CatBus

That's really cool.  I can imagine a couple scenarios that might throw it off (syncing my subs designed for the stereo mixes with Puggo's mono mixes), but under most circumstances I imagine that's not really an issue.

Might be worth a shot the next time I need to do a resync.  Ultimately I'd use to just produce conversion data for my scripts rather than using Sushi directly, because my scripts convert graphical subs as well as text subs, Sushi seems text-only.

IMO, "pick a reasonably good standard and run with it" is more important than "include every frame".  Part of the reason is laziness, sure, but also trying to avoid the confusion of "which frame reference are we on this week?"  In addition, I don't know for sure, but I suspect we already have more frames in NTSC GOUT than people actually saw theatrically, at the reel changes.

Not that these frames can't be catalogued for other purposes, but the crap we just went through with PAL vs NTSC GOUT, let's not do that again, like, ever.

Yeah, I discovered this while syncing Puggo's projects, but never reported back, like a bad, bad thread starter.

Since I'm dealing with subtitles, I really can afford to be off by quite a few frames.  Jumping from shot to shot and verifying sync in each shot is perfectly adequate for my purposes.

You're starting off with PAL GOUT frames, right?  If so, it looks like the applicable Avisynth script snippets are:

SW:

DeleteFrame(144053)

ESB:

DeleteFrame(150204,150205)

ROTJ:

DuplicateFrame(141781)
DeleteFrame(68664,68665)

That gets you back to NTSC GOUT sync.  Please chime in, Chewtobacca if I got something terribly wrong.  AviSynth is new to me.

At first I though they were just poor scans, but now that I look at them again, that's a much better explanation for how they look.

I'm not moving my offtopic conversations over to this thread until my check from Harmy clears.

There's some cutter frames here: http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Film-cells-from-a-Technicolor-print-on-ebay/topic/17379/

The scans seem to be decent-quality--not the best scans out there, but maybe the only publically-viewable ones of some of these shots.

Your typical home video boosting, in combination with the rapid-fading filmstock that was used, pretty much gets you a white blade.  An intentional change would not have been necessary, even if he'd wanted to make it.

PSA--if anyone's trying to make a super-internationalized Blu-ray, Project Threepio is big enough to make a difference toward your non-video maximum bitrate (8Mbps).  If your audio options push you over 7Mbps (if you have lots of lossless tracks), the subtitles will definitely push you the rest of the way over the limit.  tsMuxer doesn't warn for this, your player will just behave badly.

So you might need to choose between multiple lossless audio options, or global subtitle support.  My bad disc had five lossless English tracks and all languages (dubs and subs), and I'll probably cut it back to one lossless track just to be safe.

Yeah, one reason to buy films reels, even if you have no immediate use for them, is the save them from "cutters".

But yeah, projection prints technically belong to the studios, who loan them out to theatres and expect to get them back.  Private ownership is not really kosher, but it's saved the studios' bacon quite a number of times, as the private collectors often take better care of "their" property than the studios do (e.g. when the studio has effectively destroyed its copies, and then wants to make a home video transfer).  Star Wars is just another case-in-point.

Mavimao said:

Hopefully Disney will knock on your door and make an offer. 

...otherwise, hopefully they don't come knocking at all ;-)

lucasdroid said:

How is this going to be better than the version Reliance is doing?

 It's not the Special Edition, for one.

He's waiting for the good bit.

I'd like to request to PLEASE retain the black bars when encoding--I like that the stream Harmy provides as already Blu-ray compatible (and 16:9 is part of that equation), so those who want a Blu-ray can easily just remux and burn a disc without re-encoding.

The 35mm scan we've seen so far is very beat up in some parts (reel changes in particular), and pretty dirty overall.  It will take a lot of effort to clean up even the best-looking parts to blend convincingly, so I'd imagine Blu-ray footage will likely still be used except for parts that need despecializing.

But yeah, long term, that's what Harmy meant when he said a good 35mm preservation might leave him out of a job.

You went to high school in that thing? You're braver than I thought.

Now there are three of us.

TV's Frink said:

CatBus said:

grainger said:

I don't like superheroes, and don't watch superhero movies

That's okay, Batman's not a superhero!

 Good point!

More to the point, I don't like vigilantes, and I generally dislike vigilante movies, so I'm pretty meh on most Batman films.  I liked Unforgiven though, so I guess it depends on some other factors.

grainger said:

I don't like superheroes, and don't watch superhero movies

That's okay, Batman's not a superhero!

Wrong thread, sorry.  I meant for Star Wars.

D'oh! on both counts ;)

...but you are the only guy with those Technicolor references, so we're still going to bug you about it.

SW should be around 18GB, ESB around 20GB, ROTJ around 7-8GB (because it's still at version 1.0).  There are official AVCHD encodes that are all around 7-8GB.

danny_boy said:

But what about Artoo in the canyon?

I was under the impression(please correct me if I am wrong) that the 1977 prints had a dusk look for that scene.

In the 82' VHS it looks like daytime.

In subsequent releases on home video (at least from the mid 90's onwards)  it looks like dusk again.

Regarding R2 and the canyon, I really don't know.  It's quite likely this scene was shot bright and then filtered dark somewhere along the line.  If the early VHS tapes went back to a pre-filter source (and the trailer presumably also used something fairly far upstream to get unfinished lightsaber effects), then they'd have gotten the bright shot.  I'm not sure there's any way to tell if the bright shot ever made it into a new batch of theatrical prints--I personally strongly doubt it, but I suppose we can only know for sure by checking those very pink prints still in existence for signs of its previous color.

EDIT: And even if all that did happen, I'd call it a production mistake or accident rather than intentional re-timing, unless I could find evidence someone actually wanted the change.

Looks like you didn't hurt it, but what you've got there is a re-encode someone else did, and based on filesize alone, I'd say it's dreadful compared to Harmy's original version.  That said, it's probably still worlds better than the Blu-ray, so that doesn't mean you can't enjoy it.

Seems incredibly unlikely, and IMO easily explained by fast-fading film stock.

Certainly Technicolor showings were not retimed--they just took the existing Technicolor reels and spliced in the new crawl/flyover using the cheaper filmstock.