Harmy

Yeah, that's also funny :-)

So funny. I'm watching that SE documentary from the thread I linked to before and when they talk about the snow battle, they show you the shot from inside the cockpit of Luke's speeder flying under the AT-AT from the original version and point out how it's transparent and then go on to talk about how they recomped all those shots in a computer and "eliminated all the transparency" and then they show you the same shot from the SE, which is darker and bluer but just as transparent as the original. Heck of a job there (on both the SE and the doc) :-D

And perhaps the funnies thing is when they say that the ultimate goal of the Jabba scene was to make it look like Jabba was there on that set and they just photographed it. Comic gold :-)

TV's Frink said:

Harmy said:

And to Frink: I'd never heard of TV's Frank before I read your post but now that I know, here's a new avatar for you:

LOL!  Thanks, man.

No problem ;-)

No, you can have whatever opinion you like but you can't expect people to agree with you on a forum dedicated to film preservation. Like DoubleKO said, you keep comparing the OOT to the FC of Blade Runner but that's comparing apples and bananas.

Whichever version you prefer, it's clear OOT and the Theatrical Cut of BR are apples and the SE and FC are bananas.

Yeah, my room-mate last year had an HD projector and he let me borrow it sometimes to watch a movie with my friends and they all hated how I always used to play with the settings for ages :-) He would also watch AVI  DVD rips on it a I'm like: "Man, I've got that film in HD" and he just didn't care, I couldn't bare to watch ;-)

You should also try PMing Zombie, he did a lot of research on the SEs.

But you should know by now, that you can't actually get facts from official sources - they're bullshitting us all the time ;-)

Looks like a race: "And Episode V takes the lead, followed closely by Episode IV...!!!"

:-D

BTW. that's great news. Will it be an SE synced commentary then?

http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Star-Wars-Special-Edition-Laserdisc-Features/topic/12731/

I'm sorry to say this but your posts seriously frustrate me. And it's not because we differ in our opinions, they frustrate me much more than any "it's Lucas' film, deal with it!" kind of post, because we should be on the same side, yet there is a lot of animosity here, which I don't deny is in  part my fault as well.

Look, I don't think any of what you said in your last post is what's actually going on - we really are not that hard to satisfy. We only want what ws done a million times with a million other films. We just want a restoration like the one done on Close Encounters or Blade Runner or Star Trek Original Series or the Godfather and many others. It's nothing unusual or complicated.

And sure, there will always be complainers, but there are always complainers for every release, I bet you would find people who found something to complain about on the Blade Runner box-set. But with a simple restoration of the original, most people will be satisfied - except for those who don't want the original.

Yeah, even the original matte painting overlooking Mos Eisley suggests a bigger place.

S_Matt said:

 The film was creatively and technically compromised by external forces. The film was "revisionist" even before it was finished. If you prefer that version, great, just remember what you're enjoying is not a film by Ridley Scott. Its a film by "Cynical studio stockholders".

I know that, but frankly, I'd enjoy the movie that way even if it was made by Ed Wood. I respect Ridley Scott's original vision and I am glad he got the chance to finish it but that doesn't make me prefer it for my watching experience.

I can see some of you lump Scott in exactly the same camp as Lucas - as rapacious revisionists with no respect for history, but this is just completely wrong and misguided.

I think I explained quite thoroughly how I don't think that in the slightest, as Scott being put into the exact same situation as Lucas (although Scott handled it with infinitely more taste and respect) didn't stop the originals from being released in comparable quality.

As for digital effects, well, there's only one almost 100% new shot in The Final Cut and even this still retains some of the original elements. Recompositing footage digitally is not "redoing" anything and I will repeat this as often as is necessary. A computer is just a tool. Its achieving exactly the same thing as an optical printer but with infinitely more control and precision.

