What's the status of the Originals? (the theatrical cuts of the Original Trilogy) — Page 3

Fang Zei said:

1828 x 1556 is the resolution at which the '04 scan was likely done. That's 2K for cinemascope, the format in which the OT (and, for what it's worth, TPM) was shot. Multiply 1828 by the 2x anamorphic squeeze of the lens and you've got 3656 x 1556, a 2.35:1 ratio. Or, if you'd like, simply cut the horizontal resolution in half and you've got 1828 x 778, also 2.35:1. Since the raw scan itself is only 1828 - less than even full 1920 HD res, nevermind 2048 - I guess some kind of magic is worked. Beats me.

Anyway, I had a couple paragraphs typed up about how the o-neg is probably still in its '97 conformation (despite how I'd love for danny_boy to be right), but this stupid ipad had to go and refresh the page after I opened up another tab to look up the exact numbers I just posted. Ugh, I gotta get a new laptop at some point. Anyway, to quickly summarize, Jim Ward said in '04 that they went back to the original negative for the dvd (the lowry master that was also used for the blu-ray). He said that the previous transfers were from IP and even specified that this meant "one generation off the negative." So, if the o-neg was still in its original 1977 conformation, it wouldn't have made much sense for them to scan it in and then meticulously "respecialize it." They might as well have just scanned the '97 IP if that had been the situation.

Hi Fang

If you could find the link where Ward says they used the o-neg for the scan that would be great.I have had a quick search myself but to avail so far.

This 2004 article that coincided with DVD release states explicitily that it was the special edition negative that was scanned(and not the 1977 o-neg)---therby implying that there is a physical distinction between the negatives of 1977 and 1997.

Interestingly, the negatives that were scanned were not those of the original releases but of the 1997 Special Edition reissues, because of their additional effects sequences (more of which are said to have been added in the DVD releases). Defects such as dirt and scratches from the original negative, then, had made their way through to the 1997 negative

Restoring the Star Wars Trilogy.

Article from: Videography | September 1, 2004 | Hurwitz, Matt

The above article also states that the scan was done at 1920 X 1080 resolution which obviously conforms to a 16:9 frame.....but this does not  correlate to the geometry of the  35mm anamorphic imaging area.

The anamorphic 35mm framing  of the special edition negative(or the 1977 negative) has a 12:9(commonly known as 4:3----yup...just like TV!) aspect ratio.

I'll do a quick pictorial representation:

Here is the original 1st generation anamorphic negative that was in the camera on the set.

It is converted into a 1st generation anamorphic interpositive(of very high quality)

This interpositive is then converted into a new internegative:

The above internegative is then converted into a theatrical interpositive to be distributed in cinemas.

Rough estimates say that an internegative can produce upto 500-1000 to maybe even 2000  prints before wearing out completely.

Now when the above 12:9 interpositive anamorphic frame goes through a projector equipped with the approprate lens----this 12:9 image is optically stretched to 21:9(cinemascope)

danny_boy said:

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wasn't the O-neg washed and cleaned, scanned, CGI special edition adjustments made plus other elements that were also scanned, then this master digital file is then printed out to a new master negative?

This negative was then rescanned at 1080p to save compression problems from using the 2K digital file.

This 1080p scan is then what Lowry worked on ahead of the ILM coloring.

Correct me if i am wrong please.

Also I have been reading these forums for many years but only just started to post and add my two pence worth.

So the data was from the 2k scan?

peter_pan said:

danny_boy said:

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wasn't the O-neg washed and cleaned, scanned, CGI special edition adjustments made plus other elements that were also scanned, then this master digital file is then printed out to a new master negative?

This negative was then rescanned at 1080p to save compression problems from using the 2K digital file.

This 1080p scan is then what Lowry worked on ahead of the ILM coloring.

Correct me if i am wrong please.

Also I have been reading these forums for many years but only just started to post and add my two pence worth.

