opinions on film restoration/preservation and how it applies to Star Wars - what do you think should/should not be allowed? — Page 4

skyjedi2005 said:

The Lowry botch job is going to make them very visible at blu ray resolution.

 Don't blame Lowry for those transfers - their work was limited to cleaning - and they themselves were apparently less than pleased to get only a 1080p scan as all their cleanup processes were optimised for 2k and 4k images. Now at first glance 2k res doesn't seem to be that much higher than 1080p but in fact is it has about 50% more pixels than 1920x1080. 35mm film is said to be somewhere between 2k and 4k res depending on who you ask, but I think the generally accepted wisdom is that 2k is the bare minimum.

skyjedi2005 said:

If Star Wars was destroyed  by time and no good copies exist anymore, then where did they get a source for the gout, and how did they print up those 70mm film cels ?  I have been asking this for years. 

 

the 2006 "GOUT" release was probably sourced from the digital tape masters that were done in the early 90's that they had hanging around in the archive.

But the notion that the original no longer exists is more a philosophical statement on Lucas's part. It exists in whole or in part in vaults and private collections all over the world - I doubt there would be any major difficulty finding footage to splice in where necessary. The workflow I'd go for if I were in charge of reassabling the OOT versions would be to get the 1997 SE negatives scanned at 4k then just drop in OOT sections from whatever source is best on a case by case basis.

skyjedi2005 said:

For some Reason when Bob Z did the release for Back to the Future on DVD and blu ray however he refused to have the noticeable things like wires holding up marty mcly painted out. 

I didn't know about that. I think I just fell in love with Robert Zemeckis. The first Back to the Future DVD set was fantastic and used to be what I wished the a Star Wars boxset of the OOT would be. Since then Blade Runner has replaced it at the top of my list of most amazing DVD sets of all time. Sounds like the trend is continuing into the BD realm.

Regarding Xhonzi's question of whether or not we'd still pursue a proper release of the original if a replica of the original was made with newly composited special effects. Absolutely I would. I wouldn't even bother spending money on a set that only replicated the look of the original.

Regarding Fink's comment about how many little changes have been made over the years. I guess to some of you we may come off as comically anal, but tiny little changes here and there aren't that big of a deal to me, but completely redoing the special effects is not a tiny little change. That is a massive overhaul, even if it is done to resemble the original as closely as possible sans the "flaws".

 but completely redoing the special effects is not a tiny little change. That is a massive overhaul, even if it is done to resemble the original as closely as possible sans the "flaws".

Well, recompositing is not the same as redoing. They'd still make use of all the layers of film generated during the original effects process - they'd just be putting the layers back together digitally rather than using the optical printer as was done originally. This would eliminate generation loss. That's all. Its the EXACT same workflow just using better tools. Its not any different from scanning the original negative and digitally colour timing it and painting out scratches and dirt. Maybe its different on a philosophical level but technically there's no difference.

It is redoing. The effects weren't complete until the compositing was done; this was its own art, and until it was finished it was just a bunch of bluescreen elements. The composite is the effect. It was a hard job, and took many second, third, and fourth attempts. You had to film the bluescreen elements with the composite in mind. You had to take the time to make a proper matte--there was dedicated matte artists to just do the extractions, which is why some matte lines are better done than others. When you combined them, you had to make sure all the elements were aligned right in the composite, or else it would be all out of place. You had to make sure the opacity was correct, and you had to compromise where it was necessary. You had to print them with certain colours, because they never printed correctly--in fact, sometimes bluescreen elements would be painted "wrong" in order to come out "right" in the composite. You had to take into account the film stock, in order to get the right amount of contrast, knowing it would change, and you had to chose a specific format to account for generational degradation, which added its own aesthetic. They knew they would be compositing things on an optical printer, and it informed the very approach they took.

Once you start re-compositing things, you aren't dealing with the original visual effect. You are dealing with the original elements only. And once you start tossing aside the original effect and going back to the individual layers, you might as well start adding and deleting some--which is why in pretty much every edit where they have done digital re-comps, they have added in new elements as well.

I'll say it again: the original visual effect wasn't complete until it was composited. It wasn't some incidental thing, a final element to the effect that can just be polished up in the digital realm. It was the effect. If you want to have any pretense about "Restoration" or "Preservation" you have to present these as they were. Getting rid of the original composites is removing all the hard work those artists strove to do, to make seem believable and pleasant looking on the screen. And sometimes, it wasn't a total success--and that's an important facet to preserve. The struggle, the flaws, the failures--as well as the slight-of-hand, the successes, and the invisible work that they sometimes did.

