Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't some of the Gungan language in MF's edit backwards as well?
Talk about drinking the Lucas Kool-Aid...
Z6PO said:
Harmy said:
I just wish I could find the Falcon in the DS hanger matte.
You can find it in "The Art of Star Wars" book, page 82. But it's a very small picture, you may not be able to use it. Besides I can understand why it's rarely seen: it's a pretty boring matte ! The Millennium Falcon has only its edges painted (they must have composited the falcon model for the final image)
That's exactly what happened, according to the Harrison Ellenshaw quote in Rinzler's book. (Maybe someone decided the shot would look better if the Falcon wasn't entirely a painting.)
Still wondering if the fully-painted alternate was the one that originally had two cockpits, or if that's an entirely different painting that's never been reproduced anywhere...
canofhumdingers said:
Although one thing that still makes me question if it's not also a recomp... Is it just me, or does the ship in the GOUT look like it's nose is pointing just slightly up as compared to the 2004 version? Look at the pics in 005's post. I know they're not the exact same frame, but the angle of the ship never really changes in that shot even though it is moving.
It DOES look like the element was slightly rotated. No idea WHY...
In shots like these, I'd love it if Harmy were to try to combine the ships from the GOUT (or 97SE, for shots which weren't recomped until '04) with the 2004 starfields. If you look at the comparison, you can see that it's the same starfield element as in the GOUT, just with much more of the original detail intact. I can see the stars from the GOUT in the 2004 pic, there's just many more stars that didn't get erased by DVNR, lossy resolution, etc.
The only drawback is that the bigger stars don't really glow like they do in the GOUT - can we blame crushed blacks again?
It would make sense for recomposites to have a different balance between the inner core and the outer glow, since they're two separate pieces of film. As we can see with the lightsabers, no effort was made to match the new digital composites to the old optical composites.
The desaturated lasers...could that be a recomp mistake of only comping in the B&W "core" animation element and not the separate colored glow element? Looking at the '04 Star Destroyer flyover, the lasers not only don't have any color, they don't glow period. They're just white lines. I don't think they're just desaturated, I think someone fell asleep at the switch and forgot the glow layer entirely.
7 years later, I'm still dumbfounded at the lack of quality control.
In the original source, I can definitely see blue in the saber. Not sure if it's due to color shift or what - geez, I so wish that someone could track down the original master copy of that telecine...
It seems more and more likely that the original prints in '77 had an actually *blue* saber glow throughout the entire Falcon section (even if it was still weak relative to the core in certain shots). How is it that this one thing got worse and worse and worse with every iteration of the film? (Does anybody remember how it looked on the theatrical prints of the SE?)
*sigh* If only this scene had been photographed at the Senator screening...
msycamore said:
Interesting, never noticed the difference before. When you describe them I know exactly what soundeffects you refer to. Damn, that's a tough decision on what to do, have you already checked David Morgan's audio files if any surrounds can be heard in those sequences? http://www.wideanglecloseup.com/starwarsaudio.html I'm not able to do so myself at the moment.
Not trying to sound rude or mean at all, but Hairy just said, and I quote:
hairy_hen said:
The in-theatre 70mm recording doesn't seem to have it, at least not the one I have, but then that recording doesn't seem to have any of the surround effects at all, so that tells me nothing[...]
Interesting, because that clip on YouTube definitely has higher-pitched audio. I'm not doubting you, of course.
Judging from the YouTube clip reave provided, HBO ran the time-compressed version that was on the '82 LD and CED releases.
I wonder, was this the painting that originally had two cockpits? Harrison Ellenshaw is quoted in Christopher Finch's book "Special Effects" about how when he originally did the Falcon hangar matte, a lot of stuff was kept secret by Lucas and co., and all he had to work from were images of the full-sized half ship. He mistakenly assumed that the design was symmetrical, and painted the Falcon with a cockpit on each side.
I'm not sure whether Ellenshaw revised said painting, or if it's a third one we haven't seen.
What's interesting is that in Creating the Impossible, the hue of the individual saber element and the comp don't match. In all copies I've seen of TMoSW, they do. That's what is interesting.
doubleofive said:
I still can't get over Fox putting the 2004 SE in their 75th anniversary set in the 70's set.
Why? With the exception of Cavalcade, the whole set was just reissues of existing releases anyway; sure, Fox probably "cheaped out," but that is to be expected. Most studios who do special studio anniversary box sets or Oscar box sets or the like just rehash the existing versions.
The only way the original version would have been on it would be if they used the 2006 GOUT version. Even if Fox had wanted to put a new anamorphic transfer of original version on the set, it would have been up to LFL to provide one, and LFL would have obviously said no.
Fox cannot release the original versions without the approval of Lucasfilm, because as zombie has pointed out, they do not actually own the films. LFL makes the major decisions involving the films, and Fox is bound by the terms of their contract and by the wishes of Lucas and company. This is why I believe that the cease and desist order given to the organizers of that Technicolor film festival originated with Lucasfilm. Like zombie, I continue to believe that if Fox actually owned the trilogy outright, the OUT would be available and would receive treatment at least on par with the Alien films, simply because they would understand that the OT are perhaps the most profitable films in their catalog, and that any money expended to make quality versions of the OUT available to the public would be made back many times over.
