logo Sign In

Star Wars Colortiming & Cinematography (was What changes was done to STAR WARS in '93?) — Page 7

Author
Time

here are more shots of the rebels:

-------------------------

 

 

later

-1

 

[no GOUT in CED?-> GOUT CED]

Author
Time

and a few more with the rebels

and c3p0 and r2d2:

-------------------------

 

later

-1

[no GOUT in CED?-> GOUT CED]

Author
Time

LexX said:

msycamore said:

The -83 rental tape! that is an old one:) Thanks for the trouble. It actually comes very close to the bootleg telecine in color from what I can see, it is pretty much the same on the vintage doc The Making of STAR WARS also. Then I strongly believe what zombie84 already said, that it's probably more accurate or closer in color pallette of the original -77 print in just that scene than the THX/GOUT version is.

Yeah, but still the tape is waaay too light during the whole movie, here's a couple of more examples :

 

here's our version:

 

kinda dark..

later

-1

 

[no GOUT in CED?-> GOUT CED]

Author
Time
 (Edited)

TServo2049 said:

Some more film cell images I found on eBay, this time from the first film. These are a higher resolution than the ones I posted before, but lighting is  much more uneven - you can see that the person who took the photos was shining a flashlight down onto the cells, so some parts will look blown out, others look too dark/translucent (and you can often see the texture of the white bedsheet under the cell). Some of the images have similar greenish tendencies to the Jedi1.net scans, others don't.

 

Leia captured - wow, that's blown out. It looks cold where the light is strongest, but you can see yellow and green and cyan tendencies on the right side where there's not as much light:

here are our versions:

 

"Secret mission? What plans? What are you talking about? I'm not getting in there!"

 

Another seller's photo - this one of Leia and R2. Looks too cool?

 

 

Vader grills Leia on the Tantive. Again with the odd light source, not sure what to make of this image:

 

 

again, some are a little dark..

 

later

-1

 

 

[no GOUT in CED?-> GOUT CED]

Author
Time

Arnie.d said:

Some screenshots:

 

here are some more comparisons

against the laserdisc:

 

------

 

-------------

---------------------------

-----------------------------

later

-1

[no GOUT in CED?-> GOUT CED]

Author
Time
 (Edited)

What is it -1 always says? "Colors are not final"? :)

But yeah, I agree. And sometimes R2's panels look teal instead of blue. I'm sure he'll improve the color timing later.

Author
Time

There is a lot of inconsistensy in the same print, unless they've gone through different changes. Some are too pink, some too dark, some too teal, some pretty good. Weird.

And in the time of greatest despair, there shall come a savior, and he shall be known as the Son of the Suns.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

-1 and cinch have a theory that the early-80s transfers have the most accurate colors. I was never sure about that - judging by stuff like the lack of the Tantive burn marks, my theory was that a new low-contrast IP was made from the untimed negative, one that would transfer better to 1" analog tape on early-80s telecine equipment.

Now, I'm not so sure. Obviously, tweaking was done so it would look better in the analog video realm, and the image is often way too bright with very flattened contrast. But now I'm wondering if the film source for the pre-1992 releases did in fact have the original timing.

As a test, I took the Binary Sunset image LexX posted back in page 1, which he captured from a "1983 rental video" (possibly PAL, judging by the slighty squished image, indicative of an uncorrected 720x576 PAL capture). I tweaked it in (of all things) Microsoft Office Picture Manager. All I did was turn down the midtones and shadows, turn up the highlights, and turn down the saturation a little.

First the original screenshot, then my version:

Then, as another test, I tweaked the Japanese Special Collection image msycamore posted, also back in page 1. This is from (I think) the Dark_Sega capture, the red channel is bleeding to the right, but look what I was able to get out of it. This time, I turned up the midtones and highlights, turned down the shadows, turned down the contrast (to compensate for the extremely high-contrast result), then increased the amount of red (hue 0) by 10 points and brought the saturation down a couple points.

Original image:

My version:

And the results for both are very close to what Mike Verta says the scene looked like in the IB Technicolor print screening. I was stunned that I could adjust these old 80s video transfers and get a result that approximated the '77 timing. The colors seem to match; it's only the brightness, contrast, and gamma that are completely different.

UPDATE: I decided to tweak the other pan-and-scan images LexX put up

I know that the stars are gone; this is meant to show the color accuracy, even if I have to crush the detail to do it

Again, ignore the crushed/posterized/solarized details on Leia's face and elsewhere. I'm not concerned if the contrast looks weird or if details are crushed out. I'm trying to bring out the colors that the transfer's flat contrast and gamma boosting obscured.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

This is interesting to me - I've been trying to adjust the 1982 Laserdisc and have gone in a totally different direction (!). The 82 Laserdisc is very different than the 82 Rental VHS colour wise (Based on comparison between the preservations of them done by Starkiller)

Original 82 LD:

http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=2afzm7o&s=5 /see repost below

My adjusted settings through VLC:

http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=519afr&s=5 /see repost below

 

Leia Original:

http://i39.tinypic.com/2n7rcy.jpg

VLC adjust:

http://i41.tinypic.com/347hg93.jpg

Author
Time

This isn't from the 1982 laserdisc or U.S. rental release. It's from a PAL video - the 80s PAL transfer was sort of different (for example, it had a squeezed crawl and flyover).

