Fang Zei

Richard Marquand being dead didn't stop George from messing around with RotJ.

But honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if Disney puts out a blu-ray set that's just a restoration of the unaltered OOT. I can't see anyone complaining about it except for those anxiously awaiting yet another revision, and they'll probably end up buying it anyway. Yes, Disney would probably jack up the price, but at least they wouldn't be forcing the OOT fans to pay for something they don't want.

Ideally, each individual movie would get its own multi-disc set and be an archive of all the theatrically released versions. And yes, I do think this 4K scan will be used to make George's final version of the I-VI saga for a 3D theatrical re-release (TPM's already been "finalized").

When we remember that the movies still don't have individual blu-ray releases (just the two trilogy sets), this starts to seem like more of a possibility. I think they know how strong the SE backlash is, though. That's why I doubt they'd bother including anything other than the "most recent" version (from this new 4k scan) because they know what people really want is the restored OOT.

I think the '97 version should be included alongside the OOT. It's got a certain historical value to it, and the SE of ANH is still the highest grossing January domestic release in history if I'm not mistaken.

But people would probably scream bloody murder at having to buy not one, but two of the revised versions just so they can get the original. That's what makes me think Disney will simply include the original version and the "most recent" version and call it a day.

If they really wanted to justify the '97 version's inclusion in an ultimate blu-ray set they could just go fucking nuts with any additional changes they want to make for the "final" SE. That way there would be less redundancies and future viewers could chart the evolution of these films throughout their three theatrically released versions (77-83, '97 and 2015).

I'd be fine with the 2004 and 2011 versions being "forgotten" in future bd sets, especially since the latter already had an official blu-ray release and the former is nicely preserved from the hd broadcasts. The most recent work done by teamblu to preserve the '97 version is exemplary, but it could still use some love from the official source.

The concern would still be the possibility of them missing/overlooking something and we end up with a '97 change in what's supposed to be the original version.

That's why I would almost prefer they do this exactly like Blade Runner. Use this new 4k scan only for the new, "final" version and use a '97 IP for the '97 version and the best surviving elements for the OOT.

The 2004 and 2011 versions will probably not be included in future releases, and I'm fine with that. They'd be highly redundant anyway, as this new 4k version will probably redo most of the changes.

Ideally, we'll get preservations of both the '97 version (all they'd need to do is color-correct it) and the OOT as well from this new scan. One big question is whether it makes sense to use secondary sources for the vfx shots (those had faded beyond repair by the mid-90's) and splice those into the o-neg scans or if they should just use secondary sources for the entire thing so the difference won't be as jarring.

I honestly think Disney will go the Blade Runner route with this. A 3D conversion from this new 4k master, in theaters Fall of 2015 (my guess) with the movies released at three-week intervals ala '97, then a bd set with the restored OOT (probably from secondary film sources like IP's and seps) and hopefully the '97 version as well (not holding my breath, though) on the store shelves November/December of 2015 to coincide with Ep7.

Even if this Atlanta screening ends up being one of the old prints/dcp's, this news about RMW is still significant. It means that for the first time in an entire decade we have confirmation that there's been a new scan of the o-neg of Star Wars, even if it is just the Special Edition 4.0.

Or Alexa Davalos ;)

You would think George would want to put out a final version of the OT now (in the next year and a half) before the official continuation happens with Ep7. He can't keep changing it forever. Now is as good a time as any to have the final word on it.

To me, it would be pretty weird to use a dcp of the 04/11 version for this big event in Atlanta, at least for the ticket prices they listed on the website. If it says it's a digital print, that means it's a dcp and not a '97 print.

What did they use for that anniversary screening of Empire with Ford in attendance? Was it a '97 print or a dcp of the '04 version?

The only thing making me think this Atlanta screening might not be a brand new transfer is, well, why would this be the first time anyone sees it? If it were a wide release then sure, it would make perfect sense. But a special screening in Atlanta?

Stranger things have happened, I suppose.

It has always been possible for them to kill three birds with one stone. By that I mean a new scan of the o-neg that would yield the following:

-The '97 SE in its entirety

-The basis for a "final cut" equivalent, and

-The basis for an OOT restoration, assuming the altered pieces of negative were in fact put into storage and can still be scanned in.

I suspect we're only actually getting the middle one (a "final cut" and basis for a 3D conversion). It's interesting how that guy's resumé mentions this project in the same breath as Titanic, since that was also the basis for a 3D version.

DominicCobb said:

Whatever it is, it looks good. My guess is it was supposed to be for 3D usage.

But wait, didn't TPM 3D just use the 2011 version?

Maybe this was a 4K restoration that was scaled down for the Blu-ray release (and then shat on a bit).

 If you're referring to the existing blu-ray, no, that wouldn't be the situation here. That release used the 2004 Lowry masters, with a few additional tweaks.

