StarWarsLegacy.com - The Official Thread — Page 21

About those colors you see when you boost up Hue/Sat on the 2004 DVD or Blu-Ray:  I don't know what those are about.  There was some color variation in the plastic used for the set, yes, but those colors are different than the hues of the actual variance, and oddly distributed.  That's simply not what the color variance on the set looked like.  Bizarre.

However- this is definitely worth your time to check out:

Color Fidelity Comparison

_Mike

That's just a preliminary grading.  I have much work to do, recovering details and getting all the subtleties and such, but even at this early stage, you can "feel" a film you'd long since forgotten the look of - if you ever saw it in theaters that summer, anyway.

_Mike

Luke's saber is consistently blue in the original Star Wars.  And no, I have no plans to restore the other two films, "The Soap Opera" and "The Muppet Show."  :)  Best leave those to somebody who cares as much about them as I do Star Wars.

By the way, a note about how dark the Blu-Ray is:  film contains an awful lot of information; a lot of density and latitude in the image.  When scanning, you never want to lose information in the darks or in the highlights, so you make sure to preserve the full range of information (or as far as is possible on the scanner - most film scanners capture a very limited range of film density compared to the best drum scanners, for example).  In any case, what happened was that they took data which was properly scanned, and made sure to preserve the top end highlights and deepest blacks, but it's the distribution of all the mid-tones that's wrong.  Why?  I dunno; didn't look at any reference images?  There's no "absolute" setting when dealing with either linear or logarithmically scanned images, though Cineon specifications are fairly consistent.  Nonethless, the data is in there, it just wasn't handled properly.  That said, what ISN'T in there is the color fidelity.  That limited color palette was not a choice; it's in 1997 prints.  Or should I say, the range is already limited in 1997 prints. 

_Mike

mverta said:

However- this is definitely worth your time to check out:

Color Fidelity Comparison

 

That 'Legacy' shot is STUNNING!

TServo: yes, 100% in the original Star Wars it was blue throughout.  It's true that the color varied just a touch - I mean, even "blue" is actually a sort of light blue, but not cyan, for sure.  And though the saturation dipped a touch during the training remote sequence, it's absolutely fringed blue, no doubt.

About the '97:  I have, over the years, seen several '97 prints in varying stages of quality; however, they all exhibited the same base color characteristics.  In every print I've seen, everything from the washed-out color palette to the green lightsaber was present.  Now, is it possible that every '97 I saw just happened to be defective in the same way; just happened to match each other, but that there were '97 prints which looked like Tech prints do?  Geez, I guess?  But... 

In my opinion, the one advantage a '97 would have over a Tech print would be that it has slightly less inherent contrast, which can kill mid-shadow details and mid-high details.  So, my theoretical "perfect source" would actually be a combination of both.

...and you have to remember that no print stock has the range that negative stock does.  Technically speaking, it isn't possible to truly capture the negative on print.  It's always a compromise in one way or another, biased however the stock itself is biased.  That's the "downside" of photochemical processes.  I mean, no two prints on the same stock even look 100% identical. 

So the REAL goal would be a sort of "reclaim the negative" approach, which digital tools allow us to do.  To do this, you'd want to scan a variety of prints at a couple exposures, allowing for the first time the subtlest of details in highs and lows to both be present in the image for the first time since the negative.  Any definitive restoration would need multiple prints as sources in the first place, so why not go that extra level?  One print might be good for color fidelity, but be uncharacteristically grainy.  Another one might be super sharp and low-grain but have horrible color.  Digital tools allow us to take the best of all worlds and rebuild an ideal image.  Then, if you had a truly trustworthy color source to keep everything referenced to, you could produce a truly definitive Star Wars, which was arguably what was always intended - what was on the negative - but never previously possible to realize. 

_Mike

One of my early iterations of Legacy was largely based on the 2004 DVD. It's more trouble than it's worth, and mostly, the best stuff simply isn't in the data anymore to pull out.  You can improve it on its own, but you can't use it as a proper source.

I think Harmy's Despecialized is a nice offering which could've gone to much greater lengths to improve upon the sources it draws from.  Adywan's tasteless, amateurish hackjobs represent the antithesis of everything my project stands for.  Half of what keeps me going in the dark times is just knowing that that his shit is out there making things worse.  So I guess they're not total wastes. I'm convinced he gave Lucas the idea for those godawful blinking Ewoks with all of his After Effects 101 dicking around.

_Mike

Legacy's audio is the shit.  Trust me.

_Mike

mverta said:
However- this is definitely worth your time to check out:

Color Fidelity Comparison 

Holy shit! that frame is beautiful, that's STAR WARS. :)

That actually is the word for Star Wars' cinematography: beautiful.  Far moreso than it is given credit for, or thought as.  The lighting is pretty flat, overall, and yet there's really such interest in the color scheme and tonality.  It's also got this really distinct '70's vibe to it, especially in the flesh tones, which read far differently than what we get today.  They're sort of stylized, but in a really romantic way.

_Mike

I know what you mean about that 70's vibe. You can clearly see it on that single frame, the warm flesh tones, the pastel, just beautiful.

... and yet that is the very reason mine's superior.  Ironic.  Life's funny that way.

_Mike

I am exceedingly pleased with the good fortune my principles have afforded the project, yes.  Who wouldn't be?  We don't get rewarded in life for the doing the right thing often enough.

I have applauded the efforts of all, generally, but been honestly critical when asked, specifically.  I think you're in the minority, what with getting your panties in a twist when coming across criticism you don't agree with.  Seems to me that the fine members here are mostly aligned in that we all want to do the best we can do.  But if you're looking for a sunshine blower, ready to hail as wonderful merely passable mediocrity, you got the wrong dude. That doesn't help any of us.

And forgive me, but I'm not trying to bring people together; this isn't burning man.  I'm assuming we are a community because of mutual sentiment about the film.  Legacy is a celebration, and those who celebrate will - and do- so in their own way, and plenty, I've noticed. 

Anyway, feel free to hurl pejoratives to your heart's content. I won't tell your mom and dad you're on the computer this late.

_Mike

Don't sweat it, though I appreciate the kind words and support.  There are some people who get their identity by being tiny little kings of tiny little places in irrelevant corners of the internet, and they naturally assume everybody else is, too.  I've said it before: having the world's best Star Wars restoration isn't something to brag about.  Being a good husband, father, and citizen might be, but nothing you did as a pet project for Star Wars counts.  Have some perspective, for Chrissakes.  That said, if you're going to do something, then dammit, do it right.

And I'm as excited about watching Legacy unfold as anyone.  Truly, it's love that drives it, and not the praises or criticisms of others, much as the former is appreciated and the latter is potentially useful.  It's a show: try and enjoy it.

_Mike