To scan the entire 2hr  film back in 1997 would have been prohibitively expensive and logistically impossible given the relatively limited digital data storage capacities of the time.

Only the negatives that were to feature CGI additions were scanned.

And this is where the confusion can arise.

A lot of the negative that was used in the master negative for theatrical distribution back in 77'  was not original negative.

here is an example:

Now this is 1st generation negative that was in the camera on set.

But because it was designated  to have optical effects(Luke's saber)added to it  then it  could not be used in what would become the master negative to generate release prints.

Instead it  went through one of these(an optical printer):

 The other piece of negative film  that will comprise this effect shot is the lightsaber:

The optical printer photographs both of these 2 seperate negatives to generate an optical composite(or duplicate negative):

Now due to the erratic quality of both optical printing  and  film stock  this duplicate negative containing this lightsaber optical effect was grainy and not aswell defined as the original constituent negs.

But more importantly when such a duplicate neg was contiguouse to a 1st generation negative such as this(Han's reaction to Luke's training)

Then the difference in quality would be very prominent.

So Lucas and Co took 1st generation negatives such as the one above(Han's reaction) and reduced the quality by making a duplicate neg of it so as to make the quality more consistent.

It was duplicate negatives such as these that would comprise large parts of the so called o-neg in 1977.

To be continued:

Ok so i wonder what ratio of the neg was scanned for 97 new shots?

Also all of the special effects shots were digitally com-posited which is a fair few.

Fang Zei said:

The 35mm frame, if shot in cinemascope, is 1.175:1. The squeeze of the anamorphic lens is exactly 2x, so you get a 2.35:1 image.

As for the quotes, I can understand the confusion but what they mean is that it's the o-neg conformed to the special edition. When they were preparing the SE in '95/'96, they actually cut all of the changes directly into the o-neg, presumably (we would all hope) placing the original pieces into storage.

The Jim Ward quote was from an audio recording of a press conference I downloaded from TFN way the hell back in September of '04. I listened to it so many times (there's some great bits from Hamill and Kershner) that I've got a phonographic memory of what was said. Ward's exact words were:

"For this one (the dvd), we went back to the original negative. When we did the previous video transfers they were off IP, one generation away from the negative. Detail has never been seen like this before."

There are multiple sources that back this up. It would be great if you were right, but think about it:

GL considers the SE his definitive vision for the movie. Why would he use a second or third generation source as a basis for all copies (prints, telecines, etc)??

Thanks and very interesting.

My supposition is that the 1997 special edition negative has material that is  closer to the original negative(i.e the actual negative that was in the Panavison camera on set in 1976) than the final master negative(o-neg) that was used for theatrical distribution in 1977.

The reason being that the final negative from 1977 has/had huge portions of it's running length that were at least several generations(copies of copies)removed from the original negative (used in the cameras on set).

Think about  the entire final 20- 30 minutes(the death star attack)Nearly every shot such as this one below:

..... is a copy of a copy.....with all the intrinsic degradation that you get in a photochemichal dupllication process.

And that is just in the final(master negative).

As you make several more copiesfrom this final(master ) negative to get to the theatrical release print you lose even more quality.

Now we do know that Lucas(in order to create consistency in terms of quality) between effect shots such as the the one above and shots which featured no special effects(such as the one below---Dodonna and Leia reacting to the attack):

...intentionally degraded the quality of such "non-effects" shots by making duplicates/copies of them too......so when they were run side by side with effects shots in the finished film(the final negative) the discrepancy in resolution would not be so apparent.

It is not a case unique to Star Wars.

Superman The Movie,Close Encounters,Star Trek The Motion Picture,The Black Hole and Alien(the 5 contemporary big optical special effects rivals to Star Wars) incorporated this technique too.

Now these films have all had 2K or 4K scans of their "final negatives"(or 1st generation interpositives) for their respective transfers to Blu Ray(except Black Hole) and the jumps in quality between effects shots and non-effects shots are very apparent when you view them on a high quality display set up.