And I will repeat as often as necessary that while a computer is just a tool achieving exactly the same thing as an optical printer but with infinitely more control a precision, it is a tool that wasn't available in 1977, 1980 and 1983 and therefore using it to recomp IS redoing the effects, as the lack of control and precision is as much a part of the original FX as models and use of motion control cameras - modern CGI animation can also be used to do the exact same thing as models and motion control cameras but with infinitely more precision and control, does that justify it's use in old movies?

I'm not so sure about that, because there isn't enough time to explain how a shot was done while it's actually happening, because sometimes a shot that has like 2 seconds takes a few hours or even days to despecialize. I was actually thinking about something along the lines of the PDE Trailer but taking it a step or two further :-)

I don't know about that, but I'm planning some supplements when it's done :-)

Yeah the HDTV rip (there was a 1080p one as well) was the same transfer (originally made for DVD) but they apparently added more DVNR for the BD. I'm glad they're making a new transfer and hopefully this time there won't be any DVNR applied.

OK, the workprint's up. I already PMed everyone who said they'd help, I hope I didn't forget anyone.

It is uploaded to a Czech file-sharing server but you can switch it to English in the upper right corner. Or just import the links to JDownloader :-)

It's a 3GB 25fps MP4 with PAL GOUT audio @ 160Kbps AAC, so don't expect very good A/V quality - the quality should be good enough to spot problems but is in no way final.

Like in the ESB workprint, there is a little window with the GOUT in the upper left corner of the video for comparison. I need you to look for colour inconsistencies, missing frames (like black frames where they shouldn't be, jump-cuts etc.) and any SE changes I may have missed.

When you give me your feedback, please be specific  - vague general comments aren't very helpful - tell me the time of the shot you're talking about. Please report anything that you don't like - I may say no to some suggestions but it's better than to have people complain about something about the finished product, when it could have been fixed if it was pointed out to me earlier.

Thank you very much for your help, guys, I appreciate it.

And if there's anyone else willing to help and check out the workprint, please let me know.

sent :-)

PMs sent :-)

Also, I changed my mind about the workprint because I realized that because it's got just 3GB, I can upload it here and the sooner it's out there, the sooner I'll get the feedback I need and will be able to release the real deal :-)

Thank you. I responded in my thread :-)

Blade Runner is a prime example of how it should be done. S_Matt, you're saying that you like the Final Cut (which IS a Special Edition type of edit whatever way you look at it) and the other versions are unimportant to you. Well, I like the original better and would be very displeased if it wasn't restored - but it is colour-timing, original FX and sound included. And that's what I want for STAR WARS. 

The situation is practically identical: The FC is Scott's preferred re-cut version of BR and the 04SE is Lucas' preferred re-cut version of SW. It is therefore quite understandable that both of them are willing to put more effort into making the release of their preferred versions high quality than into the other versions. And the similarities continue - there is another version that is closer than the original theatrical releases to what both directors want  - the DC and the 97SE. And another similarity is that both film-makers are aware that there are people who have different tastes than them and prefer the original versions.

And that's where the similarities end because while Mr. Scott let all the versions he does not prefer be released on DVD, BD and HD DVD in comparable HD quality as the FC. Not the same quality, as only materials for the FC were scanned from o-neg in 4K, the other versions were only scanned at 1080p from IPs - And like I said, I understand that and they're still restored beautifully. But Lucas only released the original from a crappy LD master and the 97SE wasn't released on any modern format at all.

And as a bonus, the workprint of BR was released also restored to 1080p- what an awesome bonus it would be to be able to see the 1st cut of SW with the WW2 shots instead of FX and all that!!!

adywan said:

 

I've seen many attempts to re-create the crawl but everyone i have seen have had the same problems: as the crawl recedes the texts begins to flicker & strobe. It's an anti-aliasing problem which after effects really suffers with. 

Yeah, the aliasing is indeed a problem, it's the only thing that bugs me about my 1977 crawl I recreated using the original elements. I tried blurring the end slightly but it only helped a little.

Yeah, they could get militant and blast us with their blasted blasters :-D