Author
Time
 (Edited)

TServo2049 said:

This isn't from the 1982 laserdisc or U.S. rental release. It's from a PAL video - the 80s PAL transfer was sort of different (for example, it had a squeezed crawl and flyover).

 

Oh I see sorry I jumped in a bit quick there! I agree with you that I think these early 80s releases have more of the original colours left in them. Its tricky trying to work out how much is still there and what exactly is off in each release..

EDIT Here are some frames of the adjusted LD where I think it starts to get close to some of the film cells you posted (other times its way out)

http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=8zfdw8&s=5 see repost below

http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=24eqse0&s=5 ""

http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=faveh4&s=5 ""

http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=so4tpe&s=5 ""

Author
Time

TServo2049 said:

 

Here's a big (but unfortunately fuzzy) image from a third seller:

 

here's our version:

 

later

-1

 

[no GOUT in CED?-> GOUT CED]

Author
Time

frank678 said:

This is interesting to me - I've been trying to adjust the 1982 Laserdisc and have gone in a totally different direction (!). The 82 Laserdisc is very different than the 82 Rental VHS colour wise (Based on comparison between the preservations of them done by Starkiller)

Original 82 LD:

 http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=2afzm7o&s=5 

My adjusted settings through VLC:

http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=519afr&s=5

 

Leia Original:

VLC adjust:

 reposting pics:

----------------------

later

-1

[no GOUT in CED?-> GOUT CED]

Author
Time

frank678 said:

TServo2049 said:

This isn't from the 1982 laserdisc or U.S. rental release. It's from a PAL video - the 80s PAL transfer was sort of different (for example, it had a squeezed crawl and flyover).

 

Oh I see sorry I jumped in a bit quick there! I agree with you that I think these early 80s releases have more of the original colours left in them. Its tricky trying to work out how much is still there and what exactly is off in each release..

EDIT Here are some frames of the adjusted LD where I think it starts to get close to some of the film cells you posted (other times its way out)

http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=8zfdw8&s=5

 

http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=24eqse0&s=5

 

http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=faveh4&s=5

 

http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=so4tpe&s=5

 reposting pics with correct links:

--------------

later

-1

[no GOUT in CED?-> GOUT CED]

Author
Time

Here's something that stood out for me in two linked frames TServo2049 posted

http://i43.tinypic.com/4zsz6r.jpg

http://i40.tinypic.com/33l15ol.jpg

There seems to be a greater depth of blue in these scenes (which coincidentally(?) are next to each other in the film) which seems to have drained out to somewhere. Am I seeing this correctly?

Author
Time

frank678 said:

Here's something that stood out for me in two linked frames TServo2049 posted

http://i43.tinypic.com/4zsz6r.jpg

http://i40.tinypic.com/33l15ol.jpg

There seems to be a greater depth of blue in these scenes (which coincidentally(?) are next to each other in the film) which seems to have drained out to somewhere. Am I seeing this correctly?

 not sure..

but also clip or resize your pictures so they are only 640 pixels wide,

or we can't see the rest of the picture.

later

-1

[no GOUT in CED?-> GOUT CED]

Author
Time

I didn't post the top frame, that came from a Derann 8mm print.

What do you mean about the blue "draining out", Frank? In what transfer?

Even though the colors of the film source used for the old transfers may have been fairly accurate to the original theatrical timing, the analog NTSC color space cannot accurately reproduce the colors on the film. In fact, as Mike Verta told me, modern digital video can't do it either - though sRGB comes closer than NTSC. The British and other supporters of PAL had a point when they said that NTSC stands for "Never Twice the Same Colour."

The screenshots I adjusted came from a PAL video. I think that captures of the 80s PAL laserdiscs may be more helpful than the NTSC ones.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

I'm not exactly sure what I mean by 'draining out' now I've read your explanation. Maybe incorrectly balanced or compressed on other transfers perhaps?

Do 8mm, 16mm and 35mm all 'hold' colour differently? I mean can you only fit a certain amount from a big colour cup into a small colour cup so to speak? If so, supposedly certain subtle tones will get shaved off and then if you add print fade and other adjustments on top of that when converting down to whatever your small format is then... = bad end result?

 

Author
Time

Wow, that deran print looks amazing for 8mm, it's hard to believe it could hold so much detail and that's only a blurry photo of a screen. I believe this would be a much better source for a home film projection preservation than the 16mm print Puggo used, if only because it seems to have awesomely preserved colours (I can vouch for them being very accurate). 

Author
Time

SilverWook was tempted to pick up one that appeared on ebay but I don't know if he did.  I know there's a member who owns the full film in 8mm scope, but it was only mentioned offhand and no talk of a transfer was ever done as far as I know.

A Goon in a Gaggle of 'em

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Well, that one is apparently faded a bit but nothing that couldn't be corrected, because the over-all levels seem really good and so does the detail and cleanness :-)