Sorry to bump this after so long, but I noticed something interesting. When this clip appears in "ILM: Creating the Impossible," the part with the blade on black is blue...
...but the final comp has it with the aqua/seafoam tinge (like in the above screenshots from TMoSW).
When the test footage is shown in TMoSW, the color balance of these two clips match. In ILM:CtO, they don't. Is this just some digital monkeying by the makers of this doc?
I wish there were a 70mm film cell, or a snapshot of this scene from the Senator screening...
It's funny how they fixed bad opticals in some scenes but not in others. In that bird's eye shot of Luke and Vader dueling on that catwalk platform in ESB, when Luke blocks Vader and their sabers hit the railing, in the brightest flash-frame you can still see the bright light suddenly stopping at the boundary between the live footage and the matte painting. It was not recomped to make the light spill over into the painting, not in 1997, 2004, or 2011. Just interesting how they continue to make unnecessary changes while neglecting actual annoying flaws.
zombie84 said:
Its the copyright ones.
Fun fact: apparently, they were moved to storage and their status was changed to protected in order to save them because of savestarwars.com. The people at LoC are SW fans and are trying to do their best with what they have to work with, it seems.
That is great news indeed, glad that your efforts have made some impact. I assume they protected ESB and ROTJ too? (Even though ESB is apparently extremely faded...)
So apparently, according to this Brian Kidd fellow at HTF, the LoC *DOES* have two prints of the original version of SW in storage. No mention of whether those two prints are the copyright depository prints, or two entirely different ones...
h_h,
I just realized that EasyNews has 1142 days of NNTP retention (as opposed to only about 200 using the website), so I downloaded Belbucus' '93 mix, listened to it, and it turns out that I was wrong. The Death Star sound is, in fact, exactly the same as in your mix. I just listened the DS explosion in your 5.1 mix on DJ's V3 (folded down to 2.0 by VLC) and then played the uncompressed '93 mix, and they sound identical - meaning that the reason I wasn't hearing it was because the stereo '93 mix on the V3 did have DialNorm and compression, just as you said.
So disregard everything I've said before, there is absolutely nothing wrong with your mix, it's not even an upmixing flaw. It's exactly the same as in the '93 mix.
I guess it just felt weird because 1.) those low-end sounds probably aren't as prominent when listening through speakers as opposed to headphones, and 2.) I've never actually watched the film on laserdisc, or listened to any of the lossless LD audio rips before now, so I guess I was just not used to how it's supposed to sound. (And FWIW, Mallwalker's lossless of the '85 is also louder and fuller than the DD2.0 version on the V3.)
Case closed. Excuse me while I eat my hat...
I don't have the 2.0/2.1 version of this mix, and the Sendspace links are dead. h_h or someone, can you reupload it so I can compare?
(BTW, just to clarify, the LFE sounds fine to me - when I played the '93 mix and h_h's LFE together, the DS explosion still sounded correct.)
hairy_hen said:
@TServo2049: I'm honestly not hearing the echo you speak of during the Death Star explosion. I didn't do anything to that part other than add bass from the 1997 mix, which is in its own separate channel and should not interfere with the mains. If there is something there I'm not noticing, it's either in the source track or is some kind of artefact from the upmixing. But I'm just confused about what you mean by this, because it doesn't seem to be showing up on my end.
Actually, listening to it again, it's not an echo.
Using DJ's V3, here's the explosion sound from the '77 stereo, the '85, the '93, and the front L/R channels of your mix.
'77 stereo: http://www.megaupload.com/?d=UVKUB084
'85: http://www.megaupload.com/?d=RUSTLKAO
'93: http://www.megaupload.com/?d=4X2YVMT9
Your mix: http://www.megaupload.com/?d=8OYWQ7J0
Since your mix is based on the '93 mix, I decided to see what happened if I cancelled the two out. Here is what I found when I used GoldWave to mix together the L/R of your 5.1 mix and an inverse of the '93 mix:
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=WW8TKYJW
It sounds to me like part of the explosion sound from the SE. You said that you only used (part of) the bass/LFE from the SE explosion - but it sounds like my initial suspicion was correct, some of the SE explosion sound ended up in the mains (and not just bass frequencies either).
This is why I agree with Mike Verta's decision not to release his restoration. Better to keep it a private project for the time being, than to jeopardize the mission by making it for-the-public and inviting LFL's intervention...
I'm not saying that's the reason, nor that I would agree with that reason. I have no idea what their reason is, I was just guessing.
Hey, could someone repost the ESB and ROTJ Dark/Sega JSCs to a.b.s-w? My newsreader only goes back to March of this year, so I can't access the existing posted versions.
What about the IB Technicolor print that the LoC had but returned to its owner because they couldn't make a good-looking copy of it? I'm assuming the owner was a private collector? (Could it have been the same print that was shown at the Baltimore screening?)
Obviously zombie, none and co. choose not to. They must have a good reason. Perhaps they think that an FB group wouldn't be taken as seriously.
I think he means that anybody can link to it on their own FB.