried to counter this with a bit of yellow and green.
>>>>
Here are a couple of frames from the 1992 VHS
If you scroll back to You_Too's Technidisc/Gout comparisons of these two shots the VHS frames seems to fall exactly inbetween the two. It hasnt got the yellow saturation of the Technidisc (ignoring what the capture distorted for one second) but it hasnt turned as pink/red as Gout.
This is how the 1992 VHS looks on a TV screen (taken with the camera on a mobile phone) followed by how it looks from video to computer to give you an idea of the transfer change.
^ Look similar to the master they used for the Special Collection and regular SWE LD's, not sure about the PAL releases but the '92 NTSC Letterbox Collector's Edition VHS comes from the same source this Technidisc pressing did.
We want you to be aware that we have no plans—now or in the future—to restore the earlier versions.
Sincerely, Lynne Hale publicity@lucasfilm.com
Ok, did check my AviSynth working files on this today, it turned out I had set a saturation boost of 1.05 when I authored this disc, and that's one of the reasons the later parts of the transfer is so highly saturated in places, I probably thought Side 1 needed some additional saturation and simply forgot to check the remaining sides of the LD. As have been mentioned earlier I also did a fairly poor job on setting the contrast and that also made a big difference.
But I'm willing to correct my mistakes and not do as Lucasfilm and say it was a deliberate creative decision. ;) So I can upload an improved one if there's still interest in that.
Here's a few samples of what you can expect of a 2nd version:
Rebel blockade runner: http://www.sendspace.com/file/4h6ana
Mos Eisley spaceport: http://www.sendspace.com/file/p4nr7f
And again, thanks for all the positive response and all of you who helped seeding this.
We want you to be aware that we have no plans—now or in the future—to restore the earlier versions.
Sincerely, Lynne Hale publicity@lucasfilm.com
A corrected version would be most welcome on my shelf.....
:)
msycamore said:
Ok, did check my AviSynth working files on this today, it turned out I had set a saturation boost of 1.05 when I authored this disc, and that's one of the reasons the later parts of the transfer is so highly saturated in places, I probably thought Side 1 needed some additional saturation and simply forgot to check the remaining sides of the LD. As have been mentioned earlier I also did a fairly poor job on setting the contrast and that also made a big difference.
But I'm willing to correct my mistakes and not do as Lucasfilm and say it was a deliberate creative decision. ;) So I can upload an improved one if there's still interest in that.
Here's a few samples of what you can expect of a 2nd version:
Rebel blockade runner: http://www.sendspace.com/file/4h6ana
Mos Eisley spaceport: http://www.sendspace.com/file/p4nr7f
And again, thanks for all the positive response and all of you who helped seeding this.
I'm definitely interested! It would help my project(s) greatly. Thanks!!!
A picture is worth a thousand words. Post 102 is worth more.
I’m late to the party, but I think this is the best song. Enjoy!
—Teams Jetrell Fo 1, Jetrell Fo 2, and Jetrell Fo 3
I'm very interested as well. :)
By the way msycamore, what LD player are you using?
Without much knowledge about the LD format, I remember reading somewhere that Pioneer X9 or X10 or something are the best LD players, so maybe for a second version it would be a good idea to let somebody with such a player do the capture?
Definitely interested, watched the mos eisley clip and the colours already look much more 'even',
It seems even a few percent here and there can make an instant difference between a harsh and smooth image
I don't understand how white balance and contrast settings inter-relate on this , but I tweaked a still from the sample clip with the method you had pointed me towards in another thread, setting the black and white points (I just use the levels dropper gadget in the program and click on a white, black or grey point). As you can see I've blown out the whites and the detail again with too heavy contrast BUT I really like the 'airiness' of the result still. The point to all this is that is there a way to capture the Technidisc and remove some of that slight darkness in some way WITHOUT blowing out whites/details?
