Video Collector

skyjedi2005 said:

Any intersted in the prequels theatrical versions.  I know Phantom menace was released on laserdisc.

The differences in clones and sith are so negligible to be almost unworthy of mention.

Phantom Menace Theatrical would be cool.

How about a little cheat, though: Instead of using the laserdisc as a source, maybe it could be reconstructed from the HD broadcasts? Since both the NTSC and PAL DVDs were so heavily edge enhanced, I think you'd get better results from downconverting the HD broadcasts.

I have heard that the theatrical edit of the podrace is to be found of some THX demo DVD released before Episode I debuted on DVD proper. That could just be plonked in there maybe?

What the laserdisc WOULD be useful for is the thundering AC-3 soundtrack, far superior to the one on the DVDs.

Jambe Davdar said:

Ok so this DVD did get made, by me. Unfortunately my 'client' wanted some time to be able to ship these around to the big collectors before the rest of us could get our hands on them.

Whoo! "Big collectors"!

If the active members of this board don't fit that description, who does? :-)

-signed: One of the rest of us.

msycamore said:

Puggo's Swedish 16mm preservation, which is cropped at the top instead of the bottom, only have one cue mark.

Well spotted! I suppose they had to crop the top to preserve the burnt-in subs at the bottom. Otherwise it seems common practice to preserve the top of the frame when cropping for 8mm/16mm anamorphic.

This would also indicate that the subs were burnt-in (literally, as they were on film back in the day) on the source of the 16mm reduction, not afterwards.

none said:

Anyone got a clue what could cause this?

I'm reaching here, but could this be a gluestain from a splice or something?

Count me in for wanting to see the videocassettes these came from. On my Empire and Jedi discs (which are going out over the weekend), I've included pictures of the source tapes, the covers, even the Beta machine I played them on. Just my need to know (and show).

The bottom cropping of the 16 mm was probably necessary to fit the widescreen frame onto the film with the standard anamorphic squeeze ratio. I've read about this being the case on the Cinemascope releases on 8mm (there's one on my site under the 8mm section).

Dutch company Cineavision avoided such cropping by reducing the overall size of the image (Black borders on the sides). Less resolution was the result, but the entire height of the frame was left intact. (I also have one of those on my site).

If this goes for 8mm, it probably applies to 16mm as well, as the proportions are the same (i think).

If this is all true, the Catnap film source was anamorphic (16 mm?), and the version we're seeing now on DVD (and probably on his tape) is both unsqueezed and hardmatted. The question is if that unsqueezing and hardmatting was done optically, in-camera, on the telecine, or applied later. Like Puggo's, most home telecines today are transferred squeezed, and the aspect ratio corrected after the fact in software.

..and I still think that blue shift is an artifact of brightness correction in the capture device, struggling to compensate for changes from dark to light scenes (either automated or by manual fiddling).

If Catnap's is indeed from a 16mm reduction, it disqualifies it from being a "theater performance preservation", to me anyway.

none said:

The black bars are electronic, not part of the original capture which would have been 4x3 analog video.

How certain of this are you? 

Oh, not certain at all. Such masking could, and is, applied when telecineing. These just look a bit too perfect, which makes me suspect they were generated electronically.

However they were created, the top and bottom black bars are probably not part of the original telecine. They are perfectly level, perfectly stable, and have a much sharper edge than anything else in the picture. In comparison, the left and right borders are original. The top masking is less severe, but we're clearly not seeing the actual bottom of the frame.

Again, I'd really have liked to see the raw telecine of this.

To sum up my observations about the Catnap version:

• I believe this to be a telecine transfer, not a camcorded screening*.
• The burn marks you spotted suggest from a release print (or duplicate).
• That it has undergone some sort of post cleanup of the masking.
• That the videotape source is very close to first generation.

*The runtime is 1:56:01 (from start of Fox fanfare to end of ratings card) matches the PAL speedup ratio. This seems conclusive evidence that this transfer is a telecine. If it was camcorded, even with a PAL camera, the running time would still be the theatrical 2+ hours.

none said:

Could a "bootleg" be faked today, and would we, the OT forum members, be fooled?

Who's going to take the time to insert a hair into a faked bootleg.  (maybe that's why the GOUT was so expensive, they were also...)  I'm all for the wild theory, and it'll be phun to debate this one. 

I've been asking myself the same thing. Why would anyone fake a bootleg? Without knowing more about when and where Catnap aquired it from, this is just a theory, but it all comes down to the same old thing... Money.

Imagine it's ten years ago, before internet dissemination of all things video (Star Wars especially). Before even Star Wars had debuted on DVD at all. If you saw an ad for something claiming to be a bootleg tape of a pre ANH scroll version, or was offered it at a convention, wouldn't you be intrigued? Even pay a pretty penny?  It could very possibly be worth someone's while to fabricate and sell such a "bootleg" on the black market at the time. There may even be a market for it today!

(I'm sure someone could fake the original crawl, even back then, and use the regular VHS widescreen tapes for the rest.)

