Sign In

What's missing from GOUT — Page 2

Author
Time

Differing frame counts between versions is fairly common, and it is true that reel changeovers are more often than not the places where the differences occur. 

These are not, however, "encoding errors".

Guidelines for post content and general behaviour: read announcement here

Max. allowable image sizes in signatures: reminder here

Author
Time

It is not surprising at all that there are frames missing at reel changes because it is common practice to cut off the first and last frame of each real while "building" a print for projection. It makes it easier for the projectionist to put the correct head and tail back on each reel. So, I would expect (at least at the theater in the US) to find 2 missing frames at each reel change. It is kind of interesting that sometimes these frames are mission when converted to video.

I think that it is interesting that there are versions out there that have the frames and versions that do not. I wonder which is intended? It is possible that an extra frame was left on each reel in order to account for this practice.

This can give some insight into which versions (on video) share comon ancestry (from the same print).

I also wonder if cutting these frames is not practiced at certain facilities, and is at others.

Just some thoughts...

Author
Time

iojabba said:

It is not surprising at all that there are frames missing at reel changes because it is common practice to cut off the first and last frame of each real while "building" a print for projection. It makes it easier for the projectionist to put the correct head and tail back on each reel. So, I would expect (at least at the theater in the US) to find 2 missing frames at each reel change. It is kind of interesting that sometimes these frames are mission when converted to video.

I think that it is interesting that there are versions out there that have the frames and versions that do not. I wonder which is intended? It is possible that an extra frame was left on each reel in order to account for this practice.

This can give some insight into which versions (on video) share comon ancestry (from the same print).

I also wonder if cutting these frames is not practiced at certain facilities, and is at others.

 

The materials that would be transferred to home video are not treated the same way, so the point is not really relevant. For telecine, each reel would be scanned independently, without cutting the head or tail.

What might be a factor with interlaced transfers is joining the reels together on a master where the first or last image from the reel is partially interlaced with a black frame.

Back to the print screening, however, some forward-thinking locations do NOT cut one frame in, because as the print travels from location to location, you lose more and more of the heads and tails. At each successive location, projectionists will often ignore the splice that already existed and move to the next frame.

Author
Time

ThiefCobbler4ever said:


I DO know that the Laserdisc of TESB was missing a scene of Lei welding the Millenium Flacon and that was added back to the GOUT DVD disc.

It was actually fixed way before then- for the corrected pressing of the Definitive Collection LD set.

Author
Time

The film grain is missing, and the fine detail.  They used some sort of grain/dirt concealment on the laserdisc master it is much worse on the gout DVD.  I find star wars to be unwatchable.  The worst scenes are the tatooine scenes filmed in tunisia.  They are not even optical effects there to account for the low image quality, just a shoddy transfer that is inexcusable in 2006 tech.

“Always loved Vader’s wordless self sacrifice. Another shitty, clueless, revision like Greedo and young Anakin’s ghost. What a fucking shame.” -Simon Pegg.

Author
Time

skyjedi2005 said:

... They are not even optical effects there to account for the low image quality, just a shoddy transfer that is inexcusable in 2006 tech.

Perhaps it is done to make the blue ray releases "incredible".

I said it in another topic: GL didn't want to release SW on DVD at the origin, waiting for a better format. The blue ray technology was planned since back in 1983 and myself as a kid knew about that. I sold the magazine where Lucas told about it just one year ago... I would have translated this article in english here if I still had it (can't find a .pdf!).

I'm amazed nobody seems to know anything about that.

 

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Darth Editous said:

[citation needed]

Is that adressed to my post ? Be sure I'd like to put my hand on this again. I'm 96% sure it was stated in GL's interview from this old mag:

 

 

... And I remember very well the words "blue laser" used for describing that technology. I always wondered how this would turn out. Hope some french collector could step in and confirm.

It would partially help to understand -perhaps- the lack of care those films have received since then, for every releases.

Author
Time

And I remember very well the words "blue laser" used for describing that technology.


Describing [i]what[i] technology? Are you implying that George Lucas invented Blu-ray in 1983, before even MPEG had been invented?

At best, perhaps, he was getting excited about someone else's idea for, say, an improved laserdisc using a blue laser. Extrapolating that to Blu-ray is like claiming Henry Ford invented the Tesla Roadster.

DE

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Darth Editous said:

 

Extrapolating that to Blu-ray is like claiming Henry Ford invented the Tesla Roadster.

