logo Sign In

THX

User Group
Members
Join date
21-Apr-2005
Last activity
11-Dec-2006
Posts
1,263

Post History

Post
#225493
Topic
SUPERMAN RETURNS REVIEW
Time
I don't have a problem with selective continuity per se. If Singer wanted to sequel I & II, ignoring III & IV, that would be fine with me (as long as III and IV remain available). I do have a problem with a sequel that doesn't follow continuity from any previous film.
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?
Post
#225466
Topic
Lucas may have caved, here is a link to Barnes & Noble early review of the O-OT DVD's:
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.
Post
#224924
Topic
SUPERMAN RETURNS REVIEW
Time
SR is definitely a more worthy (pr/s)equel than TPM. However, despite what Kevin Spacey thinks, it cannot "be judged on its own merit and not in comparison to the old films." Singer did everything in his power to mimic the style of Puzo/Donner/Reeve's Superman and as such invited a direct comparison. But he then offered an incomprehensibly selective continuity with that character, and a shapeless and imbalanced narrative. The result is a movie that is neither sequel, remake, nor stand-alone, but a misch-masch of all three. Still, I'm looking forward to the ADM edition.
Post
#224917
Topic
Making our own 35mm preservation--my crazy proposal
Time
Yes, the colors were off in the pre-THX LDs, but consistently. There was scene-by-scene color correction applied to the Definitive Collection, which means it's a much more complex task to return to theatrical color from them (as I'm sure Zion & MBJ will testify). Now it's probable this would have been done between a D1 master and a D2 intermediate (probably along with the DVNR), so sourcing the DVD from the D1 would get you arguably closer to the theatrical color. However, it's possible that the color correction was applied to undo fading present in the IP, in which case the inverse would be true (but you'd have to put up with DVNR smearing and composite video). If anyone has more info about the DC CC or the exact source of the DVD, I'd like to know. Apologies to all for going off topic.
Post
#224871
Topic
Making our own 35mm preservation--my crazy proposal
Time
Thanks for the info, Mielr. Here's yet another depressing quote from Robert Harris:
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
Time
Not all technicolor prints are dye-transfer. IIRC, Lucas had his specially made. Haines makes no mention of dye-transfer. Do you have another source that suggests there were many?

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]

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
#224660
Topic
Making our own 35mm preservation--my crazy proposal
Time
Okay, so scratch #2 from my list - great! Next step - track down the best condition print source you can. IIRC, Lucas' copy was not the only dye-transfer print made by Technicolor UK (although there may only have been two). If you can get your hands on the other one, you're in business.

(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
#224648
Topic
Making our own 35mm preservation--my crazy proposal
Time
Zombie84, I'm not trying to be discouraging. You're right in principal (about it being the only way to really take control, not the legal side). It's just practical details that pose the problem. We've discussed this idea at some length here before, as some of the others implied. There have been some 16mm prints sold on ebay that some of us have bid on (IIRC, a complete 'scope trilogy went for around $6000). But you are facing really big problems to beat the quality that's out there:

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). So, you would have to get a couple of employees who had the technical skills, the ability to access the facility outside its work hours and the willingness to sacrifice their job (at the very least) if caught on board with your project. Not impossible, but do you know anyone who fits the bill (again, if you do, 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
#224434
Topic
Lucas talks about the Sept 12th Release of the O-OT
Time
auraloffalwaffle, I think your "IF YOU DO BUY, TELL THEM WHY! IF YOU DON'T BUY, TELL THEM WHY!" system is a good one, and a good way to express the unity of both "sides" (we all want the OUT in the highest possible quality). I think most of the "boycotters" on this site have already told them why, and from what I can gather, most of the buyers will be doing so also, via the SE disc return.
Post
#224365
Topic
Explaining the shoddy OOT treatment in public
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.
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_hen
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.

Post
#224364
Topic
Episode I: PaulisDead2221's Edit (* unfinished project *)
Time
In SW, we didn't see Leia hanging out on Alderaan or intercepting the Death Star plans transmissions (material more suited to a radio drama), she was under attack right at the start. That's why I like this opening. The rest can be explained in the crawl. Just cut the first shot of the Ambassadors' ship and tilt down from the crawl straight to the queen's ship (if you can).