Special Edition Restoration — Page 2

SW had a theater run in '91?

The 70mm prints wouldn't be an option for restoration since there is lost information on the sides. The source is 2.35:1, but the 70mm blow-up is 2.20:1.

Studios ignore that all the time.  Do you know how many 1.66:1 or 1.85:1 movies are released in 1.78:1 (which is equal to 16:9)?

Besides, no "scope" film since 1970 has been 2.35:1 - all the Star Wars films are 2.39:1.

Yeah, but the only example I can remember of a 70mm print being used to transfer a scope movie is the old Blade Runner dvd. They zoomed out in order to keep it appearing at its original scope ratio and filled in the space on the sides with .... well, with nothing but more black bars. Most tv's overscan the image slightly, so most everyone with that dvd probably doesn't even notice. Watching stuff on an hdtv is a different story though.

scaling the gout to the 70mm samples the gout appear more cropped.

Yeah, but this is the GOUT we're talking about here, a transfer of an old transfer. There's information being lost on all four sides from what I can see.

Yes, you're correct that - according to my logic - we should be seeing more on the GOUT than the 70mm and not less.

Kinda random tangeant here, but:

I just re-watched the restoration mini-doc on the newest Godfather set today. In my wildest dreams as a film fanatic, This is the exact kind of treatment the OOT would get.

Sluggo said:

SW had a theater run in '91?

It was just one of those local screening things. It's too bad Lucas doesn't allow that for the original version anymore, I saw Jaws just a few months ago and it looked pretty great.

ChainsawAsh said:

Studios ignore that all the time.  Do you know how many 1.66:1 or 1.85:1 movies are released in 1.78:1 (which is equal to 16:9)?

Besides, no "scope" film since 1970 has been 2.35:1 - all the Star Wars films are 2.39:1.

2.35:1 is the same as 2.39:1 and 2.40:1. 2.35:1 was changed because I think there was either a new measurement taken that discovered it was inaccurate, or some new standard came in. But they are all the same. 2.35 is still commonly used just because of its tradition. To be honest, I don't even know if anyone knows which of the three ratios is the right one, or if any of them are, but they are all interchangable for some reason.

As for determining ratios from home video, the amount of screen information is always cropped to one degree or another, so this has to be taken with a grain of salt, ultimately. Star Wars is anamorphic widescreen, so whatever version has the most amount of info is the most correct, so there is no negative cropping involved, unlike regualr or super 35mm spherical shoots.

Red5--those scans are fabulous. Where did they come from? Is there more? I remember someone here (Mielr?) tried to do some collectible-70mm scans but they sort of came out a little blurry because of the glass casings.

you can also look for Arnie.d's MU links in this thread.

I think there are 64 ANH samples, 29 ESB and 6 ROTJ.

zombie84 said:

ChainsawAsh said:

Studios ignore that all the time.  Do you know how many 1.66:1 or 1.85:1 movies are released in 1.78:1 (which is equal to 16:9)?

Besides, no "scope" film since 1970 has been 2.35:1 - all the Star Wars films are 2.39:1.

 

2.35:1 is the same as 2.39:1 and 2.40:1. 2.35:1 was changed because I think there was either a new measurement taken that discovered it was inaccurate, or some new standard came in. But they are all the same. 2.35 is still commonly used just because of its tradition. To be honest, I don't even know if anyone knows which of the three ratios is the right one, or if any of them are, but they are all interchangable for some reason.

As for determining ratios from home video, the amount of screen information is always cropped to one degree or another, so this has to be taken with a grain of salt, ultimately. Star Wars is anamorphic widescreen, so whatever version has the most amount of info is the most correct, so there is no negative cropping involved, unlike regualr or super 35mm spherical shoots.

Red5--those scans are fabulous. Where did they come from? Is there more? I remember someone here (Mielr?) tried to do some collectible-70mm scans but they sort of came out a little blurry because of the glass casings.

2.39:1 and 2.40:1 are just two ways of writing the same thing - they're interchangeable because the real ratio is somewhere in between the two.  2.35:1 is treated as interchangeable, but really isn't - as you said, it's commonly used because of tradition.

In 1957, the ratio was standardized to 2.35:1 due to the addition of an optical audio track (in the past it had been 2.55:1, as the space now reserved for the optical track had been used for visual information as well).  In 1970, the standard was revised to make splices less noticeable, making the new ratio somewhere in between 2.39:1 and 2.4:1.

It was revised again in 1993 (to standardize aperture width regardless of whether the film was was anamorphic or flat), but this resulted in no difference to the aspect ratio, so it remains 2.39:1.

Honestly, it's not a big difference, and Super 35 spherical films often *are* 2.35:1, since that's just what people know as the "proper" AR and they crop it that way.  But to be technically correct, any film shot on 35mm with anamorphic lenses since 1970 is 2.39:1 or 2.4:1, depending on how you round it.

ChainsawAsh said:

zombie84 said:

ChainsawAsh said:

Studios ignore that all the time.  Do you know how many 1.66:1 or 1.85:1 movies are released in 1.78:1 (which is equal to 16:9)?

Besides, no "scope" film since 1970 has been 2.35:1 - all the Star Wars films are 2.39:1.

 

2.35:1 is the same as 2.39:1 and 2.40:1. 2.35:1 was changed because I think there was either a new measurement taken that discovered it was inaccurate, or some new standard came in. But they are all the same. 2.35 is still commonly used just because of its tradition. To be honest, I don't even know if anyone knows which of the three ratios is the right one, or if any of them are, but they are all interchangable for some reason.

As for determining ratios from home video, the amount of screen information is always cropped to one degree or another, so this has to be taken with a grain of salt, ultimately. Star Wars is anamorphic widescreen, so whatever version has the most amount of info is the most correct, so there is no negative cropping involved, unlike regualr or super 35mm spherical shoots.

Red5--those scans are fabulous. Where did they come from? Is there more? I remember someone here (Mielr?) tried to do some collectible-70mm scans but they sort of came out a little blurry because of the glass casings.

2.39:1 and 2.40:1 are just two ways of writing the same thing - they're interchangeable because the real ratio is somewhere in between the two.  2.35:1 is treated as interchangeable, but really isn't - as you said, it's commonly used because of tradition.

In 1957, the ratio was standardized to 2.35:1 due to the addition of an optical audio track (in the past it had been 2.55:1, as the space now reserved for the optical track had been used for visual information as well).  In 1970, the standard was revised to make splices less noticeable, making the new ratio somewhere in between 2.39:1 and 2.4:1.

It was revised again in 1993 (to standardize aperture width regardless of whether the film was was anamorphic or flat), but this resulted in no difference to the aspect ratio, so it remains 2.39:1.

Honestly, it's not a big difference, and Super 35 spherical films often *are* 2.35:1, since that's just what people know as the "proper" AR and they crop it that way.  But to be technically correct, any film shot on 35mm with anamorphic lenses since 1970 is 2.39:1 or 2.4:1, depending on how you round it.

 Interesting to know about the 1970 bit--I hadn't heard that before. I'm curious to know what this means for actual shooting ratio though--the ratio was changed in 1957 to accomodate an embedded optical track in release prints, but obviously this is seperate from the actual camera negative. My approach is from a cameraman's perspective, and from that I had been informed that whether "2.35" or "2.39", what you photograph is the same. Would these re-standardisations only apply to theatrical prints? Or were the camera gate's eventually changed as well? My instinct is telling me that they were left alone, but now I wonder.