 

...or that Nikola Tesla invented the Ford Mustang!

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Aren't you confusing the steps with the whole stair with your Mpeg exemple ?

 

Anyway, the facts for me are:

In 1983, they planned to develop what they called the "blue laser". If you think it's linked to the laser discs then ok, why not. But I insist though that George Lucas didn't want to release SW on DVD, waiting for a better format. That's what is strange, and that's why I made the link with the blue ray.

Airbus in France has developped some tactile holographic 4D technologies already that are a revolution for the future and are completely at thousand miles away from your living room and theatres technologies, blue ray or whatever. It's just an exemple for you remember that big companies do what they want, not what you expect, and as specialist as you can be in your area you may probably won't hear about it before years, depending on what they plan to do with that.

... Because all these "big ones" plan things, and it's even more efficient commercialy if you don't know anything about it in the wait.

 

Author
Time
 (Edited)

A B C said:


Anyway, the facts for me are:

In 1983, they planned to develop what they called the "blue laser".


Who are "they"? What was this "blue laser" meant to be for? Why was George Lucas, who is a writer/producer/director, involved?

If you think it's linked to the laser discs then ok, why not.


It seems infinitely more likely than thinking that a half-remembered quote from an article that you read as a child is linked to a digital medium that wouldn't be available for another 20 years.

DE

Author
Time

Darth Editous said:

 

A B C said:


Anyway, the facts for me are:

In 1983, they planned to develop what they called the "blue laser".


Who are "they"? What was this "blue laser" meant to be for? Why was George Lucas, who is a writer/producer/director, involved?

 

They blew up the Death Star?

Who's "they"?!

What the hell is an aluminum falcon?

--SKot

Projects:
Return Of The Ewok and Other Short Films (with OCPmovie) [COMPLETED]
Preserving the…cringe…Star Wars Holiday Special [COMPLETED]
The Star Wars TV Commercials Project [DORMANT]
Felix the Cat 1919-1930 early film shorts preservation [ONGOING]
Lights Out! (lost TV anthology shows) [ONGOING]
Iznogoud (1995 animated series) English audio preservation [ONGOING]

Author
Time

SKot said:

What the hell is an aluminum falcon?

Author
Time

Darth Mallwalker said:

Found more missing from GOUT

These frames from ROTJ:
http://img684.imageshack.us/img684/1228/68664.png

http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/2290/68665.png

It's the tail end of the establishing shot just before Mon Mothma's briefing.
Happens to be the end of a reel too.

Screen caps taken from Editdroid disc.
Now this is puzzling:
If Editdroid used DC laserdiscs, then 'DC master' should also contain those frames, right?
So what's GOUT's excuse for cutting them?
My childhood is raped!

 

Those two frames are intact in the PAL GOUT.

 

However the PAL ROTJ is missing this frame instead.

Author
Time

Darth Mallwalker said:

What's missing from GOUT

http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/9890/02401400jh7.jpg

That frame is missing from GOUT



Here's those two fields after re-assembly
http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/4083/29580sb6.png
Faces frame from MeBeJedi prototype (IVTCed)


That frame shouldn't be missing from GOUT

 

But the PAL GOUT seems to have it.

Author
Time

These two frames are missing from the NTSC ESB.

 

Author
Time

It's strange that the NTSC GOUT is missing frames compared to the PAL version as this is just a conversion from the same NTSC D1 mastertapes, but it probably happened when they joined the D1 segments and trimmed of any redundant frames and probably also messed up the IVTC.

There are i.e. interlacing errors in the NTSC (top) that are not present in the PAL (bottom).

 

A couple of frames missing at scene/reel ends really isn't a big deal though, except for perhaps loss of audio sync if anyone wants to use the DC/Faces PCM track with the GOUT video.

Author
Time

Interesting finds, Red5! very useful when audiosyncing. I've also noticed a few interlacing errors on the NTSC ESB, one occurs when Luke is to grab the lightsaber in the ice cave and the other when Lando is being strangled by Chewie, I have to compare those scenes with the PAL disc.

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

Author
Time

NTSC Empire

13588

145590

I don't have the PAL-disc at hand to check, is those errors in the PAL version as well, Red5?

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

Author
Time

No those frames are clean in the PAL (bottom) 13588

 

145590

 

Here's another error NTSC (top), PAL (bottom) 149900

 

Although here it is the PAL (bottom) version that's seriously messed up 148959

Author
Time

Thanks for checking, didn't think they would differ like that.

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