- Post
- #225733
- Topic
- Fox France confirms the French OOT release >NOT< to be anamorphic
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/225733/action/topic#225733
- Time

THX
- User Group
- Members
- Join date
- 21-Apr-2005
- Last activity
- 11-Dec-2006
- Posts
- 1,263
Post History
- Post
- #225717
- Topic
- .:. MoveAlong's - The Story of Star Wars .:. Complete!
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/225717/action/topic#225717
- Time

- Post
- #225711
- Topic
- **Mini-Contest: Legacy Edition Logo - $150**
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/225711/action/topic#225711
- Time
- Post
- #225493
- Topic
- SUPERMAN RETURNS REVIEW
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/225493/action/topic#225493
- Time
Originally posted by: greencapt
...or, when presented with lack of original ideas, just remaking the source material.
...or ripping off storylines from other popular superhero franchises. Spiderman 2 (from the Spidey comic books) anyone? ...or, when presented with lack of original ideas, just remaking the source material.
- Post
- #225466
- Topic
- Lucas may have caved, here is a link to Barnes & Noble early review of the O-OT DVD's:
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/225466/action/topic#225466
- Time
Originally posted by: darkhelmet
Lucas has already demonstrated that he will do what he wants with little regard for his original fans.
If this was true, the OUT wouldn't be coming out at all. I'm still surprised to see people taking the best OUT news we've ever had as a signal to give up. I think Mike O has the right approach with his Helm's Deep analogy. It would be nice to have a new petition from this site, for continuity's sake (especially as the site was referenced by LFL when explaining the OUT release). However, Jay's position is (I believe) that the original petition still stands. It would be a lot harder to get as many signatures as last time after September, I think: the quality of the transfer doesn't have the same broad appeal as the films just not being out there at all. Lucas has already demonstrated that he will do what he wants with little regard for his original fans.
- Post
- #225465
- Topic
- Making our own 35mm preservation--my crazy proposal
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/225465/action/topic#225465
- Time
Thanks also for (as always) presenting relevant, readable and accurate information.
- Post
- #225463
- Topic
- Info Wanted: and edits that fix The Emperor's Eyes In ROTJ?
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/225463/action/topic#225463
- Time
- Post
- #224954
- Topic
- Making our own 35mm preservation--my crazy proposal
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/224954/action/topic#224954
- Time
- Post
- #224933
- Topic
- Making our own 35mm preservation--my crazy proposal
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/224933/action/topic#224933
- Time
- Post
- #224924
- Topic
- SUPERMAN RETURNS REVIEW
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/224924/action/topic#224924
- Time

