perkyporker said:
I've recently acquired a piece of equipment that will capture 16mm film and it''s audio really well.
Exactly what piece of equipment do you have?
I'd like to see a debate between kenkraly and generalfrievous.
none said:
In anticipation of a someone or a group attempting to do a shot by shot something, i've been creating a spreadsheet which lists every shot and people can take this and begin to document their progress.
Yes, you've put together an amazing resource for longterm efforts like this.
Yeah I've often thought that an OT.com conference would be awesome. The problem is we're spread out all over the world. And many of us don't have a lot of money. Hmm, maybe we can get George to sponsor it....
The GOUT *is* a transfer of a 35mm print. It's just an extremely poor DVD encoding of that transfer.
Tighe said:
I was born in 1975, so I didn't see Star Wars when it was first run anyways. I saw it just before ESB with my older brother.
I understand that is why, to you, original means all scratched and dirty. But that is part of the reason why so many people confuse the SE as restoration versus the SE as revision. Many Lucas apologists say that we should be happy with the GOUT because that's how it was in the theater - low res and cruddy. The truth is that the ORIGINAL release was not low-res and cruddy, it was sharp and clean and spectacular. So when we say there should be a proper restoration of the OT, we mean restored to its original form AND its original brilliance.
Now having said that, my version (the Puggo Grande) is made from a 1977 16mm print. So it's original. And it's scratched up the way some people saw it in theaters after years of abuse, so you might find it nostalgic. But just to be clear I must insist that that's not how it looked when I saw it in theaters in 1977.
Harmy said:
Because instead of showing someone calmly stating what the problem is and why we're so upset about it, it shows a bunch of nerds ranting very loudly about Han shooting first.
I wondered if my clip wasn't used because it was too calm, not entertaining enough. But I haven't seen the doc yet, so I'm not really in a position to say.
danny_boy said:
Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:
Tighe said:
Thanks! I don't even care if it is restored, a direct transfer would be fine with me. Dirt, scratches, and dots are all fine! That is what it was like in the theater! ;-)
That is what it was like in the theater AFTER the films had been played hundreds of times and got worn. The best prints in the best theaters on opening day would have looked sharper than blu ray, and sounded better too.
Not according to George Lucas:
The audience will get a brand new print(1997 special edition) that’s very clean and actually better than the original release(1977 print) in terms of technical quality. It’s less grainy, it’s less dirty, and it’s just a better print.(than the 1977 print)
Regarding the sound:
Now we’re able to deliver even better than the seventy-millimeter quality with the new digital release in a range of sound that was not possible before.”
My best technical response to that is: yeah, right.
Tighe said:
Thanks! I don't even care if it is restored, a direct transfer would be fine with me. Dirt, scratches, and dots are all fine! That is what it was like in the theater! ;-)
That is what it was like in the theater AFTER the films had been played hundreds of times and got worn. The best prints in the best theaters on opening day would have looked sharper than blu ray, and sounded better too.
I would suggest spending some time reading the various threads in the preservation section. There are many different versions depending on what you're looking for.
avoidz said:
Back to the doco... I'm not sure why there was so much time spent on the Raiders of the Lost Ark fan remake. The section dealt with fan films, but the Raiders bit seemed out of place. This is about Star Wars.
I thought it was about George Lucas... wasn't it?
For me it was her saying "poppy! poppy!" while staggering towards him, and imagining what would be going through a father's mind at that time. What an intensely nightmarish scene.
Jar Jar and the other stupid things in the prequels (midichlorians, creepy puppet yoda, bad love scenes) save them from just being boring. That's why I prefer them over "good" fan edits. I'd rather see something that sucks than something that is boring.
Harmy said:
If I want to track the subs movement, it's sort of a package deal, you can't track something less, it just doesn't work that way. I would have to create the shake artificially in order to make the subs less shaky.
Perhaps in those scenes that have burned in subs, the sub shake would look more natural if the shake in the rest of the image were also maintained.
The point is that if both the frame and the subs are wobbling independently, but limited to some small range, stabilizing the entire thing based on ONE of the two wobbles can cause the other wobble to increase. That would happen at each instant where the wobble of one was opposite the wobble of the other. At that moment, if you stabilize one, the wobble of the other is lengthened.
So, if you don't want to decrease the wobble of the one that isn't being stabilized, then the only way to avoid that is to not stabilize the other.
Mielr said:
TServo2049 said:
Dracula '79: another film shot by Gil Taylor that's had its colors screwed up on re-releases...:)
...and with music by John Williams! ;-)
It also has one of the seriously creepiest scenes in all of movie history... when the guy meets his vampire daughter in the sewer. One of the few scenes I have avoided watching again.
Erikstormtrooper said:
About the shake on the subtitles: If the picture element was shaking when the subtitles were originally added, then you've got 2 elements shaking independently. It's possible that by stabilizing the frame, the relative shake of the subtitles will be worse. I think the shake is good, but maybe you can just have a little less of it.
Hmm, that's actually a very interesting point. Harmy, have you considered that possibility?
Adding grain is a bit like dithering in audio... an image that is overly perfect might be made more visually pleasing by a tiny, even unnoticeable amount of noise. It is possible that the grain is a sort of inherent dithering that makes film so pleasing on the eye. That said, if grain still exists in the OT sources, its hard to believe that artificial grain would do anything but degrade the image slightly.
Fake hairs, dirt, and scratches rarely look real, and I'd avoid them. Mouse droppings, however...
Looks like some crushed whites in the new ones. Hmm, maybe the term is more properly "slightly blown".
But Ginge, he didn't apply a shake to the video from the recent screening - he removed the shake from the main image so that the original shake could be revealed.
I wonder how stable the original image really is. If the entire frame on a projected typical movie in a typical theater often has some small amount of bobble, it could certainly make other smaller shakes within it less noticeable, meaning that a rock-solid unwavering main image would make internal shakes more visible.
For example, I considered stabilizing the Puggo Grande, but I concluded that it was wobbly relative to its own sprocket holes, and even relative to its own framing. Meaning that either the original film was wobbly, or the reduction to 16mm was wobbly. So I left it alone for fear that there was some possibility that I would be removing wobble that was in the original film, or that I could introduce new wobble by using the sprocket holes. The truth is, there's no way of knowing how stable the original frame is without careful analysis of an original 35mm print.
Harmy, if you have time to render a version without the shake, it could be useful for other projects (like a sort of deleted scene). But I agree that your version should have the shake because it sounds like it was there relative to the original image behind it. It also preserves history because it shows that people could expect to see subs that drifted on top of the image in the 1970s.
Harmy said:
I even stabilized the PG footage and then tracked the shake on the subtitles and applied it, so even the shake, even though it may seem excessive, should be authentic to how it would appear on an actual print.
THAT is amazing.
Doh! What's the matter with me...
Wikipedia says she's 55, which makes more sense because I was 17 in 1977, and there is NO way she was 16 when SW came out.
There's always Harmy's versions...
I agree... your color choices match my preferences.
HotRod said:
Woof!
Here's my suggestion:
