logo Sign In

Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda

User Group
Members
Join date
20-Sep-2006
Last activity
7-Feb-2024
Posts
3,220
Web Site
http://www.hardbat.com/puggo

Post History

Post
#322038
Topic
Info: another 16mm print of SW on eBay
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/322038/action/topic#322038
Time
digitalfreaknyc said:

by the way...I don't think I've ever seen this trailer before...

anyone know anyhting about it?

http://cgi.ebay.com/Movie-Trailer-Star-Wars-35mm-Film-B-W-1977-George-Lucas_W0QQitemZ200233935654QQihZ010QQcategoryZ63821QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem#ebayphotohosting

 

That looks very interesting.  I have no way of scanning it, myself, but it's short enough that it shouldn't be very expensive to pay someone to scan it. Heck, it looks so short that it might be scannable by hand (although that doesn't work for the sound).  It might be worth asking the seller if he has any further information about it.

Post
#321672
Topic
Info: another 16mm print of SW on eBay
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/321672/action/topic#321672
Time

Just FYI, I can't scan 35mm.  But hopefully someone out there gets it, and can... if the auction survives to the end.

The bidders' names as a**b is eBay's clever way of making more money. I have a friend who's a museum curator, and when he saw something he wanted for the museum, he would put in an early (low) bid.  Other potential bidders would often then choose not to bid, both out of respect for the museum and because they knew he'd outbid them anyways. So eBay would get less commission on the lower-priced sale.  It also stops bidders from colluding - something I did myself, several times.  A couple of times I was bidding on a 16mm film, and told another bidder if he let me win, I'd make a DVD copy of it for him for free.  Most of them just wanted it so they could have a DVD transfer made anyways (an additional expense), so they were often happy to oblige and we'd save each other a huge amount of money.  I'm quite sure eBay didn't like that sort of thing.

Post
#321398
Topic
The Special Edition wasn't needed.
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/321398/action/topic#321398
Time
There is a reason that deleted scenes are deleted... the movie is better off without them. They're fun to see as an extra, but not as part of the movie. In the case of SW, the main deleted scenes (Jabba and Biggs) were so poorly scripted and acted, it's no wonder they were deleted. That GL deleted them is testament to what a good director he was then. Putting them back in weakens the film and is proof that he has lost his eye for what's good and bad in a film.

Changing the special effects further ruins it by distancing it from itself and covering-up the original work. The film that won academy awards and changed everyone's thinking was the masterpiece... the SE is a weird and inferior mish-mash - it isn't the masterpiece and it didn't revolutionize anything. It's basically a fan-edit.
Post
#320869
Topic
Info: another 16mm print of SW on eBay
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/320869/action/topic#320869
Time
PaulisDead2221 said:


Nah hell with it. Damn thing was too dark anyway. Anyone see the screenshot of the X-Wings making their assault on a giant washed out pool of black?

Holy moly... 1600+, that was more than I was imagining it would go for.

It was very difficult to tell much about the print from the pictures that were posted. My guess based on what I saw was that it was an excellent print, as good as is likely to turn up on ebay.
Post
#320848
Topic
Info: another 16mm print of SW on eBay
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/320848/action/topic#320848
Time
The main interest in this film is that it is a window in time. If it's on film, and it doesn't have ANH in the crawl, then it is pre lots of other tinkering too. We would know it contains nothing that was added or changed for the saga, or "improved" for the laserdisc. THAT is what is interesting about it... not that it's going to generate a better quality image.

As far as fixing things up in post, by far the biggest factor in getting a good transfer is the film capture itself. There's only so much you can do, even if you're a wiz in avisynth, if you start with a ho-hum scan. I regularly use a half-dozen avisynth filters on my film and video restorations (including deshaker), and they all can really only be used very conservatively before they start producing artifacts of their own.
Post
#320792
Topic
Info: another 16mm print of SW on eBay
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/320792/action/topic#320792
Time
I think you all should be realistic about how great this 16mm transfer could be. Let's remember that the GOUT is the result of a very high end scan of a 35mm print. Yeah, I know it also got a bit mangled along the way, and it's not anamorphic. But can we really expect to give a 16mm print to the local shop (or even to me) and have it come back better than the GOUT? Like I said, it is likely to be VERY interesting for research, is likely to have some pleasing qualities, an intriguing soundtrack, and who knows what cool little surprises here and there... heck if it has the original crawl, who knows what else it has? But it also is likely to have some noticeable film grain, color fading issues, problems on the borders, scratches, inferior sound, uneven lighting, poor blacks and whites, and who knows what other imperfections.

