In the old one the Dewback is just from GOUT but I noticed that you can see it from that angle in the shot where Luke and Ben are leaving the cantina (just before the Greedo scene), so I used that and even used the building from there, so it's actually HD.
Did you look at it in full resolution?
Would anyone please care to comment on the picture I posted here? I'd quite like to know if you guys think I should use the new one.
Sounds great Laserschwert. Only to be honest, I did notice the "twinkling" and didn't like it much - I'd rather add a tad more gate weave. But then, it could work better with the new starfield, since it's less bright, so it may not bring out the ugly irregular halos around the bigger stars.
And also adding quite a large amount of grain to the whole picture (you can choose blending mode "ADD" it adds the grain evenly, so it's in the brighter parts as well) would make it look more authentic IMO.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAXWzpCo06w
It of course looks like ass on youtube, so here is an HQ clip:
OK, here's the new starfield:
Yeah, actually now that I see them with the credits, they may be too bright - it was really difficult to find the right balance. I could still redo the starfield if Laserswert would be willing to re-render.
That's nice! Thanks!
Great job! Thank you. I'm probably gonna use that LFL logo, since it's from an actual 1080p scan from a print but if you could do the long time ago logo, that would be nice. None of the attempts I've seen so far really convinced me.
The lights could have been removed accidentally by Lowry's process but I guess it would count as an alteration anyway.
Did you add me 005? I just received an e-mail about changes to the album. If so, thank you :-)
I just wanted to say that I'm not quite sure this is a change:
Background has been darkened to isolate Greedo which explodes in the next few frames.
(2004 Change)
I test darkened and black crushed the OOT pic without any background separation and this is the result:
I'm definitely planning to make a new version of ESB but ROTJ is also a possibility - I guess it could do with a few tweaks here and there.
Um, no, I actually came to a conclusion that it isn't the original starfield, so I tried to enhance the GOUT one:
(top DJ's GOUT, bottom enhanced)
And here's a lossless version:
Great. I should have the starfield for you soon :-) Thanks for doing this - while I wouldn't want to do it myself, I admit that it will make v1.2 better.
Really, isn't that gonna be huge? And I was hoping I'd avoid using After Effects - as an AVI, I could just import it straight into my editing program and only use a still of the first credit for the wipe.
Anyway, here's the starfield - it's the HD starfield from the SE credits with the stars brightened.
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=VL83GTU1
I just can't tell if it's the same starfield though - does anyone know? It definitely is the same starfield as in the original version of ESB and ROTJ and you can see that at first glance, so I'm afraid, it may actually be a different one and they used the same starfield in all 3 SEs. And could the original credits starfield be used somewhere else in the SEs?
And even if we were to use the GOUT starfield, the one you used is too muted. I'm working on a better one now but it would be better if we could find an actual HD version.
Yeah, guess you're right about the blur, I'm just not used to the credits looking this sharp, it just reminds me of the SE I guess. There should definitely be a gate weave in the starfield though and I'd really rather go with the HD starfield.
And 25fps because I work with 25fps throughout the whole process and then convert to 23,976fps only when muxing the final AVCHD.
Nice job, Laserschwert.
Now, in order to use these though, I'll need this at 25fps, with the SE starfield (which I guess is probably the same) and a slight blur to the text and even a bit more blur to the drop shadow, to make it look less CG. A slight gate-weave separate for the starfield and for the text could also be good.
Truth be told, the majority of purists clamoring for "unaltered" versions don't realize what they're asking for, in the strictest sense. If Lucas were to release a truly unaltered version of the OT, it would be grainy, dirty, color-drained, and the sound would be seriously degraded. That's what "unaltered" means: not changed.
This guy's got his terms wrong: "grainy, dirty, colour-drained with the sound seriously degraded" isn't unaltered but unrestored. And seeing as how we call for a restoration of the unaltered version, I don't see how anyone could be confused.
I thought Mike's were a recreation.
Anyway, for me, credits are so seriously unimportant a part of the film, that I would never put so much work into re-creating them. If someone makes them and at least two other people are willing to proof read them, I'd be willing to use them of course. But as I said, I'll be using DJ's Blu for v1.2, which is devoid of some of the artefacts present in Mattman's version, which I used in v1.0, so they should be better.
Yeah, I like mine better, Mike's look fake to me. And I'll have DJ's credits for v1.2, so they should be even better.
Yeah, I hope he goes the same way with the Hobbit (although I'm already really worried about it being shot digitally at 60fps)
I hate to admit it, but Boost's got a really good point there.
