Darth Lucas

towne32 said:

Behold, the ms paint http://i.imgur.com/yNIBAJS.png

Edit: well, I can barely see the cresent thing now. But it was clear in the google preview.

The preview’s compression might have added to the visibility of those mistakes. I’m fixing them regardless, but did you download the file and if so is it any less visible to you? I’m not at my computer right now to check for myself.

Ah ok I see what you’re talking about. I’m not sure about that crescent shape. I’ll clean it up just to be safe.

Oh. I see the bright box now. I will fix that.

The difference between some of the sections of stars is just due to me pulling from different parts of empire. I got them to match as best as I can. They were much worse. I can attest that the positions of the stars are correct though, so them being more “spaced out” is a mere coincidence.

I’m not seeing this box with brighter blacks, mostly because I’m not sure where I’m supposed to be looking, but I’ll definitely fix that if you can let me know where you’re seeing it.

Also not seeing this crescent shaped grey thing, although I’ve been staring at this shot for a long time. I’ll get some distance and come back to look at it again.

Here it is. Finally uploaded.

1981 Crawl v1.5

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2bJjDvnfW0YeWYtbExFaW5FbTg/view?usp=sharing

I can provide you with the entire starfield I stitched together in Photoshop to make things easier if you’d like, as laserdiscs are a pain in the rear to try and match to. PM me.

What you’ve got to do is find a source (like a laserdisc or something) that has the 81 crawl/pandown and look for star patterns. From my hours of searching through empire, there is no one shot that has the entirety of the starfield present in the crawl. It became very clear to me that they just had one giant starfield that they used for the whole movie and just filmed different parts of it at different distances for every shot. So you kind of have to go through the film looking for matching star patterns and then stitch together various parts to create the starfield present in the 81 crawl for SW.

Fortunately a huge chunk of it is right at the beginning. The starfield behind the crawl in Empire is exactly the same as that in 81 SW, but shifted a bit to the right.

Did you ever consider contacting disney about this print? I have no idea how they feel about or deal with private collectors but I have spoken to someone in their restoration department who claimed the reason they haven’t had a release with the original soundtrack is because they don’t have any good source for it. For all we know they’ve been searching for this holy grail as much as we’ve been.

towne32 said:

Williarob said:

Interesting, I did not know that. I stand corrected.

However, this being the case, I hope you won’t mind if I use your '81 Crawl for SSE version 1.5?

Maybe you could use his starfield with your everything else?

I wouldn’t mind this either.

I don’t mind at all. It’s hardly 100% accurate, but I’d say it’s about 95% so. 720p and totally frankensteined together if that doesn’t bother you.

Yeah I just took a look. It’s very nicely done, but unfortunately just the wrong starfield haha. If you could find a good source for the 81 starfield, then it could be something really special. Pulling it from Empire is really difficult (that’s what I had to do) because you have to pull bits and pieces from various parts of the movie.

Looking for patterns in stars for hours on end can get pretty maddening. At the end of the day there was still one small group of stars I couldn’t find in empire, so I had to paint those in myself using a laserdisc transfer for reference.

The crawl itself is the 97 crawl, but the 97 crawl is exactly the same as the 81 crawl, down to the speed (I watched one right on top of the other to be sure). The receding star wars logo is much faster in 97, which is why I only used the crawl text from 97, and recreated the 81 motion of the star wars logo by cutting it out of an early frame and keyframing it to match the path and speed of the 81 logo.

I’ll take a look at that crawl, but if you placed the 81 crawl over the SSE starfield, then it isn’t an accurate representation of the 81 crawl or flyover, because the 81 version used a different starfield, from Empire.

On the bridge, Han shoots at Kylo. Kylo dodges it in an unnatural, neck-breaking motion, and then he stabs Han.

adywan said:

Replace all of Max Von Sydow’s lines when he is captured with constant whinging about how the film is a direct rehash of ANH and other usual complaints, kylo not being able to get a word in as sydow keeps on moaning, using direct quotes from certain members here and have Kylo cut him down mid whinge. And then all of the troopers cheering. 😉

Brilliant!

Just finished rendering v1.5 of my 81 crawl recreation. I was going to just use my prior version, but the shakiness of the crawl was bothering me. I could’ve let it go, but it would have stood out to me like a sore thumb every time I watched it, so I went back and using Harmy’s Respecialized, isolated the 97 crawl from its background and popped it in against the 81 starfield. Everything else is the same from v1.

Currently uploading to google drive, which should take about an hour. I will post a link here when it is up so you can either preview it to see the new crawl, or download it to use in any projects you may possibly want an 81 crawl for.

EDIT: double post.

