What's the status of the Originals? (the theatrical cuts of the Original Trilogy) — Page 2

pittrek said:

hairy_hen said:

The audio on the Bluray is exactly the same mix as the DVD version, aside from a few tweaks here and there. 

Well ... doesn't it mean that it's NOT exactly the same mix ?

I was gonna say exactly the same thing...but I didn't want to get my twig-n-berries cut off. ;)

Baronlando said:

Unfortunately this always feels like these guys need to justify the existence and importance of their gig. Not that they don't care or aren't talented, but man. Last year when they did the press for the bluray, at home theater forum, Matthew Wood went on about how harsh and hissy the 77 movie sounded, it was almost verbatim the way they talked about SUPERMAN years earlier, basically if a modern audience heard the old mix your ears would melt, and TERMINATOR is about to come out with the same issue.

thecolorsblend said:

 

Baronlando said:

Unfortunately this always feels like these guys need to justify the existence and importance of their gig. Not that they don't care or aren't talented, but man. Last year when they did the press for the bluray, at home theater forum, Matthew Wood went on about how harsh and hissy the 77 movie sounded, it was almost verbatim the way they talked about SUPERMAN years earlier, basically if a modern audience heard the old mix your ears would melt, and TERMINATOR is about to come out with the same issue.

Let's run with the premise though. A mono soundmix was included with the special edition Jaws DVD. There is a slightly harsh quality to the soundmix and I swear to hear some Rice Krispies in the opening credits. But there's an authenticity to it that I don't think is replicated in the ultra deluxe badass remix. It's a good mix, don't get me wrong, but the mono version captures my attention everytime. I realize people have to work for a living but -- apart from conflicting with other SE changes -- what do these sound designers think is so horrible about including the original soundtrack? Surely if you're creating a superior product, you needn't fear the comparison, right Mr. Wood?

 

The difference is that in the magnetic soundtrack era, every mix was a performance.  People like Ben Burtt and other techs would sit at the mixing board and rehearse a scene over and over until they got everything right, and then they would do a take.  This would be done for sound effects repeatedly, and also music and dialogue.  There there would be more rehearsals when they mixed everything together, then they would do a take and correct anything that didn't seem to work, then do another take, etc. 

That's not the case anymore when they do modern surround remixes.  That authenticity you refer to may be just the excitement and energy created by having a track recorded live.  That is my theory, anyway!

Never mind the status of a blu ray release of the oot, what is the current actual condition of the negative itself.  And how long before it is gone forever and all they have is the 2004 master stuck at regular HD 1080P resolution.

I mean supposedly the sep masters were incorrectly done so you cannot make a new negative from them, and falling back on the IP's as a source is possible for blu ray release, but not to restore the film for a true restoration they must return to the original camera negative.

So 1996 when they altered and did not restore the films.  One year after episode 7 comes out that will have been 20 years without a restoration of the real oot. I mean 2013 is the 30th anniversary for Return of the Jedi, time is becoming precious.

Fantasy Answer:

Disney should find OT.com and hire all the people here who have worked on restoring the various parts of the film, who really know every frame of the film and every second of the audio better than anybody else and who have worked on the film as a labour of love for years, give them the original assets from Lucasfilm and have them create (or at least use their superior knowledge of the minutiae of the film to consult on) the definitive versions of the OOT.

They should then have someone document all the changes between the versions of the films, the condition of the film before restoration, the errors and defects and uncorrected problems with the films over the years, and what processes needed to be done in order to restore the films to the way they looked originally, turn that into a nice, long documentary special feature and maybe a coffee table book so that the average person could understand exactly why all of this was important and needed to be done.

Then they could make a big deal about how these fans were so dedicated to the films that they spent years working on trying to restore them and talk about film appreciation and the importance of saving our cinematic history and all that good stuff and release it all as a big celebration of how awesome Star Wars fans are and how important film preservation is and all that good stuff.

That would be pretty cool...

I would be willing to buy a set of  blu rays of the oot, even if it was a bare bones scan of the IP with the dnr knobs set to zero.  But would be willing to spend a good amount more if it was a restoration undertaken by RAH.

If they released the OOT as a non-half-assed Blu-ray set, the sheer weight of all those VHS tapes hitting the landfill at once would knock the Earth off its axis.  So really they're doing us all a favor.

CatBus said:

If they released the OOT as a non-half-assed Blu-ray set, the sheer weight of all those VHS tapes hitting the landfill at once would knock the Earth off its axis.  So really they're doing us all a favor.

That is funny considering Lucas said the original vhs of the originals did not sell well at all and he compared it to E.T.'s sales.

skyjedi2005 said:

with the dnr knobs set to zero

That brings up an important question to me.  I already know Disney DNR's the living hell out of their film-based animated features, but can anyone tell me how they treat film-based live-action stuff?

