Oldfan

Some interesting ideas here for sure. In a way I like the idea above where the theatre itself and seating is visible, but on the other hand, I think the screen size would be maximized by bringing it up full front and center, basically like the smilebox that was done for the blu-rays. I would love to see 2001 mapped onto a true stereoscopic Cinerama screen like I mentioned above, but I'm guessing that might be rather tricky to pull off?

However it's done, I'm definitely interesting in seeing what ends up happening with this idea. Unfortunately I'm not skilled in these areas so I don't know how much help I would be, but I'm certainly interested in seeing what you guys think you can do with this.

Thanks for posting that clip. Fantastic as always. Forgive me if this has already been covered, but is that the cut of the Imperial March that you'll be using in the final version? I've always loved that particular segment of music and wished it was back in the movie where it belongs. I think it seems much more appropriate than the version they ended up using.

Spaced Ranger said:

Oldfan said:

I think considering that 3D is doing somewhat well out there, ... this was a missed opportunity by the studio to use 3D to create the true curved feel of the Cinerama format. They could have mapped out the "smilebox" type of screen, but in 3D, requiring the viewer to use their 3D glasses.

That is an excellent idea, Oldfan! Long Live 3D!
But let's not stop there. I say, as the Cinerama screen of necessity reduces the movie's size, fill in all that new black space with (for example) ... the Vinterpalatset Cinerama (Stockholm) or some other opulent cinema of your choice, viewing from the seat of your choice:

[16x9 sized example would fill your widescreen TV]

Just seeing that picture makes me wish I could see a film like 2001 on a screen like that.

I think considering that 3D is doing somewhat well out there, and considering many tv's now come with it whether you want it or not (my set has 3D but I specifically wanted that feature because I'm a 3D fan myself), this was a missed opportunity by the studio to use 3D to create the true curved feel of the Cinerama format.

They could have mapped out the "smilebox" type of screen, but in 3D, requiring the viewer to use their 3D glasses. The movie itself of course would not be in 3D - it would be 2D, just mapped correctly onto the 3D Cinerama "smilebox" screen. Instead of false curves and distorted angles, it would look like you were actually looking at a true Cinerama curved screen. On a larger 3D tv especially (say 46" or anything larger), this would look stunning. It would be like you were literally looking at a curved Cinerama screen inside your set, with the film being displayed in 2D onto the curved screen as originally intended.

Why have a flat 2D smilebox presentation of a format like Cinerama that just begs for a true 3D curved screen, when so many tv sets now have a true 3D mode, and blu-ray supports 3D? They easily could have included a 3D smilebox version and I bet people would have found it stunning to see a real curved "screen" displaying that film.

Spaced Ranger said:

The above How The West Was Won smilebox was a wrong simulation of Cinerama for a few reasons. First, they cropped the picture -- enough said on that. Second, the screen top/bottom curvature is a circle without it's proper flattened perspective. Third, there is no (or almost none) perspective-compressed picture on the far sides due to the screen curvature. Fourth, they didn't offer me the job to do it right.  :)

This is strange to visualize correctly, so I worked up a graphic to demonstrate the principle:

The picture is the original size source and the full area for the target curved-screen projection. The yellow 146° circle is the true width of the curved screen (ticked off in 10° increments, with the last 6° at the top). The green marker lines are the re-proportioned 3D screen to the 2D projection.

As clearly shown, the equidistant increments of the true screen translate into ever-greater-compressed horizontal picture on the target projection, toward the sides. The picture would first be proportionally resized larger to cover the width of the curvature (one can count the number of pixels per 10° across the top of the curve). Then it is horizontally resized into smaller widths of the target strips. (This demonstration shows only broad adjustment strips. The actual processing would be for resizing narrower strips for pixel-wide target strips.) That's for the horizontal.

The vertical is similarly approached with the resized height of each pixel-wide target strip to follow how much the circular screen is perspectively flattened (top and bottom need not be the same -- in fact, the bottom should be less and the top, more, to correspond to the best stadium-seat position).

Just thought I'd mention this bit of information from the wikipedia article for How the West was Won:

"Even though the aspect ratio of Cinerama was 2:59:1, Warner's new BD and DVD releases of the film offer an aspect ratio of 2.89:1, incorporating image information on both sides that was never meant to be seen when projected. The BD-exclusive SmileBox alternative has the intentional cropping intact."

Also, a mention of this from hidefdigest.com about the blu-ray:

"The Letterbox version has a slight bit more picture information on the left and right sides of the frame than the Smilebox does. According to David Strohmaier (director of the "Cinerama Adventure" documentary), this was done intentionally. During the video transfer, Warner scanned each camera negative from edge to edge, including parts of the frame that would never be seen during Cinerama projection. The studio opted to include all of that image in the Letterbox presentation as a sort of "bonus material," while the Smilebox version retains the small amount of cropping as it would have been seen in a Cinerama theater."

