Sign In

GZK8000

User Group
Trusted Members
Join date
2-Jul-2017
Last activity
24-Feb-2019
Posts
209

Post History

Post
#1208287
Topic
4k77 released
Time

Williarob said:
A single correction was made for each reel. In most cases it involved nothing more than white balancing the image using the optical track for the white point and then adjusting the contrast so that the brightest point on the reel is right at the top of the scopes and the blackest right at the bottom. With a single adjustment like that, you can’t make space or the end credits completely black or you will crush the blacks in other parts of the reel.

Colors and levels could be greatly improved with a shot by shot grade, but I wanted to preserve the original colors and levels as much as possible for this version. So the colors quite accurately represent the digital scan of the print, which isn’t necessarily the same as when projected in a dark room with a 70s bulb, but nor is it anybody’s idealized imagination of what it should look like.

So if I understand what you say, wouldn’t this mean that if you screen 4K77 in a dark room with a 70s bulb you would have similar colors to what you see in the online screenshots of Technicolor screenings (assuming correct color balance)? Or does this mean that, even with 70s bulbs, people in 1977 did not see completely black space and end credits when they were screened a Technicolor print?

Post
#1208250
Topic
4k77 released
Time

I have a few questions: what was the goal regarding the color grading? In the 4K77 blog, there are videos of both Technicolor prints, (the one Lucasfilm and Mike Verta has used and the cleaner one with worse colors), and the latter one was the main source for 4K77. So the idea was to mimic the look of a typical/ideal Technicolor print, or one of the prints used for 4K77? In which context (when screened in a cinema or dark room with 70s bulbs, in a bright living room)? I am curious about the blacks here (specially in many space shots), was it a limitation of the print used or what? I’m not criticising 4K77, the restoration looks amazing and for me it’s now THE version of Star Wars to watch, I’d like to know the technical details if it can be shared.

Post
#1207188
Topic
Photo of Star Wars reels inside the Fox Film Vault
Time

From the r/StarWars thread:

no, these aren’t negatives. camera negative is generally stored horizontally in separate plastic/aluminum cans within a temperature controlled vault. these are release prints. also, some are listed as being flat (1.85:1) which is either incorrect or some of these are matted prints for certain territories or facilities that couldn’t project anamorphic content.

Another user:

If i had to guess, these would be 16mm reduction prints. Likely for Theatre distribution. A 16mm feature film fits on 3 reels rather than the 6 that 35mm takes up. Also the boxes are the width of 3 16mm reels.

These are definitly not 35mm prints or original negatives.

Post
#1206859
Topic
The Original Trilogy restored from 35mm prints
Time

DrDre said:
With regards to the speeder shot, I’m curious to know the maximum image quality that can be pulled from the prints, without reverting to the in my opinion somewhat revisionist techniques employed by Mike Verta to clean up the speeder shot, and essentially remove all the color noise that most likely also existed on the original negative. The downside of removing all the color noise in my view is, that you will never recover the detail that should be associated with such a clean image, and thus the cleaned up image may actually appear less natural without the noise than the image with the color noise in it. In essence when our eyes cannot see detail, we expect noise. If we detect neither something is amiss, and we get that heavy DNR effect. So, I believe noise reduction should always be in the service of detail recovery/enhancement, but not be a goal in of itself.

I don’t think Verta ever intended to “preserve” the negatives. Those were already gone before the 97SE according to him, and there is no fool-proof way to separate dirt and noise that is from the camera and dirt/noise that was introduced when they were handling the negatives for the first time, or the 31th. He has always said that his restoration is an idealized version of Star Wars that tries to match the original intention, the original photography and all the detail that can be restored. Even his main version of Legacy doesn’t have the shaky logo from the original 1977 prints.

Post
#1206778
Topic
The Original Trilogy restored from 35mm prints
Time

poita said:

I am trying out some new software that we have written, and in my spare time (hah!) I am going to be testing it out on a few scenes, so I thought I may as well do something people want to see.

What scene from the original 1977 Star Wars would people most like to see restored?

Cast your votes here and I’ll pick one or two to use as the test and get everyone’s feedback as to the results.

Landspeeder shot from the Mos Eisley scenes, after meeting the stormtroopers.

Post
#1206575
Topic
4K restoration on Star Wars
Time

I guess because you can still make a prequel movie set in the pre-Rebellion days of Han without involving a reference from Empire and Han meeting the Falcon for the first time. In other words, something like the old Han Solo Adventures where Han already had the Falcon, but before he met Leia and Luke.

It would still be a prequel, and probably “unnecessary”, but at least it would just be a fun movie, like the old spirit of the franchise in the pre-oEU days.

Post
#1206569
Topic
4K restoration on Star Wars
Time

I knew someone would say that.

What I mean by “unnecessary” is that, on my priority list, “a movie set in a different era with different characters” or “a movie set in the OT era but with themes and characters that are in no way connectd to the OT” is much higher than “let’s have a movie about a younger Han Solo and Chewbacca, and, oh, let’s add some pointless fanservice like how Han won the Falcon”. And that isn’t even the worst bit (I have read a certain godawful spoiler, but, it’s a spoiler after all).

Post
#1206556
Topic
4K restoration on Star Wars
Time

dahmage said:

GZK8000 said:

CHEWBAKAspelledwrong said:

Why? They have a franchise with endless potential for new stories.

And yet they have the urge to explain how Han won the Falcon.

so i assume you won’t watch it then.

Solo isn’t just the scene of Han winning the Falcon, even if that scene is indicative of the conservative approach Disney is making with the standalone movies. There may be other scenes in Solo that would make it enjoyable, even if the movie is quite unnecessary. But I don’t have high hopes.

Post
#1206543
Topic
Song Of The South
Time

I have one question: what’s the color reference for the original 16mm scan and the newer 35mm? Technicolor prints?

Also, Notelu, this is not a criticism or anything similar, I was just wondering, are your versions transcodes of the original release of the 35mm scan, or are you using the source files like Towne32 did with Star Wars DeEd 2.7? Anyway, thanks for your time and dedication.

EDIT: NVM, I have seen in myspleen that you’re using the unrestored release as the source.

Post
#1206062
Topic
Request: Kiki's Delivery Service (1998 Disney English dub)
Time

I was unaware there were newer releases. I have been checking forum.blu-ray.com and there doesn’t seem to be an up-to-date comparison thread for all BD releases of Ghibli. So I’m not sure how well these releases you have mentioned are compared with the older ones.

I wonder how good are the japanese-only MGVC releases. Oh well, at this point I think it’s better to wait for 4K releases.