opinions on film restoration/preservation and how it applies to Star Wars - what do you think should/should not be allowed? — Page 8

asterisk8 said:

doubleKO said:

Very close. Obsessed-with-quality slob is closer.

Please don't think I was calling you an obsessive snob. I was actually referring to myself. That's why I said, "if that was me and my kid". I care, probably too much, about things like a 4:3 picture stretched to 16:9, and I've been known to stealth-calibrate my friends' TVs while they're in the bathroom because I notice when their video settings are not optimized.  :)

I was worried that you might think that I thought that. I didn't, I was just revising my vision of you being me to the vision that I originally envisioned.

Now... S_Matt. I also am getting just slightly annoyed by your posts on this thread. Fair enough it is yours, but you basically accuse everyone else of not being able to come to an agreement on this matter but as far as I can tell, we have. It is you who wants extra this and that on top of the OOT and keeps comparing it to an SE version of Blade Runner. What should be allowed is what Harmy and basically everybody else has been saying and that is a straight, quality transfer.

So, what you're saying is, there's only one opinion allowed on this forum?

I must say the strange double standards of the restorationalists puzzle me. Especially the notion that its fine to use tools that weren't available 35 years ago to clean and recolor a film but not okay to use the technology to fix compositing faults like matte lines and flickering boxes?

Harmy said:

No, you can have whatever opinion you like but you can't expect people to agree with you on a forum dedicated to film preservation. Like DoubleKO said, you keep comparing the OOT to the FC of Blade Runner but that's comparing apples and bananas.

Whichever version you prefer, it's clear OOT and the Theatrical Cut of BR are apples and the SE and FC are bananas.

Mmm... bananas.

S_Matt I did not say that only one opinion was allowed or even hint at it. I was wondering why you seem to be separating yourself from US but claim WE cannot agree, when we do; and saying that we will not be happy with what we have agreed on, when we will; say that we all want a dozen odd versions, when we don't, and YOU are the one asking for the more difficult, expensive and less faithful version, which you keep comparing to a Special Edition of a different movie. DOES NOT COMPUTE.

S_Matt said:

I must say the strange double standards of the restorationalists puzzle me. Especially the notion that its fine to use tools that weren't available 35 years ago to clean and recolor a film but not okay to use the technology to fix compositing faults like matte lines and flickering boxes?

Seriously, most people here would be happy with an 4K scan of a 35mm print with dirt and scratches removed. Original soundtrack would be nice. How is that strange or puzzling?

S_Matt said:

But like I said, nobody is going to be satisfied with anything they hypothetically release and I think this is one of the factors that mak

Uh, it sounds like the only guy who will be hard please is you since you keep describing a truly unusual, more difficult and expensive release of a type that never really happens. As opposed to something that happens all the time. (Almost every tuesday in fact.)

Furthermore S_Matt, I think I might prefer your version if you must know :P I know bugger-all about re-compositing but I think I would prefer matte lines and boxes gone as per the look of the SE and so would Frink if I remember correctly...

But it does not seem to be the consensus of "THE RESTORATIONALISTS" *wooo* *chains rattling or something*

We would all like an umpteen different version box set of the OOT in splendid HD glory similar to your precious Blade Runner FC, and that's what we would get if George gave a damn. But with his revisionism and refusal to make them available, then GOUT release - we have pretty much been reduced to trying to agree on the least crappy copy we are willing to accept or just ask for ONE thing with one voice if only to imagine George hears it during his hypothetical moment of clarity. Suggestion: Read this thread again. And possibly the reason for this website.

I know you never asked us to agree and were more than likely wanting a larger range of answers. But why? So you could shoot us down for being petty and divided? We pretty much agreed and then you did that anyway, while asking for more changes to a standard, no frills, ordinary effing transfer than anyone else.

Frankly I am not obsessive about quality and regularly watch DivX on a 720p set as well :P I would even be satisfied for at least the next few years with a frickin' dual layer DVD transfer. But I will not buy a box set of SE Blu-rays to get it.

asterisk8 said:

doubleKO said:

TV's Frink said:

thejediknighthusezni said:

The kids don't care so much about HD. 

Wait, what?

I take it he means his kids. Though my son couldn't care less either. He gets annoyed when I fiddle with settings on the TV. "Who cares, just watch it". He doesn't even notice if he's watching a 4:3 picture stretched to 16:9 or vice versa :P

If that was me and my kid, I'd say, "You go to your room until you can learn to be an obsessive quality snob like your father!"

  ...uh...um...nvm, :0)

     I'm wondering, If a modestly enhanced restoration (no matt lines, boxes and so forth) was released, couldn't the restorationists quickly replace all those lines and boxes for a more pure restoration in blu? That wouldn't be commercially available, but the true die-hards could get access. I'm sold on a pure restoration, but , if compelled, I could make do.

