Sign In

Chewielewis

User Group
Trusted Members
Join date
3-Jan-2017
Last activity
25-Jun-2018
Posts
105

Post History

Post
#1219552
Topic
DESPECIALIZED EDITION <em>QUALITY CONTROL</em> THREAD - REPORT ISSUES HERE
Time

I found a new 2004 change.

Imgur

In Star Wars, Just after Ben is cut down @ 01:30:16:00

There is a close shot of the door being closed in front of Vader, then it cuts to the xtreme wide of the door. On the SE and the GOUT its a clean cut, two clean frames then two frames of pink flash. On the Bluray where it should cut to the wide it goes to two super blown out frames of the same shot then one frame of 100% white then back to match the gout on the last frame of the pink flash.

This has not been changed on the DE 2.7

Ive made a gif to describe this. https://gfycat.com/IdealDemandingFairyfly

Post
#1218833
Topic
Phantom Menace '99 - HD Theatrical Version by Chewielewis
Time

ScruffyNerfHerder said:
If you’re interested, send me a Private Message. I can either tell you how to run the filter, or since I’m a CC subscriber, I can do the process for you. Just a thought; you don’t have to take me up on it. Either way, keep up the good work. 😃

Ok will be in touch.

Smithers said:

This looks awesome, just wondering if the alien subtitles are burned into the frames?

Yes, it’s whats giving me hangups at the moment, getting it perfect is very important.

Post
#1218159
Topic
Phantom Menace '99 - HD Theatrical Version by Chewielewis
Time

trillary dump said:

Amazing progress! I imagine those shots will blend in nicely with the rest of the movie. Did you end up doing something similar with the bridge shot/Senate scene?

Not quite, the technique really only works to extend HD frames over SD frames. Not quite applicable here.

Working this close to the film really gives me an appreciation of how hard people worked on it. Also how not hard people worked on it. There are a heck of a lot of silly mistakes dotted all through this. CGI errors, sound errors, background talent, art department, you name it.

Post
#1217965
Topic
Phantom Menace '99 - HD Theatrical Version by Chewielewis
Time

ZigZig said:
Actually, I didn’t use this datamoshing method at all. In fact, I had never heard of it. My method is more based on modeling. Indeed, it can probably give better results than yours, but it takes a lot longer than your method because I have not managed to automate the whole process. So my method can be useful only for short scenes (like the missing ones in TPM), but I guess that your method is more “universal” since it can be used for longer scenes, even if the final result is maybe a little less good.

This is really only good for a handful of frames too, I suspect it will be useful for replacing missing single frames from 35mm prints, hdtv streams ect. Its something I’ve had in my mind for a long time, surprised to see it actually worked to an extent.

Chewielewis said:

And in an unrelated note, I’ve started working on a new project that may be of use for star wars restoration. Imagine, if you will, being able to create whatever version of star wars you want, all with a simple formula.

Is it something similar to this idea posted a few hours ago: https://originaltrilogy.com/topic/Fan-Editor-Script-File-Universal-Project-File/id/61376 ?

Oh Goddamn it. I swear this has been invading my mind for the last two nights now, keeping me awake. Yeah similar but like most things, different approaches.

Post
#1217956
Topic
Phantom Menace '99 - HD Theatrical Version by Chewielewis
Time

As for the coruscant Scene, Ive used a technique known as datamoshing. Its how you get trippy music videos like this one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvqakws0CeU.

The jist of it is that you remove the I frames from a mpeg video causing a video glitch. What I’ve done is rendered out the last frame of the HD source, a frame of black, then the SD portion of the source with the first frame being identical to that last HD frame. Then using Avidemux I remove the frame of black and the first frame of the SD source so that the following P and B frames reference the HD frame. What you get is basically the SD video wearing the HD video’s skin, not sure the best way to explain it.

Its not perfect and a lot more work could be put into tweaking it, it will only last a second of so but its enough to blend the frames over the gaps. Ive done it for the quigot shot and before and after the tower shot (playing the wipe transition in reverse to get the tower side of it, since the glitches only work one way).

