Harmy

Ginge said:

the video isn't reliable since the camera itself shakes, so it doesn't "conclusively" show anything either way sadly.

Harmy said:

Anyway, here's a part of the video from Baltimore, !!!stabilized!!! and with the shake on the subtitles tracked a transferred onto a red square in blue field, to make it more visible.

Ginge said: I guess you're gonna leave it this way, and that's fair... I would just like a shakeless version of that scene if it's at all possible Harmy. I would be very appreciate as it would look the way I remember seeing it last year.

I will consider rendering a shake-less version for you but not right now.

OMG, Thorr, that looks just beautiful!!!

The subtitles in PG are cropped at the bottom and there were never any official 16mm releases, so the subs weren't added to the print, they were copied onto it along with the rest of the picture. Period.

It's quite possible that there were different versions of the subs as well as the credits but at first glance these seem the same to me, only a bit underexposed (like the rest of the picture).

Anyway, here's a part of the video from Baltimore, stabilized and with the shake on the subtitles tracked a transferred onto a red square in blue field, to make it more visible.

Now, the tracking was of course affected slightly by the picture constantly going darker and brighter but I think it still pretty conclusively shows that there was shake on the subs during the Baltimore screening.

@Erik: If it's out by then, certainly.

@Tim: Like I said, I stabilized the PG footage and then tracked the movement of the subs and then applied it to the new subs.

Yeah, I used DJ's GOUT, instead of Mattman's (although it may have well been me who caused that problem in v1.0).

I found it suspicious too but we do know for a fact that there were several versions of the credits on the initial release, so it may be that some variations had the drop shadow and others didn't.

Thanks, guys :-)

Again, here's a megavideo link to the Falcon video:

http://www.megavideo.com/?v=TMVERB86

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=E7RVYJPB

Here's another little fix. I brightened Falcon separately from the background, so that I'd have a nice starfield with bright stars but consistent black level but not have the ship half drowned in black, like it is in v1.0.

I'm basically finishing up on the AE part (though I'm still waiting for some new materials for a few shots) and once that's done I'll get to the editing part and then I'd guess a week or two and it should finally be done.

Thanks, Aluminium Falcon, that's exactly how I feel. And the whole point of why I'm doing all this with the subs - I'm trying to make them more like film and less digital, because otherwise it would be better to just have some generic subs in the black border.

And Ginge, where on earth did you see a pristine print of the original SW? If it was original, that is, because if it was SE, then the fact that the subs didn't shake isn't valid, as the subs were redone for the SE.

And if it was an original 77 print, the shake would most likely have been there, only you wouldn't notice it, unless you were looking for it, since there would be a slight shake to the whole picture and your eyes simply get used to it.

And like I said, the shake is actually imported from stabilized PG footage, so it should be legitimate, since PG is probably a 16mm dupe of a 35mm print, so if the shake on the subs is there after you stabilize the footage, it was on the source print as well.

That is one possible scenario.

The only question is whether I'll use the BDs at all, as I'm definitely not redoing the despecialized shots with the Blu-Ray.

Atlantis said:

 

If you use sup subtitles which are for bluray, they will be images, so you can make them any way you want.

The fact that they are for BD doesn't mean they'll work well with AVCHD.

As for them to slightly move and have grain, I think it's way overkill and not necessary. They really didn't intend them to be moving originally!

They didn't originally mean to have matte-lines in composites either, yet it was a limitation of the technology at the time and if it was possible, I'd love to see every last matte-line that was originally there.

If you don't burn in the subtitles, your release will be international and could be spread more. Other countries can have their own subtitles there.

What do you mean by "such subs" though?

Because if any of you guys knows a way of making a subtitle track that is fully AVCHD compatible, with a font customized separately for every word, has a variable lens blur, controlled tracked gate weave, film grain and a slight, chroma only, semi transparent glow, I'll be all over it!

I edited the post to contain a megavideo link for those who don't want to download.

And yeah, that's Puggo Grande, I used it as a template for the look, positioning and timing of the subtitles. I even stabilized the PG footage and then tracked the shake on the subtitles and applied it, so even the shake, even though it may seem excessive, should be authentic to how it would appear on an actual print.

Is it blocked then? It still plays for me.

So here's something new:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIjfDkI20-w

or

http://www.megavideo.com/?v=JQDIZLHB

:-)

EDIT: I got a warning from youtube that the video contains material owned by Fox, so here it is on MU, just in case it gets blocked.

Well, I know but I do have the Blu-Rays. But yeah, maybe we should move it to PMs.

Thanks guys.

Wow, there definitely is more detail in the background. I guess I should use the BD at least for this scene, because as Jaitea said, the crushed blacks are particularly bad in this one; I actually tried to revive some detail in the dark areas in this scene using the GOUT the first time around but the warping and shake made it impossible.

Thanks for the comparisons, J.

I'm still having some trouble getting my computer to use the BD footage properly though, so it would be quite nice to get the scene already brightened and corrected in high bitrate 720p AVC.

Thanks. As to the colours, I'm not sure yet but I'll only be dealing with colour timing after all the AE work is done and I get to the editing stage.

And a little cherry on top:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZS3syrR5r0

:-)

Adium said:

In an ideal world, the original unaltered trilogy is released on blu ray, and they are in these cases. Great work!

And the transfer looks something like these:

http://www.jedi1.net/

I mean, when I look at this and think about what could be, I just want to cry:

No, that's not really it. It's hard to tell from YouTube but look for specs of dirt - Since the CG shot that replaced this one in the SE used the same background, I replaced the parts of the background that were usable from the SE and then I cleaned up the the remainder of GOUT footage frame by frame in photoshop.

Hmmm, what a productive day:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYuFuSp2w4U

:-)

@Corellian77:

@ShiiStyle:

Thanks. And to your questions: Most of the FX shots in the end battle are taken from an upscale/cleanup of the official 2006 Bonus DVD (GOUT).

As to the perspective, you'll notice that it changes when the focus changes, I'm pretty sure it's an effect caused by anamorphic cinematography. 

I actually used the 97SE.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25d7RB3GcEU