- Post
- #224917
- Topic
- Making our own 35mm preservation--my crazy proposal
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/224917/action/topic#224917
- Time
- Post
- #224880
- Topic
- SUPERMAN RETURNS REVIEW
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/224880/action/topic#224880
- Time
- Post
- #224871
- Topic
- Making our own 35mm preservation--my crazy proposal
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/224871/action/topic#224871
- Time
For the record, the use of a dye transfer print as a transfer element, would not yield an acceptable image. Any discussion of prints, in general, for transfer would be heading in the wrong direction.
[original context]I tend to agree with boris: I'm glad these masters are being released on DVD as I fear what would be done by LFL as "restoration". However, bear in mind that the Definitive Collection itself is not theatrically authentic. Aside from the issue of the mix, which is discussed in other threads, the films received extensive color-correction (which is why color varies from scene to scene by comparison to earlier LD releases). Though nowhere near as far out as the '04 DVDs, this does change the look of the film (of course this has to be balanced against the higher quality telecine made for the DefCol).
- Post
- #224735
- Topic
- Making our own 35mm preservation--my crazy proposal
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/224735/action/topic#224735
- Time
Okay, here is another quote from Richard Haines:
...anything shot and printed in Eastmancolor prior to 1983 (the year the 'low fade' negative and print stock was introduced) is going to be pretty faded by now. Under the best storage conditions, Eastmancolor negatives were good for around 25 years (depending on the lab that did the processing). Thereafter, it began to fade, first with the opticals (which were on duplicate negative stock which was thinner) and then the rest of it. Sometimes the negatives can be 'tweaked' on video but eventually those video masters will be obsolete or deteriorate too. The exceptions to this color fading problem with Kodak stock are those movies printed in the following release print processes which did not fade or deteriorate: Technicolor dye transfer prints, Cinecolor and SuperCinecolor prints and Kodachrome (16mm and 8mm). These were the only stable color processes prior to 1983.
[...]
Prior to the post-1983 'low fade' color stock, there was a method of preserving Eastmancolor negatives. In fact, it was basically a variation of the three strip camera. The color negative was reprinted on fine grain B&W separation stock. Each color was preserved in B&W which could then be re-combined to make a new color internegative that had all of the hues of the original. This technique worked quite well. The "Spartacus" restoration was derived from the B&W separations since the Eastmancolor camera negative had completely faded.
[...]
It's probable that in the case of "Star Wars" and "Alien" (both filmed on 'quick fade' Eastmancolor), there were separations made of the original versions. Whether they will ever be used to make a new color internegative is the next question. Lucas keeps re-cutting his movies and won't allow the original versions to be shown again.
[...]
Curiously, the original version of "Star Wars" can still be seen but only privately via film collectors. Even though Technicolor had shut down their process in the U.S., they continued to make dye transfer prints in England through 1978, in Italy through 1980 and in China through 1993. Therefore, some real Technicolor (dye transfer dolby stereo) prints were made of the first release of "Star Wars". The color, sharpness and contrast is far superior to the American prints. These copies look even better than the 70mm print I saw way back when. The black levels of space are pitch black and the colors really glow from the screen. It really looked sensational. The American prints have completely faded by now and the 90's re-issue looked somewhat faded with pinkish fleshtones in the first reel (good old 'color by De Luxe'). Lucas is an advocate for digital projection and wants to phase out motion picture film. I hope he has preserved the film elements because digital is not archival. It's a very unstable format and it's easy to erase or degrade digital data. Since there's no 'hard copy' like film, there's no way to restore missing computer information. It just vanishes.
[Full quote here][...]
Prior to the post-1983 'low fade' color stock, there was a method of preserving Eastmancolor negatives. In fact, it was basically a variation of the three strip camera. The color negative was reprinted on fine grain B&W separation stock. Each color was preserved in B&W which could then be re-combined to make a new color internegative that had all of the hues of the original. This technique worked quite well. The "Spartacus" restoration was derived from the B&W separations since the Eastmancolor camera negative had completely faded.
[...]
It's probable that in the case of "Star Wars" and "Alien" (both filmed on 'quick fade' Eastmancolor), there were separations made of the original versions. Whether they will ever be used to make a new color internegative is the next question. Lucas keeps re-cutting his movies and won't allow the original versions to be shown again.
[...]
Curiously, the original version of "Star Wars" can still be seen but only privately via film collectors. Even though Technicolor had shut down their process in the U.S., they continued to make dye transfer prints in England through 1978, in Italy through 1980 and in China through 1993. Therefore, some real Technicolor (dye transfer dolby stereo) prints were made of the first release of "Star Wars". The color, sharpness and contrast is far superior to the American prints. These copies look even better than the 70mm print I saw way back when. The black levels of space are pitch black and the colors really glow from the screen. It really looked sensational. The American prints have completely faded by now and the 90's re-issue looked somewhat faded with pinkish fleshtones in the first reel (good old 'color by De Luxe'). Lucas is an advocate for digital projection and wants to phase out motion picture film. I hope he has preserved the film elements because digital is not archival. It's a very unstable format and it's easy to erase or degrade digital data. Since there's no 'hard copy' like film, there's no way to restore missing computer information. It just vanishes.
Okay, so persuade Fox to give up those B&W separations (not likely) or track down a couple of collectors with dye-transfer prints.
- Post
- #224666
- Topic
- SUPERMAN RETURNS REVIEW
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/224666/action/topic#224666
- Time
Originally posted by: Invader Jenny
5) And to top it all off, this movie is not "Superman Begins." They had to start in the middle of an already developed story and take it from there. Unlike Batman, some doors and options were no longer open to suggestion. Superman had to work with what he was given in Superman II.
Um...5) And to top it all off, this movie is not "Superman Begins." They had to start in the middle of an already developed story and take it from there. Unlike Batman, some doors and options were no longer open to suggestion. Superman had to work with what he was given in Superman II.
- Post
- #224662
- Topic
- What are you going to do with your SE discs?
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/224662/action/topic#224662
- Time
- Post
- #224660
- Topic
- Making our own 35mm preservation--my crazy proposal
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/224660/action/topic#224660
- Time
(BTW, 16mm is a lot higher resolution than DVD but you'd have a very hard time finding a genuinely good condition 16mm print)
- Post
- #224653
- Topic
- Lucas talks about the Sept 12th Release of the O-OT
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/224653/action/topic#224653
- Time
- Post
- #224649
- Topic
- Princess Leia
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/224649/action/topic#224649
- Time
- Post
- #224648
- Topic
- Making our own 35mm preservation--my crazy proposal
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/224648/action/topic#224648
- Time
1) print quality - getting a print is possible, but in what condition? There will almost certainly be some segments that are worthless (splices). So you'll have to get two or more prints of each film to get a viable whole. Even then, they will be faded and scratched. Okay, you can recover some of that with digital image manipulation - but how much?
2) scanning - no professional facility will scan a print of a copyrighted movie for you (if you find one who will, please let me know


