HotRod said:
That's the thing...the only 77 version I have is the dvd release...and let's be honest...the quality isn't that good.
Have you seen DarkJedi's corrected version of the GOUT? It looks pretty darn good, even on my 58" screen. WAY, WAY better than the released DVDs.
Moth3r said:
Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:
I found myself hoping that the Purist version kept the scene in its original order.
The Purist Edition does have Ben's hut scene dialogue in the original order (according to the wiki).
Hmm, my alleged copy of Purist must actually be another copy of Revisited then. It sounds like I need to get a copy of Purist!
You must start with 4 and 5. Any other order destroys the drama of the best parts of the series because there are too many spoilers. The others are all just candy, but 4 and 5 are the soul of the saga, and must be seen first.
Perhaps this is off-topic, given the way this thread has veered ...
I may be the only person that didn't particularly care for the re-edit of the scene in Ben's hut. Certainly no offense meant to Adywan as otherwise I loved ReVisited and Purist. It's just my personal opinion, but seeing Ady's version made me wonder if that was indeed the way it was originally, but during editing they found that by changing the order it made things more emotionally intense. The way it was originally released was masterful editing, the sort of editing that wins academy awards for editing... Ben starts out this crusty old fool, but then when he sees Leia's hologram, the light comes back on and he's back in Jedi mode, and the scene ends with his heavy conversation with Luke - everything is changed and the pressure is on.
Putting it back, although cleaner, took some of the steam out of the scene for me. Although it was interesting, I found myself hoping that the Purist version kept the scene in its original order.
Alexrd said:
He can afford it, but doesn't want to because he is still the one who decides what to do with his money. He has other plans, and some people actually like TPM and Jar Jar, be it 2D or 3D. Deal with it.
Yeah, at the end of the day, that's what it comes down to. No rhyme, no reason, just "they're his films so he'll do what he wants". We already know that. It doesn't make it suck any less.
Editroid said:
Is there any Mac software that can allow me to restore and remaster movies in the same way that most studios clean up the video and sound quality for new releases of their movies? In other words, a way to restore the 2006 non-anamorphic Star Wars movies to be close to the quality of the 2004 DVDs?
Studios don't use a VHS or DVD version of a film as the basis for their restoration. The reason restorations can look so much better, is because they are working directly off of a pristine film print. There's only so much improvement that can be done off of a lousy digital master.
I agree that 3D is the future of movies. But Star Wars isn't the future of movies... they are classic movies (well, at least the OT are). Avatar in 3D was wonderful. The Godfather in 3D is not.
Jar Jar in 3D... I can't wait!
Did I did it?
A B C said:
Your thread title is still missing the "t" ?
What's the best way to fix a thread title without starting a whole new thread?
"Making of" documentary finished. Next task: the menu.
zombie84 said:
Puggo, can you post a pics of the raw, uncorrected caps of the scenes? Do you still have them?
Yes of course I still have the raw captures. I'll try to grab a Greedo frame some time this week.
Harmy said:
If the print had a pink colour shift, colour-correcting it might have made the whites slightly creamy/yellowish. Or they're just faded...
Well now, that's the trick, isn't it? How do you know what it is supposed to be? I did do quite a bit of color correction on the PG, but without a reliable reference source, it really comes down to a judgement call. Also, there is only so much color correction you can do before it starts cutting into detail and making the faces look sickly.
Anchorhead said:
That said: The truth is, it was all luck of the draw. We get here whenever we get here. So while I got to be part of the Star Wars phenomenon of 1977 - I'm also going to turn 50 before most of you. That can be a sobering thought.
Unfortunately, I beat you by a few months :(
But yeah, being 17 at that time was perfect. I could go see it whenever I wanted, and looking bad I am so lucky I got to see it on the big screens.
Having said that, everyone can cite something in their lives for which they are grateful they happened to be at the right age to participate. My cousin was at Woodstock, for example. I was the wrong age to see the King Oliver Creole band with a young Louis Armstrong on the cornet, or to see Chick Webb pound Gene Krupa into submission in their famous Battle of the Bands, or Buddy Bolden's band ... things for which there are no recordings or film.
Bonus feature complete.
Next I need to create a short "making of", similar to the one on PG.
Then it's on to the menu.
Actually it was pure ignorance. They thought it was a scene from the original 1977 release, and chose it as the clearest example of why the effects back then were poor by today's standards. To me, it is just more evidence of the degree to which the additions lessened the quality of the films.
none said:
The idea that articles, books, documentaries praise the advancements in technology the OT made, but then they show a picture from the SE.
The reverse can be even more poignant. The Don and Mike show (radio) once was discussing how primitive the effects were back in 1977. They used the Jabba scene as their example!
Oops, you're right. I thought the "t" was missing in the initial subtitle, but I just checked again and the "t" was there.
Great find with the Swedish poster! You wouldn't happen to have that in hi-res would you? I could use it for the menu.
The "bonus feature" has been captured, sound and video. I'll sync the sound with the video later today.
At this point, I'm thinking I'll either call the disc "Sjarnornas Krig", or I'll call it the "Puggo Swedish Edition". Any preferences one way or the other?
zombie84 said:
Puggo, maybe this was brought up in the 22 pages of this thread, but I haven't come across it on your website or in the recent pages. But I'm curious what sort of camera you have been using for the captures. My second question was if it isn't an HD camera, would you ever consider modding the workprinter to install one? Because I really think it could make a difference, especially ESB which looks like it has more detail than the Star Wars reels. The release needn't necessarily be in HD itself.
Yes, it has been discussed quite a bit on the thread. My WorkPrinter as configured won't keep up with an HD camera. The mods necessary are significant, and listed at www.moviestuff.tv.
The camera I use is a TRV-900, which is 3-chip but not HD. It's not the best camera in the world, but it does have manual focus, very good low-light performance, and decent white balance and aperature control. It is a popular camera for this sort of work. I have a good, dark room in which to do the captures. There would be a slight but not necessarily noticeable improvement if I switched to something like an XL2 or a VX2100. But it still wouldn't be an HD capture.
It is my opinion that the expense to upgrade to HD isn't warranted given the condition and other more important "issues" of the 16mm films. We're faking the scope capture in software. The cropping inherent in the film is horrendous (something like 15%). There are furballs fixed into the print. Most have varying degrees of red shift. There are many missing frames.
There will always be ways to make slight improvements. But in summary, I'm not willing to invest in the HD mods to upgrade a crap into a turd. :)
By the way, I did have the WorkPrinter modified to have the gate enlarged which is necessary for working with scope prints.
Empire will be a challenging transfer - more challenging than SW. The snow scenes on Hoth will probably take several passes to get right. They were really difficult in super8, and ended up a bit crushed. I'll be more careful with the 16mm version. If the prints are as good as reported, I'm hoping the end result will be better. But I know already it won't be easy.
Thanks for the kind words!
Rattlehead said:
Out of ten replies there was, what, one serious one?
With all due respect, you have yet to provide a single reason why we should be rushing to meet you.
kenkraly2007 said:
...everyone is worried about what the quallity of the blu-rays are going to look like and they are assuming they are going to be tearable...
Hmm, that sounds about right.
FYI, Firefox is reporting savestarwars.com as a malicious site. It states:
Of the 9 pages we tested on the site over the past 90 days, 1 page(s) resulted in malicious software being downloaded and installed without user consent. The last time Google visited this site was on 2010-09-16, and the last time suspicious content was found on this site was on 2010-09-16.
Malicious software includes 2 scripting exploit(s). Successful infection resulted in an average of 3 new process(es) on the target machine.
Reel 3 finished.
Starting to work on the "bonus feature".