StarWarsLegacy.com - The Official Thread — Page 74

mverta said:

Sorry, boys.  Legacy is not whatever is being rumored about here.  

Too bad for Disney...! Thank you for the reply, Mr. Verta.

It'll be like Abel Gance's Napoleon!

mverta said:

Sorry, boys.  Legacy is not whatever is being rumored about here.

Ah, well, there goes my interest in these OUT rumors. Even if Disney/Lucasfilm are planning on a OUT release, I doubt it will have the time, care and expertise that Mike has put in.
And I doubt it will really be the OUT...

If a 4K OUT comes along, even if it is done studio-style, I'm still excited for them. Worst case it gives us 4K material sourced from the negatives to work with.

brycebayer said:

What if it's not from the negatives?

I hope it's not.

AntcuFaalb said:

brycebayer said:

What if it's not from the negatives?

I hope it's not.

What's wrong with it being from the negatives?

Danfun128 said:

AntcuFaalb said:

brycebayer said:

What if it's not from the negatives?

I hope it's not.

What's wrong with it being from the negatives?

I fear that with the rumors of it being permanently altered the probability of Disney accidentally leaving something in is non-zero. The chance of this is zero if an internegative, interpositive, or even a release print is used.

yoda-sama said:

AntcuFaalb said:

brycebayer said:

What if it's not from the negatives?

I hope it's not.

Be more positive.

How's being interpositive? :o)

mverta said:

Sorry, boys.  Legacy is not whatever is being rumored about here.  

 I could just cry. Will no one ever be able to see it??

*cough* plane ticket *cough* Virginia

Not right away though.

What about Virginia? Is that where you live CatBus, or is that where something else is?

What are you talking about?

Danfun128 said:

AntcuFaalb said:

brycebayer said:

What if it's not from the negatives?

I hope it's not.

What's wrong with it being from the negatives?

 I think this would mean they recomposited everything, right?

I thought composites were done on a dupe? That's probably why they were able to re-composite the effects for the SE in the first place.

John Doom said:

I thought composites were done on a dupe? That's probably why they were able to re-composite the effects for the SE in the first place.

 Huh? I'm a bit confused by your wording here. You can't recomposite a composite... Much less a duplicate of a composite. 

In special effects work, you shoot your individual elements (a TIE fighter is one element, a millenium falcon another, laser blasts another, star fields etc etc) on normal negative film. Then, you run all of those different elements through a special optical printer. So you load up the developed shot of the star field and some low-grain negative stock to reprint the shot onto. You copy the starfield, then rewind the negative. Load in the TIE fighter, copy that on the negative then rewind it again. Load in the millenium falcon, etc. Now all of these elements are copied onto one negative. This is the composite.*

The problem with Star Wars is that they used a highly unstable filmstock to do the original photochemical compositing and these shots are pretty much gone now. The negative that the effects shot elements were shot on should be fine. 

For the SE, they took the individual elements and put them back together on a computer using more modern techniques (no matte lines, garbage mattes etc)

*I've obviously simplified the process. For example the effects makers would have needed to create traveling mattes by recopying the blue screen shots on high contrast B/W film several times to get a pure black and white image. 

You're right that I don't understand much of compositing and recompositing :D

What I meant is that if...

In special effects work, you shoot your individual elements (a TIE fighter is one element, a millenium falcon another, laser blasts another, star fields etc etc) on normal negative film.

...and...

For the SE, they took the individual elements and put them back together on a computer using more modern techniques (no matte lines, garbage mattes etc)

..., it means that most of the original negatives do exist. But if Disney want to use them for the restoration and...

The problem with Star Wars is that they used a highly unstable filmstock to do the original photochemical compositing and these shots are pretty much gone now.

..., they'll probably have to composite the elements again, but digitally, thus it may not look exactly the same, right?

It would be better and cheaper to them to make a restoration using original prints, unless they specifically want to redo the special effects, I guess.

Ah! I see what you are trying to say. Well it's definitely something they can do. I've heard rumblings that all of the original sfx shots were recompositied for the SE in the 90s and the cgi additions were created and added later. If this is true, all they'd have to do is scan those snippets of film and splice them in with a scan of the SE 97 negative. 

There are of course many here who feel that this would not be the original film since the original effects and wipes are re-created and is not a true historical restoration. However, there are many people who want the OT but not the mattelines and garbage mattes and generation loss (speeder entering Mos Eisley). We shall see!

John Doom said:

You're right that I don't understand much of compositing and recompositing :D

What I meant is that if...

In special effects work, you shoot your individual elements (a TIE fighter is one element, a millenium falcon another, laser blasts another, star fields etc etc) on normal negative film.

...and...

For the SE, they took the individual elements and put them back together on a computer using more modern techniques (no matte lines, garbage mattes etc)

..., it means that most of the original negatives do exist. But if Disney want to use them for the restoration and...

The problem with Star Wars is that they used a highly unstable filmstock to do the original photochemical compositing and these shots are pretty much gone now.

..., they'll probably have to composite the elements again, but digitally, thus it may not look exactly the same, right?

 Would it matter?