Dek Rollins

These posts were the best way to start the new year. Thank you.

ChainsawAsh said:

With regard to 4K83 - that was scanned from a show print that was struck directly from the negative, if I’m not mistaken, which means while the details are extremely clear and clean, the color on the print doesn’t reflect what an actual color timed release print would look like, so unlike 4K77, you can’t just white-balance it to the sprocket holes;

Not only that, but it being all red faded makes it more complicated of a source, and I remember Williarob mentioning that he tried using Dre’s color restoration tool on it. Not sure if he ever posted the results.

best thing to do there is to use the LPP scan as a color reference to match the 4K83 show print scan to. Frankly I’m a little surprised that hasn’t been done yet.

I’ve been in the process of doing that for oohteedee for a while now. It’s taking longer than I had hoped, but I’m halfway and it’ll be done eventually. Keep a lookout. 😃

All three Star Wars films would’ve been shown in 2.39 on 35mm, and 70mm blow-ups cropped to 2.20 of course. The reason there is conflicting info on scope aspect ratios is because standards changed a couple times I think. To my knowledge, any film made in 1970+ was projected with a 2.39 gate. This wiki page actually has the history here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anamorphic_format#Aspect_ratio

Don’t purchase any fan projects. You can get them for free online. I don’t have HAL 9000’s versions, but hopefully someone here can help you out.

^ While 4K83 has no current release that may be called theatrically accurate color, 4K77 v1.0 is close. It wasn’t corrected to a projection, but the soundtrack on the film was white balanced, and what we are left with is something that is similar to the projected print, compared to the evidence I have seen. The fact that the Tech IB print is unfaded made that simple enough, and the 4K83 print had no such luck, since it was a red faded Eastman print.

Regarding 4K83, there will eventually be a release with colors that approximate the theatrical timing, and will hopefully be done sooner than later. I’m working from the colors on the unfaded LPP scans they have, correcting for the excess of blue in those sources.

As far as the color corrections that have come out for both restorations go, they were never intended to be theatrically accurate IIRC. They were corrections made by a member to suit his personal tastes, and those just sort of became the defacto colors until more corrections become available in the future.

Here’s how those shots look in 4K77 1.0:

yotsuya said:

CatBus said:

IMO it will take several months to have confidence we’ve identified all changes unique to the 19SE and come up with LUTs for a theatrical regrade. The UHD’s will be released at just around the time we’d be in any position to do anything useful with the 19SE, even if we work our asses off from now until then.

And this is all assuming the UHD’s do not contain even more changes. But since at this point Disney’s in charge of the content (and the timeline would be pretty much impossible anyway), I think the crazy revision train has finally stopped. The Maclunkey cuts are the final destination. Welcome to Travesty: Population 3.

I’ve decided that the Maclunkey bit has one nice use. A frame of it can replace that single frame of the other Greedo that has always looked so out of place (if you actually notice it). Other than that I’m sticking with the Blu-ray cut (as the best of the SE cuts).

Macluncky isn’t new footage though. It’s just the last shot of Greedo talking repeated and zoomed in.

Superrayman3 said:

and the fact that the cropping for the 4:3 framing is complete overkill

I think only the very first episode of the series has the extreme cropping issue, so not a real issue since they’ll have the level set for that.

and it’s a waste of time, even if one could make it look better it’d just be a stop-gap measure at best, you’d be better off working on deinterlacing the DBOX footage (assuming it needs to be deinterlaced) and working from there.

But yeah CCing the DBOX (are there any original Japanese broadcast rips that are good for color reference?) would be the best chance at having a decent copy of the series.

I should watch Last Temptation a second time. I’ve said here before that I wasn’t a big fan of it, primarily because I didn’t feel the “temptations” were portrayed very well. A lot of it felt like Satan was simply tricking Jesus into believing something until something ends up telling him that it’s a trick. I actually really like a lot of stuff in it though, like how Jesus’ relationship with Judas was fictionalized, along with the eventual betrayal. And I’m also a Christian for the record. Maybe if I watch it again I’ll see more nuance in his struggles.

DuracellEnergizer said:

Terrible cover art aside, is the Director’s Cut any better?

His explanation of the use of the weapon makes sense on paper, but that doesn’t make it practical. “Still looks cumbersome” is an apt description. Even in a choreographed fight it looks cumbersome. I don’t remember a single fight scene in the series’ where the elegant versatility he describes was actually put into practice.

DuracellEnergizer said:

Dek Rollins said:

Not just Klingon culture though, in particular Worf as a character became worse the longer he existed. At the start of TNG, Worf claims that Klingon culture is completely alien to him, having been raised by humans. I’m not sure how early it started, but at some point the writers decided to make it Worf’s one goal in life to be the most Klingon a Klingon could be. This caused more and more episodes to be fully dedicated to developing Worf’s Klingon ancestry.