Here are some comparison shots from the SD sources (4 sources blended together: two LD scans, Canal+ TB and ORF1 DVB) Compared with the datamoshed results. Also I did this multiple times with different combinations of sources and add blended several together to make the best looking image. Note the missing or garbled information on the edges, this will all be cropped out or filled in somehow.

Quigon Shot http://www.framecompare.com/image-compare/screenshotcomparison/K7KLNNNX
Tower shot (last frame before cut) http://www.framecompare.com/image-compare/screenshotcomparison/F9CCNNNU

I suspect that this is pretty close to the method that ZigZig is using. His look a bit better and he’s used a bit of edge fill in as well. Apologies if I stole your thunder… again.

Right now im working on redoing the subtitles, another pass at them might get them looking more accurate. I swear this release is comming out soon.

And in an unrelated note, I’ve started working on a new project that may be of use for star wars restoration. Imagine, if you will, being able to create whatever version of star wars you want, all with a simple formula.

Post
#1217347
Topic
1997 Star Wars Special Edition 35mm Project
Time

RU.08 said:
Right, the dirt is something I noted to poita, in fact the very first thing I noticed and I gave him quite a few examples. It’s not on the print it’s in the print. Not just black dirt, but white dirt also (i.e. dirt on the positives). And yes it would still be in both because it’s a composite shot and the dirt is on the film used to make the composite.

Black dirt is dirt on the positive, white dirt is on the negative. So this dirt can’t have been on the original photography element else it would be white. It’s also not on the grindhouse version of 4K77.

Post
#1217337
Topic
1997 Star Wars Special Edition 35mm Project
Time

RU.08 said:
Right, but these subtitles were not burned-in they’re an optical composite that would be present in the IP.

If the subtitles are optically composited they would be done further down the line than the interpositive struck from the o-neg. They would be inserted into an internegative or a dupe positive, there would be several versions for different languages.

Chewielewis said:

I’d also like to point out that the GOUT version of that shot has the same clipped lightsaber effect. Sure, in 1997 they COULD HAVE gone back to the shot on the computer, rendered off another version, film out, telecine, edit into tape. But in 1977? no chance.

Who said anything about digital? This shot was an optical composite in 1977, and an optical composite when the photochemical restoration was performed for the 1997 SE. They re-composited the shot optically for the 1997 SE like they did most optical composites (the Speeder through Mos Eisley, the optical wipes, etc). What I’ve presented above is two composites, both made in 1997, with one giving a greater intensity to the lightsaber optical.

Pretty sure this one was a digital re-composite, as the hilt end of the blade is reshaped to fit with the prop, I don’t think they did that optically, only the dissolves and wipes were done optically.

What i’ve presented is how the lightsaber look can be caused by clipping highlights, how both the 1997 scan and the 1993 gout have the same clipping effect on the lightsaber despite comming from composites made 20 years apart.

You say that the only things in the shot that different are the saber blade, look again at 3PO. Here is a comparison between the TB and your color matched scan, see in the waveform, how the only things as bright as the saber are the highlights on 3PO and the light on the far left (cropped in the TB), and see how they are smeared, just like the bottom right corner of the saber blade.

Note the big chunk of dirt both on the TB and the 35mm. If these were entirely separately printed pieces of film that dirt would not be on both. Edit: It’s not on the 4K77 grindhouse edition, so its likely to be dirt on the SE interpositive.

Post
#1217300
Topic
1997 Star Wars Special Edition 35mm Project
Time

RU.08 said:
Right, but you’ve brightened the entire background to get there. The point is this brightness difference is limited only to the lightsaber optical element - thus it’s from a 2nd composite, one made for telecine. There are two versions of the Jabba shot, and two versions of the Greedo shot (both with and without subtitles) so why shouldn’t there be two versions of this shot also?

Like I say, this is just a demonstration. I don’t have the exact transformation right and probably cant without the right materials. But it shows that the lightsaber look can be attained by clipping the highlights. Consider how different the transformations are between going from o-neg to low contrast interpositive to internegative to release print to scan to colormatch vs going from o-neg to low contrast interpositive to telecine to SD Tape. Different paths could affect the highlights differently.