I actually don’t mind the 2006 DVD covers. Not my favorite by any means but I like how they tried to recreate the poster designs with live action photos. They’re not great, but to me they’re acceptable. A huge step above the 2004 covers for sure.

adywan said:

TV’s Frink said:

Does every thread have to end up like this?

yes, it seems like it does now. And why i probably won’t be around here for much longer.

Don’t leave us Adywan. You’re our only hope for a decent conversation.

It being a “rehash of ANH” is true and valid to a certain degree. But when that’s the thing people constantly talk about without bringing anything new to the conversation it does get kind of annoying.

I feel the same about some prequel things. It’s like, we get it, Jar Jar is annoying, but that doesn’t need to be your default argument when talking about the The Phantom Menace. Bring something new to the conversation.

TFA borrowed a lot from Star Wars, but I mean it also borrowed a lot from Empire and Jedi, yet nobody seems to talk about that. It was very much a “greatest hits of the OT”. Some people like that, some people don’t. I’m kind of indifferent to it. I feel like they did a very good job of redoing alot of the same story beats but with new characters and in a fresh enough way that it didn’t FEEL like a rehash to me, even though on paper it very much is a retelling of the same kind of story.

So this is what we see on the SSE. There may be very slight channel misalignment on the starfield, but it’s very hard to tell due to the lower resolution being blown up and the general lower quality of the print and scan, but from what I’m seeing there isn’t much evidence of channel misalignment on the starfield, apart from some weirdness with the blue channel.

However, the channel misalignment is VERY visible on the x wings. This leads me to believe this is something that happened during the compositing of the elements.

Harmy said:

I wonder if it’s possible that they reconposited everything for the tech prints. It certainly seems to be a possibility because mike has talked about how the blue shadow on the text in the credits is different between tech prints, but the same across all other prints.

If that is the case, then the original negative used for Eastman prints wouldn’t have the misalignment, but the tech prints would.

I think that is highly unlikely - there is absolutely no reason for them to re-comp shots for IB tech and even if they did, the IB printing would still only be used to duplicate the finished shots - if the credits are different on the IBs, then it’s probably because they were made later than the US prints.
But it’s simple really - if the misalignment is a result of the IB printing, then it really shouldn’t be present on other prints and if there is any present on other prints, it must have been on the negative.

I’m not disagreeing, just posing a question of if it’s a possibility. I agree there’s no reason for them to have done that, but who knows.

Maybe Mike can clear up whether the alignment is present on other, non-IB prints? He only mentions the tech prints in the video, and I can’t imagine he would forget to check other prints for the proper channel alignment, but you never know I suppose. I’ll take a look at the SSE and see if I can find any evidence of this misalignment.

thorr said:

I edited my comment above with more thoughts and everyone is still posting, so I thought I would mention it lol. Maybe what I am thinking of as matte lines is something different than what they are. When I was scanning the SE trailer, the Millenium Falcon was flying away from the Deathstar and I saw lines around it. Is that a matte line?

I think what you’re thinking of is garbage mattes, which are boxes around the elements. These were never MEANT to be noticed and are very hard to see with proper contrast, but are nonetheless visible and part of the film.

Harmy said:

Not necessarily - these are composites, so the piece of film that is part of the original negative has already been through a printer and other processes and could very well have channel misalignment on it.

There is no way to have separate elements to be misaligned differently within one frame, unless it happened in compositing. Basically anything that requires digitally extracting and manipulating separate objects cannot possibly be returning it to the original negative.

I wonder if it’s possible that they reconposited everything for the tech prints. It certainly seems to be a possibility because mike has talked about how the blue shadow on the text in the credits is different between tech prints, but the same across all other prints.

If that is the case, then the original negative used for Eastman prints wouldn’t have the misalignment, but the tech prints would.

thorr said:

Interesting! I guess everyone has different opinions on what is optimal.

Well to remove matte lines and such would be remastering, because you are taking those elements and recombining them in a way that is not what was originally done.

Matte lines are a result of the process used to create the film, so they should be kept.

Things like channel misalignment come from the process of creating prints from the already finished film, so fixing them is the correct move if your goal is to get back to what was on the negative.

Darth Lucas said:

I would also add that it’s very likely all of that color channel misalignment could very well have happened on the separation masters, and as such, would be very unlikely to be on that ORIGINAL negative (as in the film that went through the camera) but would still be on every print because it would be on the dupe negative, so if the goal is to restore the original negative, then fixing EVERY instance of channel misalignment is the proper move.

Even compositing elements together wouldn’t cause color channel misalignment, so that’s either a result of improper combining of the color separation masters for the dupe negative, improper combining of the color stock for the IB Tech process, or in some cases, both. But in no instance should there be color channel misalignment on the original negative.