MonkeyLizard10

As someone else pointed out elsewhere, of course this sort of thing is common enough with normal productions. There are often more than one IN and IP and thus different chain paths can make different prints have different mistakes/defects/etc.

But here we had an initial digital master and we have a “clean” 35mm and a “dirty” digital set of releases.

Anyway, it seems that for AOTC they digitally printed out an original negative (ON) straight from a digital master (I guess pre-color timed to how it and the print stock would react?) and then struck the release prints from that. So release prints for AOTC went through less stages than normal no OCN->IP->IN->RP. Just digital master->ON->RP. Maybe they made more than one of these direct 1st gen digitally printed ON to produce release prints from. Whatever, that doesn’t matter since the print in question doesn’t have the weird thing.

But what did they produce the DVD/HDTV/blu-ray/UHD from? If they just directly used the initial digital master and that had no blue blob then how the heck did it get into the chain? But maybe they did not do that? Did they really go and print out a new ON and then scan it back in and then use that scan as the final true digital master? If so, I guess a blue thingy could’ve fallen in the way for a few frames when they printed out the ON for the digital theatrical release (which would’ve been produced almost two weeks later than the one(s) for the 35mm prints). And maybe the way it was printed made the ONs have virtually no grain so it wouldn’t show up much at all in the digital releases after it had been scanned back in? But do you really think they would have bothered to go digital master->directly digitally printed ON->final digital master produced from scanning back in the ON rather than just go digital master directly? If they wanted it a touch more filmic why then DNR all the home releases up? Why have the grain basically not noticeable I think even in the digital theatrical version? So what would have been the point of going DM->ON->TDM? Maybe to give the digital theatrical a more print film set of colors and contrast? Then why seem to go to a more digital set of colors and contrast for the digital home releases?

One thought is that they maybe wanted to give the digital theatrical a slight filmic touch and digitally printed out an ON for the digital version and then some blue thingy fell into the scanner for a few frames and then they scanned this ON back in to make the new final digital master and that is what the digital theatrical and all home versions are based on. The digital release of AOTC theatrically was cut so short they had like zero time to redo anything so even if they did see a blue thing fall onto a few frames they would have had no time to reprint and scan a new ON.

But since the home ones at least don’t seem to have filmic contrast or colors and they did some DNR why would they have bothered doing the above instead of straight. Also, since the digital theatrical was such a close call for timing would they have even had any time to slowly print out a digital negative and then scan it back in?? Wouldn’t they just go straight from digital master? In which case we are back to no explanation again.

towne32 said:

Some, like this guy on movie-censorship, say the DVD was produced from the digital theatrical master. I’d really like to find more information written before the DVD was released, though, to be certain. Padme’s awful “Yes” line had to have been a later fix, after reviewers mocked it, right? If nothing else, there would have been people arguing and defending the film as they did not witness it with “yes”.

Here is something weird:

Thanks to user Phase3 for spotting a weird teal rectangle going across part of the top upper left of a transition between scenes at around the 28m mark I was then able to find the 35mm frame and note that the weird rectangle was NOT there in the original 35mm theatrical release.

This weird teal rectangle has been on all versions of AOTC going back to the UK and german HDTV broadcasts that we have caps of as well as the initial DVD (and thus very likely initial VHS) release and it has been on all releases since, all the blu-rays and the new UHD and D+. But it is not on the 35mm. It would be easy to imagine the other way around. Some IN used for a print had something dropped across the scanner a bit for a few frames and so any print from that has the blob and then everything from other IN and the digital master does not. But in this case it is like more the opposite.

So potential proof of muddling around with things post theatrical. Almost looks like teal power windows brush hah. I wonder what the story with it is.

It is not the most momentous difference ever hah! And certainly not really the sort of ‘change’ you’d expect at all, looks more like a weird mistake of some sort that apparently got backed in super early post-theatrical (perhaps even for the digital theatrical?) and has been there for at least the whole HDTV through UHD release.

Also, assuming it was not there in the digital theatrical then it also proves that the UHD was also sourced from the same modified for home versions as all the rest and not a going back to an original digital master or anything (again, assuming it was not there in the digital theatrical and I doubt anyone would possibly remember that or have even noticed it if it was there).

And with the UHD also seeming to lack some of the wide gamut insane teals/greenblues found on the 35mm and the odd trace teal blue “A long time ago…” intro text even though UHD CAN show those colors it seems like the early home revisions might have accidentally (?) been done in REC709 and then they were stuck with that gamut unless they were to go back and re-do all the little changes for home??

Here is a snap that Phse3 made of one of the home versions:

And here is the original 35mm:

So what the what is this weird blue blob??:

The Aluminum Falcon said:

IIRC, Roger Ebert hinted at the time that the 35mm prints may have been deliberately struck poorly, with low brightness, density, and saturation, in order to push the thought that digital, which was then poor resolution, was ready as a theatrical format.