I actually have the priviledge of having watched them on a Sony 4K projector and it is brutal on optical composite effects shots/duplicate negative  material.This is not the fault of the projector---it is merely accentuating the limitations of the technology used during the making of these films.

Limitations that were obscured by the photochemical analogue duplication processes of the late 70's("less is more") when the film was running in theaters(be it 35 or 70mm) and also by the low resolution displays when these same films hit VHS/Beta/V2000/laserdisc aswell as (8mm and 16mm home movies).

For the restoration in 1997 Lucas was able to pull out original camera negatives(that were never used in the final negative of 1977 ) and use those for the special edition....hence the reason why Jim Ward used that term "direct off the negative".

Hope that helps!

Will post more.

TV's Frink said:

Jaitea said:

TV's Frink said:

danny_boy said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just saying.

Why leave so much space?

J

Exactly.

Sorry--fixed!

danny_boy said:

I actually have the priviledge of having watched them on a Sony 4K projector and it is brutal on optical composite effects shots/duplicate negative  material.This is not the fault of the projector---it is merely accentuating the limitations of the technology used during the making of these films.

Limitations that were obscured by the photochemical analogue dulpication processes of the late 70's("less is more") when the film was running in theaters(be it 35 or 70mm) and also by the low resolution displays when these same films hit VHS/Beta/V2000/laserdisc aswell as (8mm and 16mm home movies).

And that is why, despite what some on this forum hope, we'll never get the OT released in HD with the original compositing.

timdiggerm said:

danny_boy said:

I actually have the priviledge of having watched them on a Sony 4K projector and it is brutal on optical composite effects shots/duplicate negative  material.This is not the fault of the projector---it is merely accentuating the limitations of the technology used during the making of these films.

Limitations that were obscured by the photochemical analogue dulpication processes of the late 70's("less is more") when the film was running in theaters(be it 35 or 70mm) and also by the low resolution displays when these same films hit VHS/Beta/V2000/laserdisc aswell as (8mm and 16mm home movies).

And that is why, despite what some on this forum hope, we'll never get the OT released in HD with the original compositing.

Personally I hope that it does see the light of day on blu ray---BUT---be prepared to tolerate the quality differentials between those non effects and special effects footage(despite Lucas's attempts to eradicate this descrepancy by using intentionally degraded non special effects shots).

I was watching Raiders Of The Lost Ark Blu Ray on the Sony 4K the other day. There are a few ugly transitions(fades and dissolves and opticals) where  you can clearly see the lower quality of the film material used for these scenes(e.g the maps showing Indy's plane travelling from Nepal to Egypt).

Watching Raiders in a theater in 1981 this degradation would have been "smoothed out "  by the fact you were watching a 4th generation copy(where the entire film was relatively "soft")+ you also have to take into account that audiences of the time were not sensitive to these anomalies(a 4th generation 35/70mm print was still superior to TV broadcasts/VHS/Betamax of the same era after all!)---I should know----I was one of them!.

This is why I believe the true version of a film SHOULD be the 4th generation theatrical print, because that is the version everybody saw and THAT is the format that everything, from the cinematography to the special effects work, was intended for. 

Plus, 4th generation negative although it may have the same resolution as a DVD or similar, looks nothing like a DVD blowup (looks much better, more contrasty, different grain structure). 

It is a disservice to old movies to display them from the O-neg where you can see wires on the ships, matte boxes, etc.  It's not just because they were "old" that you see these things- if the o-neg was the final viewing format, those directors back in the day would have found the effects just as off-putting as we do! 

Trooperman said:

This is why I believe the true version of a film SHOULD be the 4th generation theatrical print, because that is the version everybody saw and THAT is the format that everything, from the cinematography to the special effects work, was intended for. 

Plus, 4th generation negative although it may have the same resolution as a DVD or similar, looks nothing like a DVD blowup (looks much better, more contrasty, different grain structure). 

