Sign In

Cthulhunicron

User Group
Members
Join date
4-Nov-2012
Last activity
24-Nov-2020
Posts
199

Post History

Post
#1380853
Topic
What was changed for 1995 THX version?
Time

I’ve read that the films were digitally remastered for better sound and picture quality, but I’ve also read this was a separate process from the digital scanning/alteration of the o-negatives. So when they digitally remastered for the 1995 release, did they just scan the most recent internegative of each film? I know internegatives are created in order to print theatrical prints; I don’t really know what the process was when movies were released on vhs.

Post
#1370562
Topic
Info: Mike Verta’s 4K Restoration - May 2020 Livestream
Time

RU.08 said:

yotsuya said:

They way he described it was that he was removing grain that was the result of additional generations. So yes, the grain is reduced/removed, but if he did it right, it would be the o-neg level of grain which was made worse with each generation.

That’s what he said but it’s not what he did.

However, as someone who watches quite a lot of 35mm projected I can tell you the grain you see in a scan, even a top-quality scan with no visible scanner noise, is significantly more than is apparent on projection. So it is quite reasonable to do some grain reduction to match projection.

Cthulhunicron said:

So, the O-negative had badly faded by 1994, so it seems like that means that what Lucasfilm is calling the O-negative is actually partially (or mostly) comprised of new film printed in the 90s. We know parts of the o-negative were unusable, and other parts were destroyed in the cleaning process. Damaged sections were re-created from the separation masters, interpositives, and internegatives. Any shots containing CGI (including digital recomposites) were rendered in 2K and then printed to film in 1997.

So when they did the 4K scan, most of what they were scanning would logically have to be new film printed in the 90s, correct? Also, is it possible that the 1997 version contains more frames from the actual o-negative than the 4K scan? It seems like if there were any o-negative frames in 1994 that had survived with minimal fading, then the fading would have been even worse by the time they started working on the 4K version.

There’s plenty of material because they kept everything. The best material is the camera negative, then there’s the dupe positives, the dupe negatives, the separation masters, and so on.

I know, but they said the o-negative has faded because it some of the film stock was notorious for quick fading, and some of it was unusable. Other sections of the negative were destroyed when they cleaned it. In 1997, they said they restored the negative by making duplications of sections from internegatives, interpositives, and the separation masters. So it seems to me that around 1997, what Lucasfilm is calling the “restored negative” (now conformed to the 97 SE), it would have to partially (or mostly) consist of new pieces of film printed in the 90s. All cgi shots were printed onto film, all digital composites were printed onto film, and the restored sections were new film created from IN, IP, or SM sources.

If there were any sections of the restored negative that were actually from the original negative, it seems like they would have faded even worse by 2013 when they did the 4K scan. Unless they were able to avoid additional fading through better storage methods. I suppose worst case scenario, if the sections of the negative that were printed prior to the 90s were unusable , they could have been scanned from the separation masters, since those don’t fade. I’ve heard even the IPs and INs had fading.

Post
#1370254
Topic
Info: Mike Verta’s 4K Restoration - May 2020 Livestream
Time

So, the O-negative had badly faded by 1994, so it seems like that means that what Lucasfilm is calling the O-negative is actually partially (or mostly) comprised of new film printed in the 90s. We know parts of the o-negative were unusable, and other parts were destroyed in the cleaning process. Damaged sections were re-created from the separation masters, interpositives, and internegatives. Any shots containing CGI (including digital recomposites) were rendered in 2K and then printed to film in 1997.

So when they did the 4K scan, most of what they were scanning would logically have to be new film printed in the 90s, correct? Also, is it possible that the 1997 version contains more frames from the actual o-negative than the 4K scan? It seems like if there were any o-negative frames in 1994 that had survived with minimal fading, then the fading would have been even worse by the time they started working on the 4K version.

Post
#1369185
Topic
4K restoration on Star Wars
Time

Mocata said:

If I remember correctly all film stock will degrade with time fading or turning pink, and it’s worse with movies from a certain era onwards, which is why movies are stored underground away from moisture or light. So they can be preserved for long time but not forever.

True, but even though the negatives for the OT were stored properly , they still were in bad shape circa 1994, due to the fact that they were printed on quick fade film stock.

Secrethistoryofstarwars.com says these types of film negatives need to be corrected every 5 years to compensate for fading. I guess I don’t quite understand how you compensate for the fading. I don’t know enough about film preservation to fully understand how this works, it seems like people are saying sections of the negative are original, they’ve just been color corrected and cleaned up with chemicals. But the article also says some sections were so badly faded, they were unusable. When they were color corrected, does that somehow change the damaged film back to looking normal, and then it’s stable for another 5 years, or do you have to create a new piece of film?

Edit: I re-read the secret history article and got my answer. Some sections of the negative were unusable so they were replaced with copies of sections of the interpositives. From what I can tell, the faded sections were replaced with new interpositives color timed using the separation masters. So it sounds like large portions of the original negative are in fact lost and replaced with new interpositives, even the sections that have no cgi alterations.

Post
#1369159
Topic
4K restoration on Star Wars
Time

Sorry, another question. So, the secret history of Star Wars link says the negative was printed onto film that was fading, and it had endured wear and tear from all the copies made throughout the 80s. Hence, the whole motivation to clean up and restore the film. So they chemically cleaned it, then the alterations were rendered in the computer and printed to film and then edited back into the negative. What prevents the negative from fading further over time? Did they have to chemically treat the negative with some kind of coating or something to prevent further damage over time?

Post
#1368990
Topic
4K restoration on Star Wars
Time

I was listened to an episode of the Film Formally podcast where they had Drew Stewart on to talk about all the various changes made to Star Wars.

Drew mentioned that when the 97 SE version was created, Lucasfilm did a 1080p scan of the original negative. The scan was then digitally cleaned up, revised with new cgi effects and deleted scenes, and then printed back onto film for a new “original negative.”

For the 4K release, did they just take the 97 SE and upscale it to 4K, as well as upscaling all the other scenes that have been altered since (Hayden in ROTJ, new versions of Jabba, Ian McDiarmid in empire)? Wouldn’t that mean it’s not a true 4K restoration since the only film print that exists in lucasfilm’s archives is the 97 SE, which is locked at 1080p?

Sorry in advance if this has already been addressed.

Post
#1342135
Topic
<em>Star Wars: The Clone Wars</em> To Return With New Episodes
Time

ChainsawAsh said:

God, can you guys just imagine if the show hadn’t been cancelled and we’d have seen these episodes pre-Rebels, with no idea if Ahsoka or Rex make it through alive?

It was intense enough knowing they make it, but if we didn’t? Wow.

I was thinking the same thing when I was watching. I couldn’t believe how much tension I felt, despite knowing they would survive.

Overall, I really enjoyed the whole season, especially the last four episodes. IMO, the siege of mandalore/order 66 arc was the best Star Wars content since 1983!

Post
#1335764
Topic
Who the heck ARE the Sith in RoS?
Time

Slavicuss said:

Cthulhunicron said:

SilverWook said:

Maybe the crowd was just more of these guys?

Or else I think it’s just his personal army of Torgos. ;P

Who exactly are those guys? Anyone know?

Perfumed, arse-licking toadies. The Emperor kept them around as advisors, I think. If you’ve read the RETURN OF THE JEDI novelisation, you’ll know Lord Vader had a very low opinion of them.

I actually did read the novelization, but it was a long while ago and I barely remember it.