I’m personally very much against a 2GB version being shared at all, let alone one made by someone, who’s just figuring out how to use Handbrake.
Wouldn’t the 16mm sound be more fitting for a Grindhouse release?
A lot of them are recreated and sometimes the timing isn’t exact, because the wipe happens a bit earlier or later in the SE but this is nothing one would notice unless actually comparing the two frame by frame.
Getting non-prehistoric tech that makes films being puke-inducingly compressed unnecessary is another, and some would say better, option.
And in an ideal world, there never would be.
I think ROTJ would benefit greatly from 3D - the space battle would be amazing - I was really disappointed when they scraped the 3D conversions.
Yes. People having 4K monitors is the only reason it was even a question.
May the 4th Be With You!
Today marks the official release of Star Wars Despecialized Edition v2.7!!!
It is a project done by Towne32 but fully endorsed by me.
Gallery of changes can be found here: http://picsurge.com/g/cCwnAo
And NFOs with further details can be found here:
MKV: http://pastebin.com/PtDnVy9B
AVCHD: http://pastebin.com/awY52hPQ
Where to download: https://goo.gl/1WGHBA
Forum thread here: http://originaltrilogy.com/topic/Harmys-Despecialized-Star-Wars-1977-Color-Adjustment-Project/id/48257
I love 3D - I have it at home and on a 10ft screen viewed from 10ft away, 3D feels much larger than 2D does - I suppose, it’s because when watching 2D, the brain realizes that the screen is still quite tiny compared to a real cinema but in 3D, the comparative distance is not so easy to discern.
Also, the image quality looks better to me in 3D - I would appreciate 4K in my projector when watching 2D, because I can still see the individual pixels but I can’t see them at all when watching a movie in 3D - I suppose it’s because the brain is getting twice as much picture information in 3D. I never had a problem with headaches or anything.
Actually, the 3D setup I have at home is better than in both local multiplexes - it produces nice, bright image and has no ghosting whatsoever, which is a problem I always had in the cinema, so now I don’t really go see 3D movies in cinema, see the 2D version and if it looks like it would be good 3D, I buy the 3D Blu-Ray, which is why I’m quite terrified by the news of BD3D losing support.
As for DVD, sure, for some movies, it is perfectly serviceable, if you’re watching on some tiny screen, but HD will still look better, which will then make the entire experience better.
I don’t know enough about it but perhaps it’s a bad grade but the fact that it’s HDR has little to do with it being good or bad.
This is true. It does make a difference but only on really huge screens and not as much as the difference between SD and HD. It also depends on the material - some films will benefit more than others.
This is all quite possible. Also, even if an official release doesn’t happen, maybe some 35mm fan-preservations may come out, which will make Despecialized unnecessary.
I think your work is fantastic Harmy, and it certainly won’t be unnecessary. I really like the sharpness of the Blu Ray, and a 1080p version of Despecialized using some 35mm elements would be fantastic. Your work won’t be overshadowed or forgotten.
Well, from what I’ve seen, a really good IB Print restoration should be at least on par with the official BDs in terms of sharpness.
I know. But- not necessarily you, Harmy- a lot of fans will simply refuse to be satisfied and will always find something to bitch about. Lucasfilm refuses to release the originals- that’s something to get angry about. The colors for the TFA BD are slightly different from the theatrical version? People get angry. It’s the nature of nerds.
Sure but HDR has absolutely nothing to do with it.
Why should that piss us off? If they gave it a proper HDR grade, meaning they could actually get the colors closer to what was on film, that would be amazing.
Like I said before, if an official release happens, and it only has some minor problems, which I may want to fix, the only way I’m releasing it is by doing the work in Resolve, which is free for non-commercial uses and putting out a resolve project, which everyone can render themselves.
Yes, absolutely - I’m not saying I wouldn’t count on it being done at all, I just meant I wouldn’t count on it being done in the next month or so.
I imagine Poita’s work will probably be better than that.
This is all quite possible. Also, even if an official release doesn’t happen, maybe some 35mm fan-preservations may come out, which will make Despecialized unnecessary.
Sorry - wouldn’t count on it. V2.0 is still pretty good though 😃
Yep, what I’ve been saying all along 😉
But what to me is actually a more important point is that in Mike’s video, his final version, while it is higher quality, it just feels more fake due to loosing much of the grittiness of the original composite - the models just feel more like models, whereas the gritty untouched shot just feels more authentic - and I think the misalignment actually adds to that.
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 am not sure why but I find all of this nitpicking entertaining, and I am happy to be a part of it. In my opinion, the best thing to do is to make it look as good as possible without changing what was originally intended. In other words, if there are color channel misalignments on the original negative, fix them. If there are scratches or burn marks, fix them. If there are matte lines, fix them. Fix any artifacts that are as a result of putting the movie together and something going screwy. Just don’t add, change or remove scenes like the SE’s did.
Fixing channel misalignments, yes. Scratches and burn marks, yes. Matte lines, hell no.
Everything on the original negative, keep. Anything that happened as a result of duping the negative or creating various prints, fix.
Exactly this - anything beyond is revisionism. But like I said above - fixing channel missalignments yes, but only if it doesn’t require separating elements.
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 would hate that so fucking much!
What Lucas did is not remastering, it’s revisionism.