The funny thing is I saw amazingly rich looking 35mm prints of AOTC and when I saw it in digital it was uglier and flat and bland (maybe that theater had the digital set up poorly). When I saw TPM digitally it looked good though, really popping at both theaters (one of each projector type).

And the 35mm print of AOTC I see now has reallllly rich colors, super vibrant and saturated and really rich, deep blacks. If you read Lucasfilm stuff they were also bragging about how they had a better process for producing release prints with less film stages.

Barfolomew said:

I increasingly get the feeling one day we’re finally gonna get our hands on the full 70mm cut for viewing and discover it’s virtually identical to the later cut we’re familiar with aside from the redone final scene. I have a theory that the other supposed differences actually come from one of the prints that mistakenly got sent out with “unfinished effects” shots that we’ve also heard murmurs about over the years.

It’s just a hunch and a guess, I could definitely be wrong, but every time we get a chance to see/ hear some more of the 70mm version the expected differences never seem to materialize.

Well it seems you were wrong (although perhaps not about the accidental less finished or not meant to be released ones, that stuff is still open question). Even more wild, it is now proven that there were at least two different versions of ESB in 70mm alone!

I still wonder about a few of the initial batch 70mm for Star Wars…

Thanks to user Phase3 for spotting a weird teal rectangle going across part of the top upper left of a transition between scenes at around the 28m mark I was then able to find the 35mm frame and note that the weird rectangle was NOT there in the original 35mm theatrical release.

This weird teal rectangle has been on all versions of AOTC going at least back to that, German I think?, HDTV broadcast that was captured (and probably it is on VHS then I’d guess).

So definitely proof of muddling around with things post theatrical. Almost looks like teal power windows brush hah. I wonder what the story with it is.

It is not the most momentous difference ever hah! And certainly not really the sort of ‘change’ you’d expect at all, looks more like a weird mistake of some sort that apparently got backed in super early post-theatrical (perhaps even for the digital theatrical?) and has been there for at least the whole HDTV through UHD release.

Also, assuming it was not there in the digital theatrical then it also proves that the UHD was also sourced from the same modified for home versions as all the rest and not a going back to an original digital master or anything (again, assuming it was not there in the digital theatrical and I doubt anyone would possibly remember that or have even noticed it if it was there).

And with the UHD also seeming to lack some of the wide gamut insane teals/greenblues found on the 35mm and the odd trace teal blue “A long time ago…” intro text even though UHD CAN show those colors it seems like the early home revisions might have accidentally (?) been done in REC709 and then they were stuck with that gamut unless they were to go back and re-do all the little changes for home??

Here is a snap that Phse3 made of one of the home versions:

And here is the original 35mm:

So what the what is this weird blue blob??:

All 35mm is meant to be run at 24fps, but anyway there is no such thing as scanning at any fps. All the scanner does is snap each frame perfectly at whatever speed it needs to do it properly. You can then tell playback to run whatever speed you want (although 24.00fps would match the intended cinema speed). If you have Cinema DTS audio it is best to just leave it all at 24fps so you don’t have to stretch the audio and introduce artifacts. If you are gonna combine to home media audio that has often been timed for 23.976 so it is best to leave that audio as is rather than mess with it yet again and just set the metadata so the video is played back at 23.976 (but don’t like have software try to re-render from 24fps down to 23.976 as that adds all sorts of artifacts for no point and takes forever!! just leave it untouched and have the metadata say the video is to be played back at 23.976).

undefined said:

MonkeyLizard10 said:

video sample has been uploaded

Awesome, where could we see?

PM me (it’s already been sent to donors, also keep in mind that the full reels and project will be donors only unlike some of the demo pics and the sample video; I already PM’ed you just now, but for others).

The first actual video sample has been uploaded.
It is 4k wide gamut SDR in HDR wrapper for better compatibility highbitrate HEVC demo with no audio. It does not use the final calibration (although it is at least in the ballpark) and is just a quick test. It has no audio. It is (a non-super wide) open matte sample for a couple minutes or so in the middle or Reel 3.

I just setup a private discussion for all of the donors. If anyone who donated did not receive the message, please PM me.

GT865 said:

i assumed that there were scans but it seems like there aren’t any (at least being shared publicly at best), there maybe could be a print auction but sadly no one seems to have interest to even preserve it, so i’m not holding my breath for this. (not like it was really needed to say that “came as a dick”)

Oh believe me there is tons of interest in doing it (and for other 70mm), but it has just been virtually impossible to do so. Maybe some rich person with a print or someone connected with a 70mm has done a private scan 100% for themselves, but who even knows. 70mm prints are extremely rare to come across. Same for IMAX. Although I did hear that believe it or not a slew of IMAX reels for TFA were apparently up for sale a number of years ago. Man, if only I had known I’d have leapt all over the reel with the expanded full true IMAX scene, something that has never been seen since the original theatrical release and even then by only the small number of us who got to see it on a true IMAX 6P Laser or IMAX film auditorium (and very, very few had this or did this then). IMAX film is especially hard to get fan scans of but it is possible now.