TPM, meanwhile, was two birds with one stone. They went back to ILM's film-out tapes, which were still readable after more than a decade, and reconstructed the movie digitally. This gave them not only a digital master that was even closer to the true original negatives (and ideal for the blu-ray transfer), but also an excellent starting point for the 3D conversion.

I'm sure someone at the screening will recognize something and write into CHUD or AICN or some other website and they'll post it sometime over the weekend.

Shit, nevermind, he said it was a 4k job of the entire trilogy.

The hell?

Funny, I always thought Alien and Aliens were 4k all the way through. I guess they were just 2k finishes of 4k scans.

As for Star Wars, maybe the work took a long time? Especially if they were working frame by frame at 4k resolution. By "Star Wars" maybe he just means the first movie. Maybe that's all that was done by the time the blu-ray happened in 2011 and so they still used the old master for consistency's sake.

Like I said, there's no footage from Jedi in that demo reel. Maybe they worked on ANH several years ago and only recently worked on Empire.

They could be working on RotJ right now for all we know.

That particular comparison might be the older transfer from 2004. I remember that was one of the big "before and after" examples.

doubleofive said:

Cobra Kai said:

Perhaps not. I hope you're right.  But this also would have been before the Disney purchase was finalized if that staffers resume is accurate.  I have a hard time believing Lucasfilm would have been working on an OUT restoration at that time, while GL was technically still running the show.

Perhaps as a show of good faith to Disney, LFL started having it restored?

The Disney deal didn't happen overnight. It'd been in the works for months when it was announced, so this is entirely possible.

Anyway, I just watched the demo reel and the OT footage in there looks amazing! Very film-like. Even if this is just the SE, something I have no intention of supporting, it would still be nice if they're bringing it up to modern standards.

ETA: There's no footage from Jedi in that reel. Maybe it's that new of a project?

doubleofive said:

AntcuFaalb said:

timdiggerm said:

Sorry, 005, which is which?

I think it's: RMW/GOUT/Blu-ray.

Exactly. The colors are different, the flashes look like what the GOUT might look like if it wasn't overblown. Shot 2 is the most telling, the flash is green in the SE and doesn't go as high on Vader's shoulder. I don't know guys....

And I highly doubt they re-did the SE's in 4k from scratch. That's them going back to each original element and the original negative AGAIN, scanning them AGAIN, redoing all of the CG AGAIN.

Not from scratch, but still a fresh 4K scan. I'm pretty sure the '04 scan didn't discriminate between different parts of the negative. The cgi shots from '97 were scanned back in along with everything else. You can still notice filmic anomalies in those shots, some slight wobble and so forth, even after Lowry's clean-up job.

When Spielberg commissioned a new 4K master of Minority Report in 2009 it was a similar thing. The cg shots were simply scanned back in.

If this is in fact a new transfer of Star Wars, I'm sure they could stabilize the '97 shots and make them look as good as possible. Remember, even today a movie's cgi is rarely rendered at anything higher than 2k unless it's being comped into native imax footage or something. Even movies that get 4k finishes only get 2k cg renders if they were shot in 35mm (or the digital equivalent thereof).

A lot to parse there...

Similar colors, but considering it's still presumably the SE that's not too surprising (The GOUT colors aren't entirely accurate anyway).

The flashes actually look different, the translucency is gone.

The image appears more contrasty (in a good way) than the blu-ray.

Framing is opened up very slightly on all four sides.

The lightsaber colors look less exaggerated.

hmmmm.....

What I could see them doing is spacing out a theatrical 3D re-release of the OT-SE from late August / early September to late October / early November of 2015. That's one of the traditional stretches of the year for doing re-releases since there's less competition from big new movies coming out. January-March, when the '97 SE's were released, is another such window.

A September-November re-release would lead pretty perfectly into ep7 in December. They could even do marathon screenings the afternoon before.

Something I'd love to see happen, but probably won't, is a simultaneous theatrical re-release of an OOT restoration for repertory movie houses to show. The AFI Silver in Silver Spring, MD (just outside DC) is doing an Alec Guinness series this summer and it kills me that they're showing the '97 version of Star Wars instead of the genuine article.

It would be impressive if they've been working on it that long and managed to keep it a secret the entire time. On the other hand, the 2008 re-scans of the Indy trilogy were done rather quietly as well, so maybe Disney is taking a similar approach here.

danny_boy said:

Was browsing the web-site of what was formerly Lowry Digital.

It has been acquired by several companies over the years.

Anyways....RelianceMediaWorks is the company that owns Lowry now.

They claim they have done a 4K restoration on the Star wars trilogy.

http://www.rmwusa.com/

Goto Projects

Then click on Restoration.

When was the last time you checked the site? Has it always said 4k or is this a recent development?

Not that it would make any sense to call the old project 4k, as I'm pretty sure it wasn't even scanned in at anything higher than 2k and the workflow was 1920:1080. Unless whoever put this website together has no idea what they're talking about, which is possible but unlikely. It even specifies 16-bit. What bit depth (or whatever it's called) was the 2004 job done at?

