Sign In

team negative1 - star wars 1977 - 35mm theatrical version (Released) — Page 12

Author
Time

Yeah, I don't remember getting an email invite either, I remember it being through PM here...but I guess I'll find out.

This signature uses Markdown syntax, which makes it easy to add formatting like italics, bold, and lists:

Author
Time
 (Edited)

we used pm's back then because it

was easier.

 

now my mailbox is almost completely

filled up. and besides we already have

your contact information from the last blog.

 

so why go through all that again?

 

*******PLEASE HOLD OFF ON THE PM'S,

WE ARE NOT READY TO LET PEOPLE SIGN UP

 

I'VE SEEN A COUPLE AND WILL BE IGNORING ANY

REQUESTS UNTIL WE ARE READY!


THANKS FOR YOUR PATIENCE! 

 

later

-1

[no GOUT in CED?-> GOUT CED]

Author
Time

negative1 said:

...we already have

your contact information from the last blog.

That's what I figured.

Man, with all the people who were completely oblivious to the first blog, it's weird to hear that the second blog is getting overloaded.

Is it because of the secret public screening or something? I notice a lot of new faces here lately...

This signature uses Markdown syntax, which makes it easy to add formatting like italics, bold, and lists:

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Asaki said:

negative1 said:

...we already have

your contact information from the last blog.

That's what I figured.

Man, with all the people who were completely oblivious to the first blog, it's weird to hear that the second blog is getting overloaded.

Is it because of the secret public screening or something? I notice a lot of new faces here lately...

there is interest.

however, you're taking this incorrectly.

 

we are not swamped at all.

in fact i've only seen about 10 people or less

ask about this in this thread.

 

i expect about 50% of the original people

to stick with the invites if they check their

email, and hopefully it doesn't go into their

spam folder.

 

it's just a better method to set it up.

and easier for me to send out using emails than pm's.

i didn't manange my pm's well. so that's one thing.

 

also, we've had some server issues in getting it up.

which hopefully are over now.

 

lastly, it's a reward to people that were there

when we started the original one.

 

see you there.

 

later

-1

[no GOUT in CED?-> GOUT CED]

Author
Time

Watched the trailer, the shots of the project looked a little blurry, like this particular copy is blurry on the film stock. Am I seeing it wrong? Is there anything you can do to sharpen up the image?

I love everybody. Lets all smoke some reefer and chill. Hug and kisses for everybody.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

vbangle said:

Watched the trailer, the shots of the project looked a little blurry, like this particular copy is blurry on the film stock. Am I seeing it wrong? Is there anything you can do to sharpen up the image?

Which trailer did you watch? I've seen many of -1's videos, so I'm not sure if I remember the one to which you're referring.

Please link me!

A picture is worth a thousand words. Post 102 is worth more.

I’m late to the party, but I think this is the best song. Enjoy!

—Teams Jetrell Fo 1, Jetrell Fo 2, and Jetrell Fo 3

Author
Time

AntcuFaalb said:

vbangle said:

Watched the trailer, the shots of the project looked a little blurry, like this particular copy is blurry on the film stock. Am I seeing it wrong? Is there anything you can do to sharpen up the image?

Which trailer did you watch? I've seen many of -1's videos, so I'm not sure if I remember the one to which you're referring.

Please link me!

The trailer on the front page, it contains brief snippets of the project mixed in with old original trailer footage. It just didn't look very crisp and clear is all, and I was wondering if that is how the film stock looks or was that because of the transfer process? No biggie, you probably disagree but I was really just asking -1 about it.

I love everybody. Lets all smoke some reefer and chill. Hug and kisses for everybody.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

 

 

So here is a comparison, top is a screen grab from the trailer of the 35mm -1 cleaned up capture and the bottom is a screen grab of project blu v2

The image quality difference is striking. What I don't understand is why the image from 35mm film is so inferior compared to the upscaled laser disc master? Beyond anything else why is it so blurry? The loss of detail is shocking. How can this happen?

I love everybody. Lets all smoke some reefer and chill. Hug and kisses for everybody.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

vbangle said:

...So here is a comparison, top is a screen grab from the trailer of the 35mm -1 cleaned up capture and the bottom is a screen grab of project blu v2

The image quality difference is striking. What I don't understand is why the image from 35mm film is so much different than an upscaled laser disc master? Beyond anything else why is it so blurry?

 

Forgive me if this is a dumb question, but what is project blu v2?

Author
Time

I assume he means dark jedi's new v2 Blu-ray set he's working on.

The Star Wars trilogy. There can be only one.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Checked my old sent PMs. Looks like -1 should have my email from last time. :)

And my name may be "lurker", but I asked around a billion questions on the old blog! XD

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Negative1 I see you been here since I posted, do you have any information that can help explain the loss of detail in your 35mm project?

I hope I am not coming off in a accusatory tone, I was just floored when I noticed the difference in detail between projects and just trying to understand it.

I love everybody. Lets all smoke some reefer and chill. Hug and kisses for everybody.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

I had assumed it was because of compressing the images into crappy jpeg images for the net.  But that was just a guess. 

“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
 (Edited)

skyjedi2005 said:

I had assumed it was because of compressing the images into crappy jpeg images for the net.  But that was just a guess. 

Nope. Both screen grabs are jpegs saved with identical settings. So that's one theory shot down.

I love everybody. Lets all smoke some reefer and chill. Hug and kisses for everybody.