    I'm also wondering, would it be better if the hardware industry promoted HD 3D projectors instead of the "little" LED panels? I can't see anyone but fans of action features and gamers wanting to pay for "small" 3D and mess with the glasses any time soon. Projectors that hook into players and cable might be mass produced with less expense and give a more IMAX theatrical experience (at the expense of ambient light problems.) If I was a software guy at the MPAA I might at least give passing consideration to pushing the hardware guys more to projectors-

...uh...I like Star Wars. :)  

thejediknighthusezni said:

  ...uh...um...nvm, :0)

...uh...um...it was a joke. =)

S_Matt said:

So, what you're saying is, there's only one opinion allowed on this forum?

I must say the strange double standards of the restorationalists puzzle me. Especially the notion that its fine to use tools that weren't available 35 years ago to clean and recolor a film but not okay to use the technology to fix compositing faults like matte lines and flickering boxes?

 The tools are meaningless. You don't see or hear the tools in the film. It is the effect that matters, the end result. Regardless of how you restore the film the ultimate goal is to get it to look and sound as it originally did. As long as it looks and sounds exactly as it did, it doesn't matter how you did it, the process doesn't matter, it's the result we are concerned with. If there was an audible difference between the original sound tapes in 1977 and a digitally restored version of the sound tapes in 2011, I would be concerned that it's not truely being restored to its original state--but there is no real auible difference. The result is the same. And that is what ultimately matters. If you could somehow make Star Wars look the same as it did in 1977 using a rock and hammer, that would amazing, because it looks the same as it did in 1977, so why would anyone care that you used a rock and hammer? It's restored, it looks and sounds identical to how it did when it was first made.

Furthermore, cleaning the film is the act of restoring it. The dirt is foreign. It's attached onto the surface of the film from handling, time, and storage. It wasn't originally there, thus in order to get the film to look as it originally did, you have to get rid of it. No one said anything about recolouring, except to get it to match the 1977 version. See the pattern? Matte lines and flickering boxes were there in 1977. That's why they don't get removed. See the difference?

That's why recompositing the effects digitally matters. It's not just that you are recomping them digitally--the end result takes on a different quality. It looks different--that is, after all, the whole point of doing a digital recomp, right? To make it look better, cleaner, more realistic, or whatever, than the original optical. And that's why it's not a restoration. You're changing how it looks and betraying the visual repercussions of the state of technology in the year the film was made.

I've made a lot of really salient points throughout this thread that you've not addressed. I don't know this is on purpose, but I've shot down pretty much every point you've raised.

Anyway, you're basically asking for a tasteful Special Edition, like Blade Runner Final Cut. Which is cool, I would enjoy that and so would a lot of people here probably. But let's not pretend it's anything but that. Once it ceases to resemble the original version, it's no longer a preservation or a restoration--again, the whole point of recomps and stuff is precisely so it can cease to resemble the original version exactly, to get rid of matte lines and mis-timings and opacity issues, and other stuff. So you basically answer your own issue here; your whole point is to create a version that isn't a preservation of exactly how the original was, one that has changed certain visual or audio elements to be technically better and have different characteristics and qualities (no matte lines, fully opaque, consistent colour, etc.). Because if it looked the same, you wouldn't need to re-do it so that it looked slightly different right? So your whole concept is predecated on altering the original content. How you could consider this a restoration or a preservation of the film is beyond me. You seem to think "restoration" means "improving" because restorationists erase scratches and dirt. But the reason they erase those things is because they were never there in the first place, they are foreign artifacts, so it's not actually improving anything, it's (get ready for this) restoring the film to how it originally existed.

This entire thread is basically the whole board here trying to convince one person he is wrong. If you can't see why you are wrong after 8 pages of nothing but rebuttals from dozens of people, some of whom actually do work in non-professional film restoration, then, well...

zombie84 said:

 It's restored, it looks and sounds identical to how it did when it was first made.

I contend that such a condition is impossible because it is unknowable. But you all seem to be under the impression that I want only a special edition version with cleaned effects. I think it would be a plus but its certainly not mandatory. I'd be completely happy with a warts and all restoration. I'd also be happy with one that had a bit of an upgrade.

Let's face it - the chances of a Lucasfilm-produced restoration are very small. If it is done, it would most likely be the low-key cleanup with no changes to the original material that most people want. My idealized version won't ever happen. The opportunity was there but the SE project blew it. Still doesn't mean I can't discuss it and why I'd like such a version.

I posted this thread to find out what people would/would not like to see in a restored Star Wars. Now I know. I don't see how I can be "wrong" though - that's why this is a debate. I'm interested in the debate, not the final verdict of who is correct.

You're wrong because you're using the terminology incorrectly. You can't have things added to the film that never existed and could not have existed and still call it a restoration. It's a Special Edition, or an enhanced edition, or whatever.