It is a disservice to old movies to display them from the O-neg where you can see wires on the ships, matte boxes, etc.  It's not just because they were "old" that you see these things- if the o-neg was the final viewing format, those directors back in the day would have found the effects just as off-putting as we do! 

I disagree. They should use the theatrical IP instead of a theatrical print. You still get what everyone saw, but at higher quality. It'll even have the original subtitles and tantive orange errors!

Trooperman said:

This is why I believe the true version of a film SHOULD be the 4th generation theatrical print, because that is the version everybody saw and THAT is the format that everything, from the cinematography to the special effects work, was intended for. 

Plus, 4th generation negative although it may have the same resolution as a DVD or similar, looks nothing like a DVD blowup (looks much better, more contrasty, different grain structure). 

It is a disservice to old movies to display them from the O-neg where you can see wires on the ships, matte boxes, etc.  It's not just because they were "old" that you see these things- if the o-neg was the final viewing format, those directors back in the day would have found the effects just as off-putting as we do! 

I would be inclined to agree with you.

One of my prized possesions is a recording I made in 2007 of Superman The Movie straight from TV(ITV---UK channel) to standard def DVD.

The telecine that ITV(the rights have passed onto Channel 5 in the UK now) use is a 30 year old telecine.

Superman debuted on ITV way back in January 1983----it was a telecine of an already beat up 35mm theatrical print. I taped this January  1983 broadcast at the time to my V2000 video machine(since taped over).

The problem was that VHS/Betamax/V2000 recordings of these broadcasts involved the usual loss of quality (relative to the quality of the original TV broadcast).

Amazingly ITV continued to use this same Superman telecine throughout the 80's,90's and into early 2000's----as soon as I got my 1st DVD recorder in 2005 I made a promise that I would record  that Superman telecine the next time that ITV showed it(which turned out to be in 2007).

When I play this  DVD recording on my projector it immedietely reminds me of seeing the film in the cinema back in 1981---more so than the obviously superior(but digitally manipulated) 2011 blu ray.

The main drawback is that the telecine is 4:3 as opposed to widescreen.

Some where in their vault ITV have the telecine of Star Wars(which debuted in 1982 on UK TV)----it may even be a telecine of one of the rare  technicolor 35mm prints(like the one that surfaced in Baltimore 2 years back)----the colours of the ITV telecine are richer than the contemporary 1982 VHS/laserdiscs.

I would love to record that telecine to DVD/blu ray too! 

Too bad ol George wont let that happen.

Trooperman said:

This is why I believe the true version of a film SHOULD be the 4th generation theatrical print, because that is the version everybody saw and THAT is the format that everything, from the cinematography to the special effects work, was intended for. 

Plus, 4th generation negative although it may have the same resolution as a DVD or similar, looks nothing like a DVD blowup (looks much better, more contrasty, different grain structure). 

It is a disservice to old movies to display them from the O-neg where you can see wires on the ships, matte boxes, etc.  It's not just because they were "old" that you see these things- if the o-neg was the final viewing format, those directors back in the day would have found the effects just as off-putting as we do! 

I agree.  Here's a thread I started about it:

http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Trying-to-understand-film-preservation-perhaps-a-stupid-question-but-shouldnt-digital-masters-be-struck-from-theatrical-prints/topic/14944/

danny_boy said:

Some where in their vault ITV have the telecine of Star Wars(which debuted in 1982 on UK TV)----it may even be a telecine of one of the rare  technicolor 35mm prints(like the one that surfaced in Baltimore 2 years back)----the colours of the ITV telecine are richer than the contemporary 1982 VHS/laserdiscs.

I would love to record that telecine to DVD/blu ray too! 

Too bad ol George wont let that happen.