If anyone by any remote chance happens to have that The Force Awakens reel with the expanded ratio Falcon take off and battle on Jakku and wants it scanned… PM!

If you have any sort of decent graphics card you could run an HDMI cable from PC to TV and use PC to drive playback.

Hmmm… I know I had an HD tuner before the 2004 Olympics so I could perhaps have recorded some of it in HD. But it was also on FOX and I think FOX switched really late to OTA HD. I think they stuck with this weird widescreen SD format or something strange the first few years? So not sure it would really even be HD.

Current funding level: $1025 = 81% funded

cnadams said:

I’d like to contribute. Can you PM me please?

I’ve also got a question about if this scan has any extended scenes from the Blu-Ray? I saw JP in a cinema in Darwin Australia and I have memories of 2 extended scenes

1 - Ellie reaches out and grabs the leaf while in the jeep
2 - in the control room escape scene, the raptor pops it head through the roof and looks around. It then cuts into them scrambling and Lex’s panel getting lifted by the raptor.

PM sent
not sure, haven’t checked for that, probably not, doesn’t ring a bell and I’ve not heard of the 35mm version having missing scenes

CatBus said:

I have no opinions on prequel audio.

I haven’t compared them yet really.
I can just say for now that a very brief comparison near the start of AOTC made the Cinema DTS seem to have a bit fuller spatial surround pan when the ship was landing at the start and it is also known in general that it does have a couple dialogue changes (one quick phrase replacement from Padme and the post-Tusken scene is different length between 35mm and home) and maybe felt a bit more impressive (although it does have lossy compression). The home versions probably all got some form of near-field remixing.

JRSSCPRKFAN said:

The problem with most new 35/16mm copies are that you have to pay to watch them. This one will be available freely to anybody who can access Youtube. It also will not take as long, because there’s no hassle of scanning the original prints. This copy will also cost nothing to create. You can get 5 minute scenes on YouTube for free and then just replace the changed shots with an original print. I’m almost finished with the scene on the Tantive IV.

PS. HD=720p

HD also = 1080 or even 2K

I don’t see how you can upload it to Youtube, it would get copyright strike right away.

fallinlight said:

Hope everyone is well. Glad to see the project progressing well.

I found what looks like your project/ the same one on another forum, MonkeyLizard10 and am confused. Is it the same project?

Thanks.
It is also on Discord and the FR website too. I’m guessing you just also saw the same project as here on FR.
There is also a different project that has nothing to do with mine here and on Discord (maybe elsewhere?) as well though.

TylerDurden389 said:

Funny how the Terminator’s origins is about the dangers of A.I. and now Cameron’s movies are being fuddled with even further specifically because of it, lol. Fans have been waiting for these 2 films to be put out on blu-ray for years and now I bet they’re wishing they were released sooner even more now, since the A.I technology didn’t exist 10 years ago or even 5 years ago lol.

While I could be wrong, I could swear the Dolby Cinema 4k theatrical re-release of Titanic around 5 years ago looked a bit more natural than the most recent Dolby Cinema 4k theatrical re-release (the new has the faces sometimes with a slightly weird unanncy effect, crazy detailed and yet something a little odd feeling in some way). I do wonder if maybe they had put that initial DC 4k on the UHD it might have been even better, similar but just withouth the bits of uncanny valley effect creeping in here and there. (Back to The Abyss, although in many ways it won’t match the UHD since it is just a release print (much lower res, etc.) and has none of the special edition scenes and the UHD for this one seems like it might end up near the best of the bunch, I’ll probably try to do a Scanstation level 35mm scan of what I have of the theatrical edition (also missing a reel plus so a something over 20 minutes missing) perhaps middle to later next year or so, but at least much of the theatrical edition would then have a 35mm look as a preservation in addition to the UHD.)

Turisu said:

I’d like to donate to this if donations are still being accepted.

Yes, just sent PM.

Current funding level: $1000 = 80% funded

RC_2543 said:

I’d like to donate

Thanks so much! Just responded to your PM. Had been busy and hadn’t gotten to log in for a couple weeks or so.

stwd4nder2 said:

MJBenito said:

All Jim Cameron’s movies are getting 4K releases over the next months, including A L I E N S and True Lies… And extended cuts of Avatar https://thedigitalbits.com/columns/my-two-cents/111523-0659

Only a month ago I would of expected that link to be Rick Roll or something

yeah
cool news, can’t wait to get all those discs!
on a side note, there will likely be a 4k scan of most of the theatrical edition of The Abyss going next year (print has a missing section)

Current funding level: $948 = 76% funded
been super busy but getting nearer to the stage where the slow rendering out of tens of thousands of final frames can begin

Sorry for the lack of recent updates. Hopefully have an update within a month.

Oh you mean like how those kids back in the 80s re-made Indiana Jones and that sort of thing?
That would be cool. Although in this case it might be funny to have the actors change every few scenes (although I have more recently seen something done alone these lines too).
I wonder if the first film might not be a better bet than this one for that sort of thing though.