Sign In

Mavimao

User Group
Members
Join date
9-Jun-2005
Last activity
4-Jun-2020
Posts
1,463

Post History

Post
#1222567
Topic
Star Wars VistaVision “8-Perf X-Wing Wedges” Preservation
Time

Williarob said:

Mavimao said:

Holy carp! Nice find! I’m definitely paying attention to this thread!

A bit funny to call VistaVision an ‘old format’ when it’s just the 35mm still camera format.

Yeah you can just play this back with (or get it scanned on) regular 35mm film equipment - Sure the picture will be sideways, but rotating each frame 90 degrees digitally isn’t a lot of work. If you were trying to record as 8 perf vistavision, then you would need special equipment.

I guess Lucasfilm has digital backups of all this stuff if they’re letting it go on eBay? They went to a lot of trouble to track it all down when they restored the film in 1997. I can’t help wondering if they even know these are being sold…

Great find though and thanks for sharing.

Well, you’d need to rotate 90 degrees AND stitch two frames together in post if you were going to use a normal Academy aperture. VistaVision is 8perfs horizontal and Academy is 4 perfs vertical.

You could use a still frame negative scanner if you didn’t have the budget for a professional video scan.

Post
#1222351
Topic
Episode VIII : The Last Jedi - Discussion * <strong><em>SPOILER THREAD</em></strong> *
Time

DominicCobb said:

TV’s Frink said:

DominicCobb said:

Mavimao said:

DominicCobb said:

Mavimao said:

Here’s an excellent article on The Last Jedi and why it has elicited such a backlash from fans.

http://observer.com/2018/07/film-crit-hulk-the-beautiful-ugly-and-possessive-hearts-of-star-wars/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

Hmm

DominicCobb said:

Insightful look on the film and its response (I guess I should say I don’t agree with everything said, but it’s worth reading):

http://observer.com/2018/07/film-crit-hulk-the-beautiful-ugly-and-possessive-hearts-of-star-wars/

Sorry! I hadn’t seen your post!

Ha, no worries. Just funny that it wasn’t til you posted that people noticed. I think some people have me on “ignore” (and perhaps justifiably so).

i disagree with pretty much everything you have said about everything since your first post in the thread you first posted in.

Oh really? Are you sure you don’t want to find working download links for Hal9000’s first ROTS edit from 10 years ago where he only changed like three things about it?

Man this makes me wonder what my first post was…

Edit: 10th of June 2005. I talked about how much detail was to be found on the earth-shattering Xo project!

Post
#1222331
Topic
Episode VIII : The Last Jedi - Discussion * <strong><em>SPOILER THREAD</em></strong> *
Time

DominicCobb said:

Mavimao said:

Here’s an excellent article on The Last Jedi and why it has elicited such a backlash from fans.

http://observer.com/2018/07/film-crit-hulk-the-beautiful-ugly-and-possessive-hearts-of-star-wars/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

Hmm

DominicCobb said:

Insightful look on the film and its response (I guess I should say I don’t agree with everything said, but it’s worth reading):

http://observer.com/2018/07/film-crit-hulk-the-beautiful-ugly-and-possessive-hearts-of-star-wars/

Sorry! I hadn’t seen your post!

Post
#1219857
Topic
DESPECIALIZED EDITION <em>QUALITY CONTROL</em> THREAD - REPORT ISSUES HERE
Time

doubleofive said:

Mavimao said:

doubleofive said:

The Silver Screen Edition, the SE is what’s bad.

Chewielewis say: “On the SE and the GOUT it’s a clean cut”. And in his picture example, it’s written: Special Edition Team Blue.

I missed that part. That makes no sense, since I can’t beliece any film damage would have happened between the creation of the SE and the DVD version 7 years later.

I know! That’s why this is so strange.

Post
#1217385
Topic
4k77 - shot by shot color grading
Time

Handman said:

But are the Senator print photos color balanced at all? If you take a photo of a projection, it’s not going to look at all like what you actually see.

Dr Dré has multiple sources: his own personal ib frames, the senator photos, photos of a projection of an ib print with a color balanced camera and a 70s era video bootleg. They all point to the same similarities. The devil, though, is in the details.

Post
#1217345
Topic
1997 Star Wars Special Edition 35mm Project
Time

Right, how prints were made (to add to the subtitle discussion)

“The process generally goes as follows: The A, B, and C (if necessary) rolls, are all printed onto an interpositive, which has lower contrast than ordinary release-print stock (contrast builds up in the internegative and release print stages).

This interpositive is then printed onto one or more internegatives, which is/are then used (along with a separate soundtrack negative, containing optical tracks and any digital tracks/timecode that might be used for that particular film) to print theatrical prints. If foreign distribution is expected, the C roll (containing titles) is sometimes printed separately on its own interpositive, and then both interpositives are printed onto the internegative(s). This allows for different versions of a film’s titles, which can be made in different languages for foreign prints; subtitles for foreign prints can also be added by splicing them into
the `title’ interpositive.”

Source: http://stason.org/TULARC/movies/production/6-6-What-is-an-interpositive-An-internegative-Film-La.html

Post
#1217340
Topic
1997 Star Wars Special Edition 35mm Project
Time

RU.08 said:

I disagree, it was a photochemical restoration, while the optical wipes may have been digital, they re-comp’d other stuff optically.

It’s not a matter of debate. They were digitally composited. Go to 3:38 in this video:

https://youtu.be/VhLUdy3RDpM

I don’t want to come off as dickish, but you obviously do not know what you’re talking about.

The 97 restoration was partially photochemical and partially digital. All of the non-special effect shots were restored photochemically and the wipes were done optically. The elements for all the fx shots were all rescanned and recomposited or enhanced with CGI and then outputted to 35mm film. The OCN is now a mix of the original 77 negative (non effects shots) and 97 negative (wipes and sfx shots).

Post
#1217318
Topic
1997 Star Wars Special Edition 35mm Project
Time

RU.08, I’m not saying you’re wrong because I have no proof to say otherwise, but you cannot compare your scream 2 nor subtitle comparison with a special effect shot.

Your Scream 2 example falls flat because it was a simple retake for a Made for TV version that was likely spliced in on video.

The subtitle comparison falls flat because it is standard to not have burned-in subtitles for international releases or home video. Multiple IPs are made for this reason as well as safety copies.

I’m with everyone else: this looks like DNR and / or artificial brightening of the highlights. Or maybe the lightsaber was masked off and brightened in the telecine process, but I seriously doubt it’s a recomposite done solely for home video.

Post
#1216528
Topic
<em>Solo: A Star Wars Story</em> — Official Review and Opinions Thread — <strong>SPOILERS</strong>
Time

Right so I am very late and only now just saw Solo despite having seen all the previous Disney-made productions on opening night.

Overall, I found it very milquetoast and just…average. It wasn’t terrible by any stretch, but it felt like Thor 2: generic and by the numbers.

Maybe repeat viewings will change my view but I give it a 6/10.

Post
#1216018
Topic
Harmy's STAR WARS Despecialized Edition HD - V2.7 MKV IS OUT NOW
Time

tbird97 said:

I haven’t yet seen the 4K77 project, but I read the thread where Hairy Hen upgraded his 70mm soundtrack recreation.
Just curious, any plans for a possible version 2.8 to include the new soundtrack, or will that be saved for a later change?

Personally, I was blown away by the previous version and that’s why Harmy’s is my current go to version to watch. I can’t imagine an improvement, but I have faith in Hairy Hen.

4K77 and Despecialized are in sync so if you really need it now, you’d just have to demux and remux a few files.