If this increased 'lightness' effect is not appearing on your screen then please ignore another instance of my increasingly addictive habit of tweaking stuff, and I can safely assume its my monitor settings
ORIG http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=212cwaw&s=6
TWEAK http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=e7z4ua&s=6
There is no magic setting for the whole transfer, so I have to compromise when I'm setting the brigthness and contrast for how it may affect scenes later on in the transfer, as I'm not going shot by shot. In some scenes it may even look like you have blown out details even if you haven't, in those cases the details were blown out already in the telecine stage, so you're just adjusting what should be white to be white. Then if things still don't look bright enough for you, you may have to adjust gamma.
We want you to be aware that we have no plans—now or in the future—to restore the earlier versions.
Sincerely, Lynne Hale publicity@lucasfilm.com
You_Too said:
By the way msycamore, what LD player are you using?
Without much knowledge about the LD format, I remember reading somewhere that Pioneer X9 or X10 or something are the best LD players, so maybe for a second version it would be a good idea to let somebody with such a player do the capture?
This cap was done with a Pioneer CLD-D790, would be nice to see this pressing captured by someone with a top of the line player such as a X9 or a X0 player. Right know I plan to just reupload a contrast corrected version of my original capture.
We want you to be aware that we have no plans—now or in the future—to restore the earlier versions.
Sincerely, Lynne Hale publicity@lucasfilm.com
thanks that makes perfect sense - i can see it is best to capture the best range of whats there overall and not whats not there at any given point.
as you were retweaking saturation just wanted to make sure i asked my question at this stage
msycamore said:
This cap was done with a Pioneer CLD-D790, would be nice to see this pressing captured by someone with a top of the line player such as a X9 or a X0 player. Right know I plan to just reupload a contrast corrected version of my original capture.
Ok, I'm still interested in seeing this. The samples you posted looked great. They somehow looked clearer than the old version.
You_Too said:
msycamore said:
This cap was done with a Pioneer CLD-D790, would be nice to see this pressing captured by someone with a top of the line player such as a X9 or a X0 player. Right know I plan to just reupload a contrast corrected version of my original capture.
Ok, I'm still interested in seeing this. The samples you posted looked great. They somehow looked clearer than the old version.
I'm still interested as well. Count me in!
A picture is worth a thousand words. Post 102 is worth more.
I’m late to the party, but I think this is the best song. Enjoy!
—Teams Jetrell Fo 1, Jetrell Fo 2, and Jetrell Fo 3
frank678 said:
thanks that makes perfect sense - i can see it is best to capture the best range of whats there overall and not whats not there at any given point.
as you were retweaking saturation just wanted to make sure i asked my question at this stage
No problem, I understand your concern. And I actually don't think you clipped any levels on your example, it looks more accurate, but if I went with a setting similar to yours I would blow out details in some other parts later in the transfer, you could of course go shot by shot to get the best results but I will not do that, maybe reel by reel is an good idea, I'll see what I can do.
EDIT: I guess I checked the wrong pic, you indeed clipped the whites on your example.
We want you to be aware that we have no plans—now or in the future—to restore the earlier versions.
Sincerely, Lynne Hale publicity@lucasfilm.com
msycamore said:
frank678 said:
thanks that makes perfect sense - i can see it is best to capture the best range of whats there overall and not whats not there at any given point.
as you were retweaking saturation just wanted to make sure i asked my question at this stage
No problem, I understand your concern. And I actually don't think you clipped any levels on your example, it looks more accurate, but if I went with a setting similar to yours I would blow out details in some other parts later in the transfer, you could of course go shot by shot to get the best results but I will not do that, maybe reel by reel is an good idea, I'll see what I can do.
This stuff is a minefield - one move one way and you screw something else up (i.e. my attempt at more lightness/airiness blew out all the detailing and colours on Lukes belt - probably if I tried to get the belt back something else would fly out the window). I keep wanting there to be a magic tweak even though I've seen a hundred times no released transfer has ever been consistent. I doubt even one overall tweak and then tweaks within that would work totally. It looks like if you really want it tweaked with a capital T you have go through every scene. I am not that careful a person.