Author
Time

First of all, vbangle: Both of those shots have been clipped from 0-255 to 16-235. And the shot from blu v2 has the wrong aspect ratio, should be a bit taller. So there's probably some settings that are wrong in the software you used to capture them.

Here's how our shot really looks:

And the shot you posted from negative1's old trailer is from what I think they called an "early color correction". I bet they've made a massive improvement since then. And that shot is also compressed.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

You_Too said:

First of all, vbangle: Both of those shots have been clipped from 0-255 to 16-235. And the shot from blu v2 has the wrong aspect ratio, should be a bit taller. So there's probably some settings that are wrong in the software you used to capture them.

Here's how our shot really looks:

And the shot you posted from negative1's old trailer is from what I think they called an "early color correction". I bet they've made a massive improvement since then. And that shot is also compressed.

All that aside ( admittedly my screen grabs were done quick and dirty :) )why is the 35 mm film show so much loss of fine detail? Color correction shouldn't have any effect on the quality of the image, right? Shouldn't 35mm film have a sharp crisp picture with lots of detail?

I love everybody. Lets all smoke some reefer and chill. Hug and kisses for everybody.

Author
Time

Call me crazy, but I think the picture You_too posted already has a lot of detail? Keep in mind that that picture is NOT 1080p. But 1280 x 544

What are you comparing the quality to anyway? If it's the official blu-rays, well you can't really expect these captures to have the same quality.

1.) They're using homemade equipment to capture the frames, definitely not perfect. (altough really good results anyway)

2.) these are NOT the original negatives, which is what the blu-rays were made with. These 32mm are basically third generation, so they're gonna look a little "softer"than a direct o-neg copy.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

jero32 said:

Call me crazy, but I think the picture You_too posted already has a lot of detail? Keep in mind that that picture is NOT 1080p. But 1280 x 544

What are you comparing the quality to anyway? If it's the official blu-rays, well you can't really expect these captures to have the same quality.

1.) They're using homemade equipment to capture the frames, definitely not perfect. (altough really good results anyway)

2.) these are NOT the original negatives, which is what the blu-rays were made with. These 32mm are basically third generation, so they're gonna look a little "softer"than a direct o-neg copy.

No you're not getting it. The picture You_Too posted is the one that looks great and is sourced from the GOUT. I am talking about and comparing it to the scanned 35mm screen grab I did of  the 1080p trailer that Negetive1 made of his project. Look at the comparison I posted.

Anyway was hoping to get a explanation from negetive1 not one of his followers who isn't directly involved with the project.

I love everybody. Lets all smoke some reefer and chill. Hug and kisses for everybody.

Author
Time

Damn that's a gout shot? I need to get my eyes checked, or they're doing a really good job of upscaling it. (probably the first)

Author
Time

jero32 said:

Damn that's a gout shot? I need to get my eyes checked, or they're doing a really good job of upscaling it. (probably the first)

I think you'll find it's the second ;-)

Save London’s Curzon Soho Cinema

Author
Time

hey vbangle,

 

that shot is from the trailer, not the 35mm print.

i'll see if i can dig up that screenshot then we

can tell if that's representative. 

 

however, as we're moving to the new blog sunday.

 

you might want to hold off on the questions until

we are over there.

 

later

-1

[no GOUT in CED?-> GOUT CED]

Author
Time
 (Edited)

on a related note.

 

we've put up the LPP for sale on

the 35mm forum.. ( and will got

to ebay if it doesn't sell).

 

it has served us well, and it's

purpose is now complete.

 

it's been quite the adventure

owning it.

 

i hope the new owner appreciates

the historical nature of it also.

 

later

-1

[no GOUT in CED?-> GOUT CED]

Author
Time

Well, I thought I'd come back by and see what you guys thought of the new Disney acquisition. Seems I arrived just in time to see this exciting new project.

Hard to say which way this will go.  I've heard that Disney is litigious, but maybe they'll see the value of re-releasing the original versions and do it themselves?


Well. we all know how much Disney hates reissuing movies for profit, much less multiple versions and/or sequels.  [/roll_eyes]

"I'm pretty sure we aren't doing anything illegal, since we aren't making any money."

Oh, the studios have that contingency covered as well...

http://antypography.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/dvdwarn1.jpg

The trailer on vimeo looked great. Can't wait to see what else you guys have done with this 35mm print. I can't remember the last time I've even watched the OT....never in the mood for it anymore. This would be a lovely change.  :)


<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: Sadly, I believe the prequels are beyond repair.
<span class=“Bold”>JediRandy: They’re certainly beyond any repair you’re capable of making.</span></span>

<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: You aren’t one of us.
<span class=“Bold”>Go-Mer-Tonic: I can’t say I find that very disappointing.</span></span>

<span class=“Italics”>JediRandy: I won’t suck as much as a fan edit.</span>

Author
Time

negative1 said:

hey vbangle,

 

that shot is from the trailer, not the 35mm print.

i'll see if i can dig up that screenshot then we

can tell if that's representative. 

 

however, as we're moving to the new blog sunday.

 

you might want to hold off on the questions until

we are over there.

 

later

-1

Sure fair enough...this really wasn't that big of a deal with me, I just got my curiosity up when I saw the trailer. I sure hope the transfer is sharp and has lots of detail...I know the editors and restoration experts here are hoping for that to be the case. Thank you -1 for your reply.

I love everybody. Lets all smoke some reefer and chill. Hug and kisses for everybody.