So their Smilebox version sounds like the image was correctly framed as it was meant to be projected - the non-smilebox version contains additional information that wasn't meant to be seen during projection. So they didn't crop it incorrectly from the sounds of this.

Also, there's some interesting info on this smilebox presentation over on this site:

http://www.hometheater.com/content/aspect-ratio-oddities-page-2

"According to David Strohmaier, director of the Cinerama Adventure documentary contained on the Blu-ray Disc, SmileBox was created with input from the American Society of Cinematographers (ASC) and some top visual-effects talent in Los Angeles. The process was designed to re-create the viewpoint of a seat in the 12th to 14th rows of the Seattle Cinerama theater."

Perhaps they faced some technical issues that made their decisions the best choice? It sure sounds like they spent an awful lot of effort handling this smilebox transfer - it wasn't just done on a whim.

I think it's a crying shame that this isn't allowed to be released for the fans. Thank you very much for posting what you felt you were allowed to. I understand your predicament. But this shows just how wrong our endless copyright thing is. We don't even have a public domain anymore. We need copyright reform big time. This will sit locked away in some guy's closet forever. What a shame.

Harmy, I was trying to download your comparison shots you posted on that paradoxical site, and I got the following message from the file hoster:

"The file you attempted to download is an archive that is part of a set of archives. MediaFire does not support unlimited downloads of split archives and the limit for this file has been reached. MediaFire understands the need for users to transfer very large or split archives, up to 10GB per file, and we offer this service starting at $1.50 per month.

We have informed the owner that sharing of this file has been limited and how they can resolve this issue."

Can this be corrected?

SilverWook said:

And I thought Spaceballs was the first to do the bumper sticker gag! ;)

Well in the original 1979 Battlestar Galactica pilot episode, one of the ships in the "rag-tag fugitive fleet" had  a huge logo on the side that read "Colonial Movers - We Move Anywhere".

Harmy, I'm anxiously awaiting the 2.1 version like many others. You've been a busy man. Thanks for keeping us informed in the thread.

Monroville said:

Bingowings said:

Your top example is nearest in light conditions to the ESB:R image and there I see blueish snow and orangey skin.

What is different is a white light source aimed behind the standing figure which I can only assume was added by the photographer.

Ady could add a faux light source to the shot but it would create an issue of continuity which might throw up ugly lit shots either side of this one.

We really have to see these shots in context to appreciate them.

Ady is generous with his previews but it does lead to a lot of navel gazing, only some of which is of value (though it's impossible to tell which is unless you are working at the chalkface so it's best to keep eyeballing that belly button lint).

Ah boy... Bingo, I'm not going to get pulled into a back-and-forth.  I stated fairly clearly that the reason the boy has normal skin tone is because the light source is above and behind the camera, lighting the boy and the ground immediately behind him.  It's a fill light (similar to the scene in SCARFACE when Tony is making the call after the chainsaw scene on the pier.  With the orange setting sun behind him, DePalma needed a fill light so you could see him and the background sunset.  If there wasn't a fill light on the kid, he would be extremely dark as the picture was exposed to get the surrounding landscape).

Regardless, maybe it's just a thing to see in motion.  I'm just saying I'm not sure if Luke would have such reddish skin tone if the surrounding ambient light is dark blue.

Even so, you can be insulting and call this navel gazing, but the entire point (I thought) of Ady posting such pictures was to get feedback and ideas.  I can't make Ady change anything, but I can provide my personal perspective.  That is all.

What is interesting is that it looks like EMPIRE:R is going back to the look of the 2004 dvd (at least with the specific "Luke sees Obi Wan" scene):

Adywan's The Empire Strikes Back: Revisited - Lukes Rescue (go to 2:40)

EMPIRE:Revisited:

EMPIRE: 2004 dvd:

 

I do find this one shot to be a concern. In the old comparison video you linked to, the snow looks white. I never liked the whole "snow should look blue" thing. I'm surprised this shot is turning out so blue when it was previously shown to be corrected. I wonder what the reasoning is?

EDIT: Just read Adywan's comments further down. I guess the saturation was over-boosted in the captures? And I guess there was always some blue in those shoots. I guess I've just never been a fan of the blue snow look myself.

Perfect. That's what I needed. Thanks for the info.

I just learned about these transfers, and am very excited about hearing them. What would I be looking for on a.b.sw? What are the files listed as? I'm interested in the soundtrack and story albums.

Bingowings said:

I guess he went to see Meteor (1979) between Star Wars films.

I'll take Meteor over Armageddon any day. I wasn't aware that Abrams wrote the screenplay to Armageddon. That's very unfortunate.

