Mavimao

TServo2049 said:

I will never see a converted 3D re-release of a 2D film, on principle.

The only remotely good things that might come out of this are:

1.) LFL will probably have to do new scans of the OT in at least 4K in order to convert them to 3D;

2.) The original footage that was altered with CGI may need to be rescanned and recomposited from scratch for 3D (though alternately, they might just convert them using the digital files from '97/'04?);

3.) In order to convert any of the original visual effects to 3D, all of the original VistaVision effects elements will most likely have to be re-scanned, restored and recomposited;

4.) The 3D re-release may cause a serious fan backlash, and there is a (very slim) chance that Lucas and co. might end up being shamed and embarrassed into finally releasing the OUT in HD;

5.) If #4 happens, #1-#3 may ensure that there are high-resolution raw digital scans of the OT that can be used as the starting point for a restored/remastered HD OUT.

Preservation-wise, some good MIGHT come out of this whole 3D thing. (Emphasis on "might"; this is still Lucasfilm we're talking about, after all...)

Don't own a high def tv much less a bluray player so this release is meaningless to me.

However I just want to throw out there that I miss the old days when being a star wars fan was so much easier. There were only single versions of the films and people only argued which film they liked better, but would always agree that they liked them all.

Le sigh.

[quote=Fenriz]

Thanks for the answer... Did Harmy also make restoration of Empire and Jedi?

Yeah btw. i "rest(o)red" my post... now it`s corrected.^^

red5-626 said:

Just because it's film doesn't make it a holy grail of quality. So people have to remember that the puggo 16mm projects are an interesting, and I find, highly enjoyable project. But if you're looking for a pristine copy of the OT... Get harmy's despecialized or Dj's gout project.

 <span></span>

I understand that a 16mm print is not the best.

But is it not better then 8mm?

We all know the best thing would be a scan of a 35mm or 70mm print.

But even it we had a 35mm or 70mm print.

We do not have a scanner for it.

But there is a better chance of finding an HD,

16mm or 8mm film scanner that is privately owned by some one that could scan it and “ avoid any Empyreal entanglements”.

I know the 16 and 8 mm prints would be littered with dust and scratches. But this could be cleaned up in a computer.

Of course doing this for the hole 3 movies may seem like to much work, it could still be used in part for projects like Harmy's Despecialized Edition . For ROTJ It could be use to get an HD copy of <span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">Lapti Nek. </span></span>

Almost there...

Awesome news!

No, even I agree the disk is fine! The fix is stupidly easy. I never would have put my DVD player in the auto p&s detect option in the first place but I bought it used, plugged it in and never had an 'issue' with it until ESB.

Let me repeat, I wrote my post in case anyone else ran into this problem and came running to this forum trying to find answers.

Thank you for authoring these DVDs by the way. I love how they go straight to the movie with no superfluous menu.

msycamore said:

Mavimao, if your 4:3 TV have a 16:9 option, some do, you can set your videosettings on your DVD player to 16:9 to get a slightly better image.

Moth3r said:

Chewtobacca said:

Mavimao said:

I just wanted to point out a quirk about the ESB DVD 5 despecialized version. So I guess this is for Chewtobacco...  For some reason, the pan and scan flag is set for the disk. So if your DVD player happens to be on the P&S auto setting, it'll zoom in on the picture.

Thanks, but that's what supposed to happen if your player is set to pan and scan; it won't come in to play for anyone whose player is set to 16:9.  I take it you have a 4:3 TV?  Just set your player to 4:3 not 4:3 P&S.  A number of commercial anamorphic widescreen discs have this setting.

Really? I've never seen a DVD that implements the 4:3 Pan & Scan option. A "centre of interest" offset is supposed to be encoded in the video stream, otherwise you just end up with the sides cropped and the scanned window stays centered (does not "pan").

It is much more common (and preferable, IMO) to author for only 4:3 letterboxed. Although the setting is pretty obsolete these days when most people have 16:9 TVs.

I just wanted to point out a quirk about the ESB DVD 5 despecialized version. So I guess this is for Chewtobacco...

For some reason, the pan and scan flag is set for the disk. So if your DVD player happens to be on the P&S auto setting, it'll zoom in on the picture.

The Jedi disk is fine (don't know about ANH), but I was freaking out trying to figure out what was wrong. Figured out there are P&S flags that authors can set for their disks and that people at home can activate with their DVD players. For some reason, my player was programmed to accept them, thus the zoomed in image. But a quick setting change fixed all of that.

So this is probably just one of those 1 in a million things that MIGHT happen to someone using the DVD5 version, but I thought I'd give a head's up.

My theory: different IPs were made in 77. After all, different IPs had to be made for the 35 dolby print, the 35 mono print, not to mention the IPs for foreign markets. During the creation of one of these, the labs messed up and tore a couple frames and cemented it together to avoid redoing the reel.

Then that damaged IP became the best sourced print for telecines later on as the other ones became pink or damaged beyond recognition.

Hey Harmy, you being Czech, do you know of the works of Jan Svankmejer?

Definitely one of my most favorite directors! I think "Little Otik" gave me nightmares for weeks!

Jaskoen said:

I realize this was probably answered somewhere else in this thread, but rather than trudge through all 113 pages I'll just ask:

How can I get on deck for the project blu set once it's released? Do I need to send blanks to DJ?