So yeah, Occam's Razor and all that, but it's a little weird if this is how we're finding out about it.

If it's true, I can't say I'm surprised. Disney was bound to do a new 4k scan of the SE sooner rather than later. Especially because the time to do a grand theatrical re-release of the OT-SE in 3D is in the next year-and-a-half leading up to Episode 7, not afterwards, and I actually would've been more shocked if they were still working off that ancient transfer from 2004.

emanswfan said:

Honestly, I would just prefer to shoot the whole film with the same camera and aspect ratio as I like consistency.  I's probably wouldn't have much of a problem with it if it was one of the spinoff films, but this a main episode.  It should be more consistent with the original visual style.

BUT, if they have to do it.  It should just be one long continuous sequence that changes at a climactic or emotional point.  I like how Catching Fire did it (seen here), with having the aspect ratio change make sense somewhat logically in terms of the plot.  Also, the shot is dark enough and the bars change slowly enough for it not to be painfully jarring.  In the IMAX theatre, it was a true WOW moment.  Plus it continued that way for 50 full minutes till the whole arena sequence was complete and they even had the character pass out, between the aspect ratio change back to 2:35:1.

Mission: Impossible 4 also did the slowly-changing bars thing when Ethan Hunt starts his climb up the Burj Khalifa. It was a nice little wink to the audience. They kept the cutaways to interior shots during the climb sequence at the same AR, which means they either shot those in full 15/65 as well or simply used 8/65 or 4/35.

Some of the 50-minute arena scene in Catching Fire was shot in 4/35, since it would've been extremely difficult for the camera man to lug an imax camera around (although they did do exactly that for some of the shots). Getting the proper depth of field for some of the shots was also a factor in using 4/35. Also, as mentioned, there's the issue of recording natural sound without the camera noise.

As for the use of Imax "breaking the tradition," I have way less of a problem with them using a much larger format for certain stretches of the film than I do with them using 2/3" hd cameras for two entire movies. Most people will only be seeing it in constant-height 2.35:1 anyway. The blu-ray and dvd transfer is another issue, but I'd imagine they'd make separate sku's available and would make the constant 2.35:1 version the priority.

AntcuFaalb said:

Fang Zei: Which DC theater is this? I live in Columbia, MD, so I'd like to check it out.

Two in the district, a stone's throw from each other on the mall at the air & space museum and the museum of natural history.

The third is out in Chantilly, VA at the air & space udvar-hazy center near dulles airport.

15/70 prints are expensive to produce, something like 30-50 thousand dollars for a two to two-and-a-half hour movie. TDKR is the only time a Hollywood film has played at all three theaters in the DC area. It was a big summer movie that was gonna do big business at the box office, so Warner Bros could afford to spend some money on it. There were a hundred or so imax prints made of tdkr.

Interstellar is only getting 50 or so imax prints. It's supposed to be the last Hollywood movie released in actual 15/70, as the digital "replacement" for those projectors is coming next year.

35mm, meanwhile, has all but disappeared. Paramount's final domestic release on 35mm was Anchorman 2 last year. They've said they'll continue 35mm distribution for the overseas territories that haven't caught up yet.

Christopher Nolan and his former cinematographer Wally Pfister are big on not only shooting but also finishing their movies on film. Pfister made his directorial debut recently with Transcendence and there were only 79 35mm prints made of the movie.

doubleofive said:

IMAX cameras teased on set.

http://screenrant.com/star-wars-episode-7-imax-tatooine-image/

I wonder if the movie will have shifting aspect ratios then? Seems odd to try to mimic the film stock and cinematography so closely to have some scenes not in 2.35:1...

Yeah, and it better be full 1.44:1 Imax this time!

I skipped seeing Into Darkness in Imax after hearing that they'd matted the large format shots down to 1.66:1 for some reason. They claimed it was to avoid making the aspect ratio switch too jarring for the audience, but I can't help suspecting it had something to do with rendering times and such.

Tobar said:

They call the AMC IMAX screens LieMAX because the screens are so small. I went into one once to see The Dark Knight and the screen was comparable to one you'd find in some people's homes. It was ludicrous.

The new digital projection we have at the 8-story tall IMAX near my house looks brilliant and is still capable of the full IMAX picture format. I think it was the trailer for Guardians of the Galaxy that had some scenes in the full format size and it was breathtaking. It's so big the film engulfs you.

Are you sure it's digital? Imax hasn't rolled out the 4k+4k laser tech at any of their 15/70 theaters yet, not to my knowledge.

ETA: Sorry, I misread your post. You meant that your 15/70 theater has both the film projector and the 2k+2k dlp. I've heard this is the case with several of the old, full-sized theaters out there. It allows them to show more stuff, since not every imax release actually gets the 15/70 treatment.

You mentioned it was the only full-sized theater in your state. Out of curiosity, what state are you in? There's a list of all imax theaters (both film and digital) here:

http://www.lfexaminer.com/theaUSA.htm