Bingowings said:

The caption for the lead picture here is priceless.

That is indeed priceless. Gee, I don't seem to remember that shot from ROTJ - hmm, maybe it was a new CGI shot made just for the blu-rays. It looks about as realistic.

Even funnier is they have the "screenshot" oriented wrong - it's supposed to be vertical. Just hilarious.

Some thoughts after hearing the news:

I'm not thrilled with the idea. I don't like how both the Star Trek and Star Wars franchises are both being directed by the same person. It would be better for fans if the two different franchises were allowed to show different styles, from two different directors' talents. Instead, there's no denying that the new Star Wars films will feel similar to Star Trek 2009.

I'm not a big fan of Star Trek 2009. I was impressed with the casting, as far as the actors nailing the performances, but I hated the script, I hated how they rewrote Star Trek history, and I hated all the juvenile action and the lack of a captivating villain. Nero was uninspiring and his reasons for wanting vengeance didn't make much sense, nor did his actions.

I can't stand Abrams' use of lens flares. I was surprised to read this earlier today:

http://io9.com/5230278/jj-abrams-admits-star-trek-lens-flares-are-ridiculous

In this article he admits that he went overboard with the lens flares. He also explained how he went to such great lengths to create the abundant lens flares - I thought he used CGI, but no - he did them all in camera - often pointing huge lights at the camera off-frame to create them. This is a very strange  thing to obsess over, and I recently tried to re-watch Star Trek 2009 on cable and just changed the channel because the lens flares were literally so distracting that I wasn't in the mood. I loved Super 8 but it also had the same issue with lens flares - it's overwhelming and actually distracts the viewer.

I really hope he dials way way back on that effect - the last thing this new Star Wars series needs is something like that to weigh it down. It already has a lot to go up against like the failures of the prequels.

We'll have to just wait and see I guess - I think he's a competent director overall. But Disney needs to tell him to back off the lens flares, seriously. The thing I worry about most is in the end, Star Trek and Star Wars will be done by the same director, and will look too similar. It seems like a safe choice since his films seem to do well, but it probably isn't the best choice. I do like Fringe a lot, I've followed it since the first episode, so there's hope. I think Super 8 showed his love for the old 70s/80s films - it felt very nostalgic, even though there were some inconsistencies regarding the dates of some of the featured props like the Walkman and the Rubik's cube. Perhaps he will treat the new Star Wars with the same type of dignity, though he didn't do that so well for Star Trek.

pat man said:

This was from a fan on the https://www.facebook.com/swrevisited page named Ivan.

 

Ady, did you consider to make ESB:R a little more brighter and crisper?

For example..

http:// screenshotcomparison.com/ comparison/159801

http:// screenshotcomparison.com/ comparison/159802
http:// screenshotcomparison.com/ comparison/159803
http:// screenshotcomparison.com/ comparison/159805

I raised shadows/highlights and added some sharpness (and a bit of grain). Obviously it brings an issue with crushed blacks but still looks nice. Just saying =)

 

Very interesting results. In the last pic the planet actually looks less washed out and reveals some additional detail. Also, the pics of Vader in his chamber do seem to look better with the tweaked brightness. Of course I wonder how the final film will actually look. Screenshots are one thing, but will ESB:R actually look like those original screens? They do seem a bit too dark when compared with the "fixed" screens, but our eyes have a funny way of playing tricks on us. Just because it's different doesn't mean it's better. And black crush is certainly something to avoid.

I do however think that just based on those screenshots, the tweaked brightness does seem to appear better. Of course would we be able to do achieve the same thing with our tv sets if we wanted to? My set has lots of "dynamic" auto adjustments that sometimes help and sometimes hurt.

greedo said:

Could be worse, what if it's Michael Bay.

In that case you could certainly count on getting lots of explosions. And car chases. Space car chases.

1990osu said:

In the months before Disney announced it would acquire "Star Wars" studio Lucasfilm, several different screenwriters paid visits to Lucasfilm's Northern California compound to pitch George Lucas and his co-chair Kathleen Kennedy their ideas for the new live-action installment, the series' seventh, according to a person familiar with the talks who requested anonymity because he was not authorized to talk about them. The screenwriters were pitching ideas for a new story, not ones adapted from existing "Star Wars" books.

The person did not reveal the identities of the people who had met with Lucas and Kennedy but said they were well-known screenwriters with experience creating big-budget Hollywood films. A spokeswoman for Lucasfilm on Wednesday did not return a call seeking comment.

 

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/moviesnow/la-et-mn-1101-star-wars-films-20121101,0,1009100.story

 

 

Gawker's Magary compared his love for the franchise to "rooting for a sports team that never wins anything (or more accurately, a sports team that won three titles 30 years ago and hasn't won a game since)."