Look, the simple truth is, the OUT remastered in HD is going to make a huge chunk of change when released. George Lucas know this, and is just waiting on the opportune time to release it.

Just wait.

Just go to their website....

http://www.moviestuff.tv/wp_16.html

R2D2 said:

The OT deleted scenes are muted from time to time without any technical reason. Sound is suddenly off completely in the middle of a shot and on after a few seconds again in the same shot. Technically the sound is either on the master tapes they used or not.

The only explanation I have is Lucasfilm is doing this on purpose to avoid fan films based on those scenes.

It's a shame that fans who are paying to watch those scenes are paying 100% but don't get 100% of their content.

PreserveOurHeritage said:

Hi Puggo,

I really admire what you've done so far, and I've been so thrilled over the last few weeks discovering all the many fan preservations available from the users on the site.  I'm one of those guys who found out about the new BluRay changes, and finally had enough and decided to look into what was out there.

I've been dying to see the theatrical OT come to life beyond GOUT.  I could personally care less what Lucas does to the films, just as long as the original films are properly preserved ala Blade Runner.  The 16mm scope preservation is a great idea, and potentially the best source for the original content until a useable 35mm scan becomes available to us...

Again, I totally admire and respect all the effort and time you're putting into theses restorations.  Having said that, I nearly gagged when I read you're using a Sony TRV900 for the telecine.   I understand budgetary constraints, especially for a self funded project like this.   Have you considered looking into borrowing a newer camera, perhaps an HDLSR from a friend?   The main problem with the Sony 900, aside from being 10 years old and interlaced SD, is the very limited dynamic range, and the "baked in" artifacts like sharpening.   Today, almost any camera will have a much better dynamic range than the Sony.   I think given all the work and time you're putting into this project, that Sony handycam is a real disservice to you.   I strongly urge, no I beg you, to consider looking into a new camera with a much wider dynamic range so that you can faithfully capture most of the beautiful range present in the 16mm print.  Plus, shooting it in higher resolution will definitely capture whatever detail is in the print.

If done with a better camera, I am certain that theses 16mm scope prints would be the new reference material for the theatrical OT.

Regardless, I'm looking forward to Puggo Strikes Back. 

cheers,

-Craig

*EDIT* So maybe I jumped the gun a bit before reading the entire thread...I see most of what I said was addressed already, and an HDR attempt was even made which was going to be my second suggestion.   I'm wondering what the limitations are for the 16 workprint rig and why it can only use DV cameras?

Almost forgot....

CHESS ko Sebulba? Cheboko oomin deessa. Dees erotika badamin chow chooooowah!

It doesn't have quite the gravitas as "Shortie. Chow chi. Lan tsu tsan tsa!"

Duuh-shkroony DO-pahd SLAMO!

Sounds good harmy! I've got the Empire and Jedi dvd5s downloaded and holding up for the new anh. Can't wait to get it before the cold winter months....

I've been to some crappy forums and I've been to some good forums. And I've been to some awesome forums. This one is definitely the latter.

I've been here since about 2004/2005, when I caught wind of Laserdisc bootlegs of the Original Trilogy being available somewhere. I signed the petition, learned about the X0 project, donated money to the project (and not upset in the least about "losing" my money - these things happen and I understand) and throughout the years I've seen this site grow to something extremely important.

What started as a gathering of concerned fans of the OOT, has become a major epicenter of discussion and preservation of many things not only Star Wars, but other important projects as well.

We've gone from debating which laserdisc rip has less dotcrawl, to documenting the differences in various sound mixes throughout the years, to cleaning up and restoring the Mono mix, to figuring out how to clean up the GOUT with AVISYNTH as much as possible, to now recreating HD shots from the OOT with bits of footage and custom mattes.

But the site doesn't just stop at Star Wars! We've preserved LD documentaries and commentary tracks that have not seen the light of day since. We've helped people replace wonky surround sound mixes of various films with more authentic ones.

We've come a long way, and yes, we're seeing a lot more activity with the new Blu Rays, but I don't think a few bad apples are going to spoil what make this site great.

Jay said:

Yeah, the DS9 episode was upscaled. TNG is being remastered from the original film elements like TOS though.

The problem lies in the effects shots. While they did use models for the ships, the composite shots with all the effects in place were done at standard def. They'd have to recomposite all the original film and re-render the CGI bits to recreate them in HD. I could see that being fairly time-consuming.

George Lucas has become Yogurt....

Merchandising, merchandising, where the real money from the movie is made. Spaceballs-the T-shirt, Spaceballs-the Coloring Book, Spaceballs-the Lunch box, Spaceballs-the Breakfast Cereal, Spaceballs-the Flame Thrower. And last but not least, Spaceballs the doll, me. Adorable.

[quote=danny_boy]

LOL!---Regarding RAH's restoration of the Godfather---------Francis Ford Coppola admitted he could not even remember how the film  looked in it's original theatrical release.

Yet an anonymouse internet poster claims he can remember how "brilliant " Star Wars looked(over 25 years ago!).

I saw Star wars twice theatrically(1981 and 1983) and I cannot remember one  way or the other in 2011 wether the prints I saw were vibrant or dull or dirty or clean.

I'll stick with that 1982 VHS for reference for the time being. 

Harmy said:

Cool :-)

As to the MKV, I was considering a larger MKV release, I even made one for ESB but I compared it to the AVCHD and it looked practically identical, so I decided it would be a waste of space.