Zombie said:

...the original visual effect wasn't complete until it was composited. It wasn't some incidental thing, a final element to the effect that can just be polished up in the digital realm. It was the effect.

Well put sir.

On a side note, S_Matt, I love your avatar. It's totally simple, not exactly iconic, but instantly recognizable. I'm thinking of making a print of that image to hang in my office. Squares would just think it's abstract.

zombie84 said:

It is redoing. The effects weren't complete until the compositing was done; this was its own art, and until it was finished it was just a bunch of bluescreen elements.

Well you should apply that argument to the final release prints as well - photochemical colour timing too was an art but they'd definitely not be using it for a release to a digital medium. If you're completely logical and consistant in your arguments you *have* to decry the lack of a photochemical process in the final output of the restored film. Your arguments preclude the use of any digital restoration tools.

S_Matt said:

zombie84 said:

It is redoing. The effects weren't complete until the compositing was done; this was its own art, and until it was finished it was just a bunch of bluescreen elements.

 

Well you should apply that argument to the final release prints as well - photochemical colour timing too was an art but they'd definitely not be using it for a release to a digital medium. If you're completely logical and consistant in your arguments you *have* to decry the lack of a photochemical process in the final output of the restored film. Your arguments preclude the use of any digital restoration tools.

 No, because there is absolutely no visual difference in photochemical versus digital grading, the latter is just easier and gives you flexibility, but it would and is possible to mimic the chemical grading of Star Wars exactly in the digital realm. If I timed one chemically and one digitally and put them side by side, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference. You're going to be scanning it and then watching it digitally anyway, so if you want to be this strict then we'll all have to buy 35mm prints in order to get the "100% authentic" experience.

The original prints have faded anyway, so you literally can't have the "original" timing work--you have to do it again, you have to recreate it, so there is no point in doing it chemically when you can recreate the same effect much easier and at lesser cost digitally. Different argument than the visual effects. The original effects are still there, whereas the original timing has unfortunately been destroyed by the passage of time and will never be able to be recovered precisely as it was, and therefore must be recreated.

xhonzi said:

but tiny little changes here and there aren't that big of a deal to me, but completely redoing the special effects is not a tiny little change. That is a massive overhaul, even if it is done to resemble the original as closely as possible sans the "flaws".

 We're still talking about recompositing original elements, right? 

Yes.

xhonzi said:

Judge me how you will:

This whole conversation has made me realize that while I feel and understand the need to preserve these films as they were, I care MORE about my being able to enjoy them. 

I think that being too hung up on *exact* replication of the an idealised original condition misses the point a bit of what these films were first and foremost meant for - to entertain. I do find it incredible to consider that some would even go as far to boycott the holy grail of Star Wars fandom because its not 100% identical to an impossible to achieve ideal. Its all about balance. I say, in a restoration, the goal is, improve whatever you can but stay true to the spirit of the piece. Star Wars reduced to a sterile technical excercise - that makes me feel even more ill than Lucas's over the top revisionism.

I would prefer the films to be full of life and entertainment, not become the cinematic equivalent of Lenin's corpse.

S_Matt said:

xhonzi said:

Judge me how you will:

This whole conversation has made me realize that while I feel and understand the need to preserve these films as they were, I care MORE about my being able to enjoy them. 

 

I say, in a restoration, the goal is, improve whatever you can but stay true to the spirit of the piece.

That's not a restoration. If you are "improving" on the film then what are you restoring? You're adding aspects that were never there in the first place. Restoration means it had to exist in film in the first place.

The goal of an ideal enhancement is to improve on things where necessary while staying true to the spirit of the piece. You're still in denial about what you are actually wanting--a tasteful Special Edition. 

 

Star Wars reduced to a sterile technical excercise - that makes me feel even more ill than Lucas's over the top revisionism.

Sterile technical exercise? All I'm suggesting is presenting the original film. No changes, no enhancement, no de-graining, no nothing. Just clean the dirt and put it on a disc. What you are suggesting is re-doing many special effects shots, digitally filtering things, and changing stuff to look "better." That's the technical exercise. It's not in the preservation and restoration--it's in the enhancement.

I would prefer the films to be full of life and entertainment, not become the cinematic equivalent of Lenin's corpse.

 So you are saying the original versions is not full of life and entertainment, and is the cinematic equivalent of Lenin's corpse? I fail to see how presenting the original version as it was meets this criteria. The population of the year 1977 A.D. would disagree with you.