I'm 100% certain that any new films will be new stories, not from any existing books. People can just get that idea of their minds - they have already made this pretty obvious.

Jaitea said:

I dont think he hates the fans who desire to have the Original's back, it's the fact that if the Original films were to be re-scanned at the quality that restorers use now usually 4K (Recently Raiders of the Lost Ark) or 8K (Wizard of Oz), they would be incredibly superior to the scans that he made in the 90's that he has been using right up to now for the BD release, which were roughly 2K.

All the CG additions from the 97SE, the 2004DVD & the Horrific BD versions were all tooled at 2K to suit the canvas they were working on.....all this work would be very hard to reintegrate into a higher scan....it would mean starting again.

If it was me.....I'd probably do the same.....right I'm out of here,....Disney, good luck with that!

J

Just the money spent on the latest bunch of digital changes for blu-ray probably could have covered a good part of a proper and full restoration of the original untouched films. Many have stepped up to bat to offer their professional services. Certainly with the money they have spent since the SE first hit they could have surely done a proper new restoration. And since we are really only interested in the original untouched version, he wouldn't have to re-create all the SE CGI effects again, like what Start Trek: The Motion Picture is facing.

Lucas is a strange one. On the one hand he is clearly a very generous man. He is a very intelligent businessman. I like his stance on the importance of education and his desire to help it improve any way he can. And he also has demonstrated in the past his desire to protect films so that future generations can enjoy them.

Yet then look at what he has done to the fans regarding the original trilogy.  You can't even catch the originals on tv anymore for crying out loud, since he won't allow it. Why does he have such hate for us all? Granted we have thrown a lot of hate his way over recent years. But much of that is because he's denying us the one thing we've been asking for since the dawn of DVD. Many of us were bitter, or have become bitter over the years, about the quality of the prequels. That cannot be undone. But I think we can all agree that if he had released this recent blu-ray collection with the original trilogy intact, as originally released, all would have been forgiven. Instead he's given us another reason to feel like he hates us.

Of course the first three need to be remade badly. The next three don't.

Mike O said:

Oldfan said:

Yet how many just on this site would buy the originals on blu-ray on day one? And not just this site. While probably the majority of people are mostly unaware that there have been so many drastic changes over the years to the films, a very large number of people are both aware and bitter about it, which is obvious from reading this news all over the web. That's a lot of people, all who would likely buy the originals if they were made available.

"And not just on this site." It mostly is just this site, I think. People on Internet forums aren't representative of the average person.

Go read the comments on arstechnica. There are several articles on this news since it was announced, with pages of users' comments following each one. There are tons of comments hoping for the untouched originals to get a release eventually due to the news. That's not a Star Wars forum, it's a tech site.

jboo7ohmss said:

Well of course Disney will want to make some home video money, but what will stop them from just re-releasing the SE's? The Blu-ray sold well and has proven that the overwhelming majority will not care if they get the originals or not. There really isn't much demand for the originals and it would cost more money to clean them up and restore them than it would to just reissue the SE's which are already ready. It's not like theres tons of extra money to be made by releasing the originals like some people seem to think. They could make just as much money by re-releasing the SE's, maybe more b/c they won't have to have the originals restored, so it seems very unlikely that this improves our chances of getting an official OUT release.

I disagree. Tons of people bought the blu-ray set. Why would they possibly want to purchase them again if not for something really special? Would anybody in here actually buy another blu-ray set just for maybe a couple new extras or different packaging?

Yet how many just on this site would buy the originals on blu-ray on day one? And not just this site. While probably the majority of people are mostly unaware that there have been so many drastic changes over the years to the films, a very large number of people are both aware and bitter about it, which is obvious from reading this news all over the web. That's a lot of people, all who would likely buy the originals if they were made available.

nightstalkerpoet said:

New interview with Lucas biographer:

http://www.thewrap.com/movies/column-post/star-wars-7-8-and-9-are-most-exciting-says-george-lucas-biographer-exclusive-63006

The next in the series, he said, involve Luke Skywalker in his 30s and 40s, but Lucas was unlikely to turn to Mark Hamill, who played Luke in the original but whose performance left the director dissatisfied.

Good thing Lucas went with better actors for his prequels.

xhonzi said:

TheBoost said:

I remain mostly optimistic. 

• Worst case scenario, anything Disney makes is poor to mediocre. So are most movies. I'd rather watch a mediocre Star Wars movie than "Battleship."

 

 I'm not disagreeing with you... but have you seen Battleship?

Oh, and welcome back!  TheSluggo has missed you.

Battleship gets a lot of criticism, but I think a lot of it is by those who haven't seen it. I was very impressed with it, and I think the story is capable of going deeper than many think, depending on how you look at it (hint: the invaders are not the bad guys - just look at how everything in the film develops and then decide who are the bad guys).