Also agreed with above comments this new contrast setting makes it look much cleaner somehow. I never would have thought contast adjust would work to this effect as much
AntcuFaalb said:
You_Too said:
msycamore said:
This cap was done with a Pioneer CLD-D790, would be nice to see this pressing captured by someone with a top of the line player such as a X9 or a X0 player. Right know I plan to just reupload a contrast corrected version of my original capture.
Ok, I'm still interested in seeing this. The samples you posted looked great. They somehow looked clearer than the old version.
I'm still interested as well. Count me in!
Thanks for showing interest.
What you guys are seeing is also the result of some light sharpening. (don't worry, no additional haloing will be present)
We want you to be aware that we have no plans—now or in the future—to restore the earlier versions.
Sincerely, Lynne Hale publicity@lucasfilm.com
msycamore said:
AntcuFaalb said:
You_Too said:
msycamore said:
This cap was done with a Pioneer CLD-D790, would be nice to see this pressing captured by someone with a top of the line player such as a X9 or a X0 player. Right know I plan to just reupload a contrast corrected version of my original capture.
Ok, I'm still interested in seeing this. The samples you posted looked great. They somehow looked clearer than the old version.
I'm still interested as well. Count me in!
Thanks for showing interest.
What you guys are seeing is also the result of some light sharpening. (don't worry, no additional haloing will be present)
You're welcome! Lazy question: did the color inconsistency originate on the LD itself?
A picture is worth a thousand words. Post 102 is worth more.
I’m late to the party, but I think this is the best song. Enjoy!
—Teams Jetrell Fo 1, Jetrell Fo 2, and Jetrell Fo 3
AntcuFaalb said:
Lazy question: did the color inconsistency originate on the LD itself?
Yes. The problem just got magnified with my adjustments. Side 2 and 3 are extremely inconsistent in places. Just take a look at the first scenes in the trash compactor and see how bad the contrast and gamma is compared to when we later come back when the walls are closing in. The Death Star battle at the end are the worst, there you have a very frequent inconsistency in levels where some shots even appear desaturated. If you really want to check how inconsistent the levels are there, check the scene where Vader informs the TIE pilots "Several fighters have broken off from the main group, come with me". Almost night in that scene. ;)
EDIT: Sorry, I misunderstood your question. It's probably an IP in bad shape that is the reason for some of it if I would make a guess.
We want you to be aware that we have no plans—now or in the future—to restore the earlier versions.
Sincerely, Lynne Hale publicity@lucasfilm.com
Wow, thanks for having another go at this. I loved the original capture and frankly don't have any problem with the inconsistencies. In fact, I loved it. Your new samples do look improved and further underline my need to find a copy of this myself.
VADER!? WHERE THE HELL IS MY MOCHA LATTE? -Palpy on a very bad day.
“George didn’t think there was any future in dead Han toys.”-Harrison Ford
YT channel:
https://www.youtube.com/c/DamnFoolIdealisticCrusader
EDIT: Sorry, I misunderstood your question. It's probably an IP in bad shape that is the reason for some of it if I would make a guess.
What does IP stand for in this context?
A picture is worth a thousand words. Post 102 is worth more.
I’m late to the party, but I think this is the best song. Enjoy!
—Teams Jetrell Fo 1, Jetrell Fo 2, and Jetrell Fo 3
AntcuFaalb said:
EDIT: Sorry, I misunderstood your question. It's probably an IP in bad shape that is the reason for some of it if I would make a guess.
What does IP stand for in this context?
Inter positive print (I think). Someone else might explain this clearer than me but the way I sort it out in my head is that you've got the original negative and then a copy of that and then a copy of the copy etc. The thing is the original negative is not supposed to make loads of copies from so it keeps it in great condition except one rumour is that they made 100 technicolor prints of the original negative, combined with poor storage is why the original negative itself is damaged through colour loss.