CatBus said:

skyjedi2005 said:

with the dnr knobs set to zero

That brings up an important question to me.  I already know Disney DNR's the living hell out of their film-based animated features, but can anyone tell me how they treat film-based live-action stuff?

Disney has some great releases, but their entire Blu-ray catalog is very hit-or-miss.

Check out: http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Petes-Dragon-Blu-ray/40517/

Unfortunately, there's heavy filtering. With that being said, the source was excellent enough to somewhat survive the DNR bloodbath.

skyjedi2005 said:

Never mind the status of a blu ray release of the oot, what is the current actual condition of the negative itself.  And how long before it is gone forever and all they have is the 2004 master stuck at regular HD 1080P resolution.

I mean supposedly the sep masters were incorrectly done so you cannot make a new negative from them, and falling back on the IP's as a source is possible for blu ray release, but not to restore the film for a true restoration they must return to the original camera negative.

A lot of the original negative of Star Wars was not technically "original negative" anyway!

Star War's 1977 edit  is saturated with duplicate negatives (wipes /dissolves/opticals)

In order to maintain a visual qualititive consistency  Lucas and co intentionally used some 2nd generation internegatives regarding some of the live actions shots(which featured no special effects) so as to make them seamless when they were adjacent to optical composite negative.

My opinion is  that when the original negative was washed back in 1995 it was re-assembled without the insertion of any new material.

This cleaned negative was then used to produce a 1st generation interpositive of high quality (which probably explains where they got that intro for the GOUT from)

This interpositive  was then converted into a new internegative(again of good quality---and capable of producing upto 1000-2000 theatrical prints) 

It was this internegative  that was then disassembled.

New CGI material(Jabba /Mos eisley/Death Star battle ect) was then scanned out to film(in negative form and presumably in anamorphic)to create "new negs"

These "new" negs were then attached to the relevant points/parts of this diassembled internegative which was subsequently reassembled.

This is the special edition negative.

It was this special edition negative that was scanned completely in 2004 to create the high def masters for DVD and Blu Ray.

The original negative has been left untouched(although cleaned up substantially)

Jaitea said:

danny_boy said:

.........It was this special edition negative that was scanned completely in 2004 to create the high def masters for DVD and Blu Ray.

As far as I understand Lowry were handed the 2k files of the 97SE versions, which they were expected to clean up.

J

... and they interpreted "clean up" as destroy.

Jaitea said:

danny_boy said:

.........It was this special edition negative that was scanned completely in 2004 to create the high def masters for DVD and Blu Ray.

As far as I understand Lowry were handed the 2k files of the 97SE versions, which they were expected to clean up.

J

Yes that is correct.

Rick Dean of Lucasfilm/THX scanned the special edition negative at 1080 X 1920 resolution.

Seeing as that negative consisted of 3rd generation material----a 1080 X 1920 scan would capture all the information on that negative.

On edit:

Interestingly.....Star Wars's negative was shot in anamorphic.

The ratio  of a 35mm anamorphic frame is actually 4:3 or 12:9.

Seeing as 1920 X 1080 resolution corresponds to a 16:9 frame

then 12:9 would correspond  to 1440 X 1080

So an anamorphic frame scanned at 1920 X 1080 would leave unused 240 vertical pixels on either side of the 12(1440):9(1080) 35mm frame.

Once this is scanned into  the computer this 1080 X 1440 image is stretched(scaled) horizontally to 1080 X 2500 to achieve the original scope 21:9 dimension.

CGI work/digital clean up  is then done at this resolution.

Baronlando said:

danny_boy said

 

My opinion is  that when the original negative was washed back in 1995 it was re-assembled without the insertion of any new material

I hope so, but is that based on any specific info?

Unfortunately only my very literal interpretation of this statement!

That meant dissecting the original Star Wars negative, washing it, and then reassembling it. "That made everybody suck in their breath, " Kennedy says, recalling the stressfull situation. "Thankfully, Robert Hart, the neg cutter on the second and third films, came in to put the negative back together

http://www.theasc.com/magazine/starwars/articles/sped/ssws/pg1.htm

There is no mention in the above paragraph of any insertions of new  negative(featuring CGI effects).

Also inserting new negative into the original negative would be counter productive----it would mean that you would have to run the entire original negative(with the new inserts)  through a pin registered mechanism in order to print off a new 1st generation interpositive......running the risk of doing even more damage to that original neg.(much like the situation with the Godfather)

Much easier to go back to the original negs(that were not part of the original negative---confusing ain't it!) and use those for your new(as it would have been in 1997) special edition negative....combining these new negs(featuring the CGI) with 3rd generation internegative material.

Sorry I know it is infuriatingly confusing.....when I get time I will do a pictorial representation which should help to better illustrate the points I am trying to make.