The whole reason I do my own 16mm/8mm transfers is because after years of hiring a variety of shops do them for me, I finally decided if you want something done decently you have to do it yourself. Now I see all the flaws in my own work, and worse when I see the horrors other people get back from the "local pro". So all I have to say is, although I know I can produce something very cool out of a decent 16mm print, don't expect the holy grail no matter who does the transfer - unless someone here has access to a real meticulous Hollywood top-end film scan (which I highly doubt). For one thing it would cost considerably more than the print itself, if you could even get such a shop to do it.

That said, I hope someone from this forum wins. It would be a REALLY fun project.
Post
#320691
Topic
Info: another 16mm print of SW on eBay
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/320691/action/topic#320691
Time
PaulisDead2221 said:

I went into a video productions service place near where I live. They will do a 16mm tele-cine of the film if I bring it in. They can capture it on an HDV tape, and provide a 1080i transfer of the film stock on the tape.

Make sure they're doing a frame-by-frame transfer, and not just pointing a camera at a projection. Most transfer houses don't do frame-by-frame because it's considerably slower and thus less cost-effective.

If you guys do get the film, I'd certainly like a shot at it. Since I'd be doing it as a "fan", and not as a business, I'd likely put more time into transferring each scene as best I could, rather than just letting it run and walking away to do other jobs.
Post
#320575
Topic
Info: another 16mm print of SW on eBay
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/320575/action/topic#320575
Time
Dunedain said:

Puggo: Would it be possible to replace the lens you have now with an anamorphic one, if someone could loan you one for this project, so the print could be captured in an anamorphic resolution/aspect ratio (not sure what the correct technical term here is), and thus be anamorphically enhanced on the eventual DVD transfer?

I believe not. Check out www.moviestuff.tv and look up the 16mm Workprinter. I doubt that an anamorphic lens is compatible with the large projection lens positioned after it. The best I can do is capture the entire image full frame (which would be vertically stretched, I believe), and then change the aspect ratio in post. Thus one dimension would be full resolution, and the other wouldn't. It still should look pretty good... I'd have to learn how best to encode for anamorphic playback. I'm sure there are people here who could help me with that.
Post
#320540
Topic
Info: another 16mm print of SW on eBay
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/320540/action/topic#320540
Time
Wait a day or so before going crazy bidding... I've got a lead on a print that I might start transfering this month. I've sent a message to the individual in an attempt to determine if the one on eBay is better quality or not. I should be able to report back tomorrow. There's still 3 days left in the auction.

And please don't expect 1080p from my Workprinter. Although 16mm film can indeed produce great results, you'd need a higher-end scanner (like the one GL has apparently mothballed - heh) to achieve THAT.
Post
#320533
Topic
Info: another 16mm print of SW on eBay
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/320533/action/topic#320533
Time
boba feta said:

Can it be fitted with one?

I don't think so, because it probably wouldn't correctly project through the external lens. (see http://www.moviestuff.tv/wp16_series.html). I did a little browsing on the web, and it seems that many people who are doing their own transfers of anamorphic super8 self-shot film are using Workprinters and converting in post. I'm not sure what's the most effective way to do that to get the best DVD conversion quality, but it's probably pretty straightforward.
Post
#320532
Topic
Info: another 16mm print of SW on eBay
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/320532/action/topic#320532
Time
Erikstormtrooper said:

Since Puggo can only capture at DV resolution, would the end result be much different from the GOUT?

I wouldn't recommend that anyone loan me a 16mm film with the expectation that the result will be better than the GOUT... it almost surely won't. Any value in transferring a 16mm print would be mainly for research purposes, as was the case for the 8mm Puggo Edition. And I suppose there could be interest in the soundtrack.
Post
#320499
Topic
Info: another 16mm print of SW on eBay
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/320499/action/topic#320499
Time
Dunedain said:

In fact, Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda offered to use his 16mm Workprinter to effectively scan in a print of Star Wars at high resolution if someone could provide him with one.

Indeed, although I'm not exactly sure what "high resolution" means. I don't have hi-def capability - the Workprinter scans are frame-by-frame at normal DV resolution. Also, the Workprinter doesn't have an anamorphic lens, which means I'd have to fake that in post.