And there really is no point in recomposing this shot, as you can see from the colormatch the only real difference is the lightsaber looking WORSE. Why would they do that? Why would they, finish the film, go back and change the intensity on the blades so they are blown out, create new film outs, telecine them, edit them into the video master, all at enormous expense for very little return.

I’m not saying that they CANT do that, its certainly possible, I just think very very very unlikely.

And subtitle shots are a different deal as the subtitles are not present on the interpositive which would have been scanned for this version. Subtitles are either cut or burn into internegatives so there are always clean versions of those shots avaliable. Clean versions aren’t made for the TV version they are made for international film prints.

Post
#1217287
Topic
1997 Star Wars Special Edition 35mm Project
Time

Ok so i took the 35mm scan, and ran it though photoshop with a simple levels adjustment, cliping the highlights Imgur

And I get this result

Imgur

Frame comepare here http://www.framecompare.com/image-compare/screenshotcomparison/K7P7NNNX

Obviously this is not scientific, it doesnt match exactly (due to the grain I think), but it shows how a simple levels transformation could be responsible for the TB saber looking that way. Its likely the super bright, high saturation lightsaber would have been simply clipped off through the telecine process.

As to why the Falcon lightsaber in the wide shot doesn’t do the same thing? You can compare the two sabers. Im Bens hut the glow is much brighter, almost as bright as the core where as the falcon saber the glow is much less bright and the saber has a harder edge. So where that levels transformation clips the soft glow in the hut, it doesnt affect the falcon saber in the same way.

The luke closeup is also different as the glow is almost invisible and the saber edges are very hard. Star wars is very inconsistent, there were probably several different ways they made the saber effects.

Here is the falcon shot with the exact same levels transformation applied. The glow is still present but its not hard clipped like the Bens hut shot.

Imgur

I find this a lot more likely than the shots being completely rerendered for the TV release.

Post
#1216934
Topic
Interview with Marc Wielage, colorist Star Wars 2004 DVD releases
Time

So on the Avid Facebook users group someone posted this image, noting the visible garbage matte around the Death Star II

Imgur

That got a response by Marc Wielage, colorist for 2004s Star Wars and Return of the Jedi releases

Imgur

Marc has a podcast interview here at mixinglight.com (star wars talk starts at -27:00) where he discusses the film restoration process and a little bit about working on Star Wars. Notably he states that there are two rumours going around that are incorrect.

The first is that because of Georges tampering which goes back to 1999 [sic], the original elements are now damaged and respliced and ruined for ever and ever. That is not true. All the pieces still survive, the original negative pieces still exists. In a hand full of cases, maybe a dozen or two dozen cases, theres a frame or two missing because of splices, film splices, that were made. But those pieces can be reconstituted through various means so its not a lost cause, it is possible.

The second rumour thats out there is that George absolutely detests the original theatrical versions and doesn’t ever wants them out. And the truth of the matter is, number one he sold the studio […] its really Disneys decision now. George does not have a say in it.

The second things is I asked the people at ILM, I didn’t ask George, but I asked some of the other people, do you think it would be possible for us to do this? Is there any harm being doing this way and they said the only reason why we aren’t restoring the original theatrical version of star wars is because it would take too much time and money. And we don’t want to spend the time and money to do it so it’s really a logistics situation, it’s not a creative choice.

Also in George Lucas’s head, the only version of the movies that exist are the ones that are alive in his mind at that moment. So to him the 1977 version of Star Wars no longer exists, only what he sees matters. And its hard to argue with the guy who created all the characters, directed the movie, […] and also owns the copywrites.

And an awkward hello if Marc sees this thread.

Post
#1216747
Topic
1997 Star Wars Special Edition 35mm Project
Time

poita said:

I found the reference in one of my books:
"Massassi hangar, interior: “Thet had one complete X-Wing, a Y-Wing and some bits and pieces, painted ships. SO I took the plate, reduced it, and then put it down in the left centre; then I took the same plate, reduced it even more, and put it in the background on the right hand side of the frame; then I painted around it, just lots of little lights in the back, a couple of shapes, a few hoses hanging down. Youd be amazed how little is on that painting”

For a long time I actually thought they took the painting with them on set.