3) digital post - okay let's say you've got your scans at home in your new 5TB drive. As Zion said, you are now facing years of restoration work. Most importantly, the chances are good that what you ultimately produce will not be of acceptably high quality to justify the time, money and energy you will have expended.
With all that said, if you decide to go ahead, knowing what you are facing, I applaud you, genuinely wish you the best of luck and will gladly make a contribution.
- Post
- #224485
- Topic
- Making our own 35mm preservation--my crazy proposal
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/224485/action/topic#224485
- Time
- Post
- #224434
- Topic
- Lucas talks about the Sept 12th Release of the O-OT
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/224434/action/topic#224434
- Time
- Post
- #224429
- Topic
- SUPERMAN RETURNS REVIEW
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/224429/action/topic#224429
- Time
- Post
- #224365
- Topic
- Explaining the shoddy OOT treatment in public
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/224365/action/topic#224365
- Time
Originally posted by: MeBeJedi
THX, correct me if I'm wrong (be gentle
), but I was under the impression that these DVDs were being made from the D2 composite masters, which are not an entirely digital data path (the input/outputs are standard analog composite ports.) Judging by Red5's great info above, you could be right. I was just going off what I'd do if I had D1 master tapes, which we know to exist. In some ways it could be good news if there was a D2 intermediate as it could mean that the DVNR was applied between the D1 and D2 stages, which would mean that returning to the D1 could eliminate it.
I'm not sure if anyone knows for sure if the source used is D1 or D2, do they?
If anyone does know, I'd like to know.THX, correct me if I'm wrong (be gentle

The audio and video elements come together on D-2 digital tape Bear in mind that this is a general description of the THX process. In the article belbucus posted here, Dave Schnuelle said:
Gary produced an open reel DASH format digital audio master, which was then clone-copied to the D1 video master.
Originally posted by: hairy_henGary produced an open reel DASH format digital audio master, which was then clone-copied to the D1 video master.
I'm not sure if anyone knows for sure if the source used is D1 or D2, do they?
- Post
- #224364
- Topic
- Episode I: PaulisDead2221's Edit (* unfinished project *)
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/224364/action/topic#224364
- Time