I recall Worf being in “I am Klingon, hear me roar!” mode right from the get-go. This was greatly disappointing to me, 'cause there was plenty of opportunity to explore the “nature vs. nurture” debate with the character, and it all went to waste.

The episode I was referring to is “Hide and Q” which is episode 9 of season 1. Worf is granted a Klingon bride by the power of Q, and Worf objects, stating that he has nothing in common with the woman I believe.

DuracellEnergizer said:

I personally hate how Klingons were depicted TNG+. Buncha unbathed Space Vikings so pathologically stupid that it breaks suspension of disbelief that these morons ever managed to evolve beyond the Stone Age, let alone develop FTL travel and build an interstellar empire.

This is the correct opinion. I wish they stayed like they were in the movies. The Undiscovered Country even showed an intellectual side of the Klingon people that I don’t think was ever explored in any of the TV series afterwards.

Not just Klingon culture though, in particular Worf as a character became worse the longer he existed. At the start of TNG, Worf claims that Klingon culture is completely alien to him, having been raised by humans. I’m not sure how early it started, but at some point the writers decided to make it Worf’s one goal in life to be the most Klingon a Klingon could be. This caused more and more episodes to be fully dedicated to developing Worf’s Klingon ancestry.

Also the bat’leth is stupid. It’s one of the most impractical weapons I’ve ever seen. The knife from The Search For Spock is a much better melee weapon for Klingon warriors.

Those are great points. I’d be putting everything in chronological (production) order, just for clarification. I hope my friend will be willing to watch eight episodes because I really think it’s important to get a full picture of the characters and their history for the movies to have a great importance to the viewer.

For sticking to a solid five episodes, I think your choices are great. And even then, long-time fans such as us most likely weren’t introduced to the series with nearly this much attention to detail, so as long as a few good shows are picked, new viewers should be in good hands. Even something like “The Changeling” wouldn’t be a bad choice, though not as action packed as other episodes. Or heck, comedic shows like “I, Mudd” and “Shore Leave” would be good for people with a taste for corny fun. I think the best episodes would sometimes depend on the person being introduced.

Oh, I also forgot to mention that I really wanted to put “Where No Man Has Gone Before” on the list, as in my mind it’s one of the episodes that best personifies the series as a whole (which it was supposed to do, being a pilot after all). The only problem is that the full cast wasn’t in place, and so you don’t get the complete character dynamic. It’s just too different to be a good intro for new viewers.

I actually made a list of six episodes that I’m going to use on a friend later this month.

1. Balance of Terror
2. The Galileo Seven
3. Space Seed
4. The City on the Edge of Forever
5. The Ultimate Computer
6. Amok Time

I wanted to find the best episodes with a low cheese-factor, since the whole reason my friend has been turned away from watching TOS is its corny nature. He actually likes TNG, but hasn’t given TOS a chance. I told him that he would like the TOS movies, but that he has to watch some episodes first. As you mention, the emotional stakes would be higher, in addition to the fact that TMP isn’t a good introduction to the characters, and I want him to watch that too.

“Balance of Terror” and “The Ultimate Computer” are on the list not only because they are two of my favorites, but also because they contain similarities to TWOK, so they help be a lead-in to the movie’s action, and the theme of Kirk feeling outdated.

I included “The City on the Edge of Forever” “Space Seed” and “Amok Time” for the reasons you mention. But “Amok Time” really only gives you Vulcan culture, and not a whole lot of Spock himself, and that’s why “The Galileo Seven” is in there.

I wasn’t too worried about introducing Sarek, but that may change if he’s willing to watch more episodes. Depending on how much time he wants to invest in the show, I would also put “The Doomsday Machine” in the ‘must watch’ category, as it’s another of my favorites.

I’m glad others agree with me about Aliens. When I watched it right after Alien, I really didn’t like it at all, and only saw the technically well-made qualities as a positive. I figure a big problem for me is, as with a few other sequels in big franchises, I don’t think it has any reason to exist. Alien didn’t end with any questions that needed to be answered, and I think that Alien is the kind of picture that no matter how they tried, a sequel would do nothing but make the whole point less special. I feel similarly about Cameron’s own T2, though even that I think did a much better job than Aliens.

I’ve heard a lot that “Aliens proved that more is better in some cases,” but I find that statement incredibly ridiculous, since the fact that there are so many aliens running around and dropping like flies is one of the worst aspects of the whole film.

Broom Kid said:

Well then I extend my apology to you too. And anyone else who took offense.

They’re referring to doubleofive. In his post he specifically referenced you calling doubleofive irresponsible as being disrespectful.

They could have just taken screenshots of the preview.

Did anyone ever capture that?