The '82 UK ITV telecine is a damn nice and theatrical authentic source in terms of color timing for the most part, but I can tell you that it's definitely not a telecine of an IB technicolor print, there's several things with that source that explains why that is the case, one being the different X-Wing takeoff-composite: http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Print-variations-in-77-Star-Wars/topic/14705/

danny_boy said:

timdiggerm said:

danny_boy said:

I actually have the priviledge of having watched them on a Sony 4K projector and it is brutal on optical composite effects shots/duplicate negative material.This is not the fault of the projector---it is merely accentuating the limitations of the technology used during the making of these films.

Limitations that were obscured by the photochemical analogue dulpication processes of the late 70's("less is more") when the film was running in theaters(be it 35 or 70mm) and also by the low resolution displays when these same films hit VHS/Beta/V2000/laserdisc aswell as (8mm and 16mm home movies).

And that is why, despite what some on this forum hope, we'll never get the OT released in HD with the original compositing.

Personally I hope that it does see the light of day on blu ray---BUT---be prepared to tolerate the quality differentials between those non effects and special effects footage(despite Lucas's attempts to eradicate this descrepancy by using intentionally degraded non special effects shots).

Be also prepared for sideburns and 70's hairstyles, or watch a film from the digital era. I guess many aren't prepared to accept that Star Wars is a classic spfx-film from the 70's after Lucas' brainwashing (that means tons of grain on opticals, matte lines and dirt printed in). If they can release King Kong, Metropolis or Close Encounters they can damn well release the classic Star Wars films in HD with all original compositing intact, if not, they may as well not bother releasing it at all IMO.

Way to throw him under the bus for no reason. I think even King Kong features better compositing than Star Wars... I'm actually not against cleaning up things like the speeder shot. From what I've seen the drop of quality is genuinely apparent and not just a figment of Lucas's imagination. Sure, you might not notice it on a release print - but, honestly, what official restoration comes from one of those? This isn't replacing the effect we're talking about. We're talking about presenting it as best possible. So I say DNR the hell out of scenes like the landspeeder one, so long as you don't touch it any further. Maybe that makes me less of a purist than I thought, but cleaning up a scene (in moderation) like that would be a far cry away from removing wires or mirror reflections.

bkev said:

Way to throw him under the bus for no reason.

??

bkev said:

I think even King Kong features better compositing than Star Wars... I'm actually not against cleaning up things like the speeder shot. From what I've seen the drop of quality is genuinely apparent and not just a figment of Lucas's imagination. Sure, you might not notice it on a release print - but, honestly, what official restoration comes from one of those? This isn't replacing the effect we're talking about. We're talking about presenting it as best possible. So I say DNR the hell out of scenes like the landspeeder one, so long as you don't touch it any further. Maybe that makes me less of a purist than I thought, but cleaning up a scene (in moderation) like that would be a far cry away from removing wires or mirror reflections.

I don't know what sore point I hit bkev, but at no point did I ever talk about not accepting any cleaning up of elements, as it goes without saying when it's one of the major and most common things done in any modern film restoration. So I have no idea why you brought all this up as an counter argument to what I said. Care to explain? Cleaning up dirt doesn't equal re-compositing.

danny_boy brings up very good points regarding the film elements which I completely agree with him on, the film never was meant to be seen straight from the negative. Generation loss even things out and many things like props and sets were often made to look good with that in mind as well.

The apparent quality differences between film elements in the original Star Wars have always been there,  it's even seen in low-res transfers such as LD or VHS as well. My point is, if you cannot accept that Star Wars is a flawed masterpiece with all the shortcomings of its time, then the original film isn't perhaps what you want. So in that regard I guess many on these boards are impossible to please.

msycamore said:

So in that regard I guess many on these boards are impossible to please.

You're probably right.

I just want to see a proper restoration from the (damaged) IP used for the original theatrical run.

I know they still have it because they used that IP for the ANH Technidisc LD.

Wouldn't this give us the best possible quality while still retaining everything unique to a theatrical print, including (but not limited to) the infamous tantive orange errors?