S_Matt said:

zombie84 said:

 It's restored, it looks and sounds identical to how it did when it was first made.

I contend that such a condition is impossible because it is unknowable.

Just for clarity, do you feel this way about all blu-rays of catalog studio titles from the 70s and 80s?

zombie84 said:

You're wrong because you're using the terminology incorrectly. You can't have things added to the film that never existed and could not have existed and still call it a restoration. It's a Special Edition, or an enhanced edition, or whatever.

Well, yes, I did use the terminology incorrectly at times. But I was kind of always posing the question, what is a restoration? Does it have a definition? What do members of the community consider a "restoration" to be?

I've got some answers and I think all of them are interesting and worth investigating.

However I never once suggested anything needed to be added to the film at all. I only ever advocated using elements that existed and were available and that ended up in the release-cut of the film. Some say that only the final version of the film with all the effects elements baked into it should be cleaned up. I say, if you got as many separate elements as you could and reassembled the film you could do a far better job restoring the film to a pristine state.

The definition of a term isn't always an exact one.

The very word restore implies that you are returning something to the film. Digitally recomping things to eliminate visual information and visual characteristics that were there from the beginning is actually the opposite of what "restore" means.

The matte lines, the opacity compromises, the composite wobble, the misprinted colours were there, they are part of how the film existed (and actually when you understand how effects were done back then you realise that the composite was the effect). Taking them away is eliminating visual information from the original release and compromising the integrity of the film's history. And then you are adding a re-composited version of that effect (which looks different--let's not be in denial again here. The fact that it looks different is the whole reason why you are redoing the effects, otherwise there would be no point, you could just leave them).

So yes, you not only are suggesting the original visuals be eliminated, you are suggesting adding visual to the film. Sorry, that's what you are doing. That's why no one who knew anything about restorations would consider this a restoration. The replaced visuals are true to the spirit of the original yes, and use the same elements--but they aren't the original visuals. Especially from a historical standpoint it undermines the authenticity of the film and eliminates the painstakingly hard work that effects artists went to in order to create those visual elements (the composites--the end point to which all the other effects artists, from painters to the motion control techs, were working towards).

      I'm just curious about the best way to proceed in all this format flux.

     The sole purpose of a corporation is to maximize profit (legally). Securing revenue flow is the only way a corporation can be a responsible corporate citizen (in spite of PC nonsense.) That is how they secure employment and prosperity for the most people.

     I have been very tempted to give my SE discs to relatives while keeping the GOUT discs. If I did so, I suspect I'd be taking several people out of the market for a decade or more.

    I'm wondering if six blu discs, marketed like wild with "Ultimate High Definition Theatrical Restorations" would be enough to satisfy the original fans and HD snobs. If the SEs were put on the back side of those discs in SD DVD format (possibly including a simple SE of the PT to make the films even more kid friendly), could it appeal to soccer moms and casual fans who haven't upgraded yet? "Family SE Saga For Blu-Ray and DVD Players"? Could the more expensive DS discs more than pay for themselves by not putting a zillion discs with different versions out there? All the extras marketed for Blu and DVD players? How many families will have blu-ray portable players (to keep the kids quiet in the car) any time soon? Could the stock of the upcoming Blu sets be sold out as limited editions while preparing this Blu-DVD hybrid set? How the heck is this on topic?

    Is something like this a rational way to provide the HD restorations, to provide versatile discs for all players, and to clear the way for the ultimate 3D-2D HD "Directors Cut".   Jus' wonerin' :) 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_preservation

Just because its on wikipedia doesn't make it so. That article is just someone's opinion on film preservation. I respect that opinion. I respect your opinion. I agree with your opinion - to a point. I happen to have a different view on the subject.

And, in case everyone missed it the other 5000 times I mentioned it - I would be very happy with a straight cleaned up version with the effects left untouched. (Ok, I'd be pissed if you could still see the garbage mattes but those can be dealt with I think by subtle color timing adjustments and wouldn't break the "rules" of preservation, seeing in theatrical screenings they weren't always visible - but if they were there it wouldn't be a deal breaker either) I bet if they were removed some of you would boycott the release though. Imagine that, refusing to buy the restored OOT because an almost invisible flickering box was removed here and there....

skyjedi2005 said:

Have to disagree here models look real and cgi looks fake.

Well, it doesn't always look fake - its just a case of how much time was allowed to do the job - usually, not nearly enough time. In CGI all the realism you get for "free" on a model has be be very carefully and painstakingly incorporated into a CG effect - In most cases its just easier to build a model and go shoot it in fact. But the flexibility of CGI effects has been deemed more important than out and out realism. I believe you can find a good middle ground personally but in hollywood schedules get shorter and shorter so its kind of a losing battle.