It’s better to say ‘intended aspect ratio’ than OAR. I also think it works better in 1.85:1, but it would be cool to see something akin to Criterion’s release of On The Waterfront, with both widescreen ratios included.

TylerDurden389 said:

Not sure if this contributes to the conversation but I’m gonna throw it to the air. I still have the terminator on vhs (recorded to dvd and then digital) and I noticed in the fullscreen version that the aspect ratio has a lot more headroom. When the “T” and “R” in “Terminator” cross at the beginning of the opening credits, you can actually see the top of the letters slide across each other, and THAT’S why you hear that metal scrapping noise. Not sure if the entire presentation has that extra headroom though, as it might just be only that part.

I’ve been made aware of the origin of the sound effect before, and I find it interesting that they framed it to be cut off like that. I would assume that the whole film is open matte, though it’s definitely possible that some of the optical effects shots were hardmatted. I actually have an old HBO Video VHS that I watched once, but I don’t remember what the framing looked like.

RU.08 said:

Dek Rollins said:

By the way, when you mentioned the credits being original, what did they actually look like? was there no Donna Smith credit at all, or did it scroll up at the beginning of the credits during the fade-out like in the German DVD print?

Yes the credits started scrolling up over the picture like that before it faded out completely. I meant there was no static credit, it was probably the first credit scrolling up as seen in your screenshot.

Thanks for the info. I might take a crack at recreating the theatrical credit placement, but I might be too lazy. 😛

The only thing that looks noticeably off in the BD is the text at the start of the film (the future war text and the credits) - that’s all much softer on 35mm.

That’s to be expected.

Charles Threepio said:

Ah, would it be possible to send me a raw file of the German DVD version, that I might be able to upscale the original closing credits with nnedi3_rpow2 for a possible restoration of my own? Thanks!

It has pretty bad image quality. I’m not sure what all could be pulled out of an upscale. Send me a PM if you want it.

RU.08 said:

Dek Rollins said:

The colors are definitely washed out, but the general color biases are what I’m referring to. I think that skin tones are too frequently pinkish, and some scenes seem very dark, but most of the scenes I’ve compared look somewhat similar to the Blu-ray, and match your description of the print you saw pretty well.

The skin tones, like most 35mm on the era, are frequently yellowish in the daylight scenes.

That’s what I’ve gleamed from 35mm photos in the past.

I posted in the fanres thread that I think it seems to be the most accurate (I meant generally, though I didn’t really specify what I thought was accurate about it in that post), and that it matches the dozens of 35mm frames posted online rather closely, so I would think that the biases introduced by the telecine were subtle. With the washed out contrast it wouldn’t be projection accurate of course, but a subtle regrade of the BD on a shot by shot basis to try and match the color consistency of the DVD seems like a worthy effort to me.

The bias introduced by the telecine is anything but “subtle”. I’m very sorry to disagree.

The bias introduced by the telecine most likely includes the strong red push in the brights, but that’s also one of the idiosyncrasies I mentioned it having. Besides that and the pinkish skin tones, many scenes that I’ve directly compared look remarkably similar to the Blu-ray, and it is frequently also similar to 35mm frames that we have images of.

The only part of the film that I think is entirely wrong is the first half of the second-to-last reel. It’s incredibly green for some reason when the immediate previous scenes in the same location were much more natural looking, so I think that must have been an error of some sort. It could’ve even been a lab mistake on the print they used for the transfer even.

I think I’m going to try doing that with my updated regrade, and maybe those of us who are not quite satisfied with the BD will be happy with an alternative that isn’t far off from it. I’m curious, for everyone who has my regrade and enjoys it over the BD, would you guys be interested in something that stays closer to the BD and just makes subtle shot to shot changes?

I think this film is well worth doing a scan from a print, you’ll see the colours on the BD are faithful but there’s some subtle differences here and there. I mean no disrespect, but re-grading is a fool’s errand unless you’ve seen it projected yourself.

No disrespect taken. I don’t disagree that my lack of personal firsthand experience seeing a projection makes any of my attempts more speculative, but I do have sources for my interpretation of what a projection looks like. You’re description of the print you saw is comparable the 35mm frames we have, with those being good reference material IMO, along with most of the German transfer, taking into account that there is sometimes more green than needs to be there.

I agree that a print scan would be great. I would much rather watch that than even a new regrade of the Blu-ray.
Really, I’d love to see Arrow do a release of this as well.

By the way, when you mentioned the credits being original, what did they actually look like? was there no Donna Smith credit at all, or did it scroll up at the beginning of the credits during the fade-out like in the German DVD print?

Anyway, I would love to here feedback from yourself and anyone else that has seen it projected once I finish my new regrade, and maybe that will help determine the accuracy of what I’m able to cook up.