Of course, now we won't have to fake a bootleg, we could just slap Moth3r's version on a VHS tape and head over to eBay. I have plenty of old VHS tapes from as far back as 1983 that could be used to lend this "bootleg" an air of authenticity, even some vintage clamshell cases. I am sure there are plenty of Star Wars fans who aren't aware of this forum and bite. Maybe even one of us might grab it out of curiosity in hope that it was a different boot! "Available now, Rare, One-of-a-kind Etc."

Now, I realize this sounds like I'm claiming that Catnap's tape is a fake. That's not what I'm saying. I'm just arguing that it could be done, credibly, and that we could be fooled.

I've been looking at the Catnap bootleg and several questions sprang to mind.

The source looks very good, like a fresh print. The image is stable, the colours are good. Could this be from a privately owned 16mm or 35mm print? I didn't watch it all the way through, but did anyone spot any reel-change markers, which would prove this was from a theatrical print?

The print used is in such good condition, that it had to be videotaped very close to the original release date, within a couple of years I suspect. That would mean it was made with late 70's, possibly early 80's videocameras.

But.... To me, this just doesn't look like it was camcorded with vintage equipment.  There is very little tape noise for one. Also, the black levels pumping to blue seem to be a result of the video cameras auto-adjusting to the available light. Was such a feature available on the early video cameras of the 70's/80's?

Then again, this doesn't look videotaped at all. It looks telecined, more like Puggo's 16mm project. The color bars at the beginning would not be on a film print, would they? So what is the source of this boot? The black-level pumping could also occur with a telecine. Also, if this was filmed off a screen, the video camera would most likely blow out the bright sky at scene changes (which you see in my Jedi boot when the scenes change from dark space to daylight Tatooine). This does not happen on the Catnap version. The clouds are in fact very well preserved on that version. I would have expected the sky to be blown out to white if this was camcorded. This has all the characteristics of being telecined. Even the fact that it is in widescreen bears this out. 9 out of 10 camcorded bootlegs were centered/cropped to appeal to a mass (pirate) audience. This boot does not seem to be made with mass distribution in mind.

And the quality of the tape used for the transfer to DVD looks to be first or second generation analog video. This was not a dub of a dub of a dub like most bootlegs going around (mine included). Yes, this tape could be straight from the horse's mouth, from the very individual who taped it off the screen in the 70's, but how often does that happen...?

The DVD version we've been sharing has also had some post-processing done to it. The black bars are electronic, not part of the original capture which would have been 4x3 analog video. The cropping of Greedo's subs indicate quite a lot was lost. I would very much like to see the raw, source tape used before the cropping was applied. (Moth3rs source tape was most revealing in this respect. Video noise across the black bars etc.) The VOBS are dated generically 01.01.2000 00:00, and the menu looks to be from a Philips domestic DVD recorder from that time. The PAL recording also indicates a European source for this film.

So, where am I going with this?

The Catnap bootleg seems like it was made much more recently than the 80's, camcorded/telecined or not, which it obviously couldn't be, because noone would have access to a Pre ANH film print that would look so fresh at this time.

Which got me thinking. Could a "bootleg" be faked today, and would we, the OT forum members, be fooled?

What if I popped in my GOUT DVD (the commercial one), projected that on my setup with my HD projector, and then camcorded the screen with my 1998 VHS-C camera. Then used the VHS-C tapes as a source for a transfer to a DVD/HD recorder? The inherent degrading of the image, the analog characteristics of the camera,  the flickering, the VHS tapes used, the glitches where the tapes were changed, they would all mask the DVD source. Not to mention all the degrading that could be added in post. Then revealed this on the "scene" as some recently discovered (out of the blue) holy grail bootleg. Would we be fooled?

Now, I'm not saying that's what Catnap did. What would be the motivation? The source is obviously dirtier than any of the commercially available transfers of the GOUT (but the dirt, hairs and blemishes could easily be faked in the digital domain if one wished). It's just that this Catnap version doesn't add up to me. Too stable image, too fresh colours, too little print damage, too few analog copies of copies characteristics. Too good to be true.

(Then again, my own Empire boot is too good to be true also.)

I'm just sayin'

Here's the corresponding frame from my Jedi boot (Sounds much nicer when we refer to it as the Theater Performance Edition :-)

This is what the subs looked like on the actual film in England back in '83.

Interested parties know what to do.

Moth3r, how are things going with getting your bootleg available as a DVD?

I'd also like to see the Catnap version. Either of these would be great to complete my Theater Performance set.

The Aluminum Falcon said:

Fritz, I know that earlier you said that it seemed like the ESB bootleg was a transfer from a 35mm print. How do you know of this and are you sure that it's not a 70mm one? Did you check if it has any of the differences listed in this thread? Sorry I'm just curious. Oh and I echo Sluggo's sentiments: thanks so much for sharing your collection with us.

Well, it's mostly conjecture on my part. As you now know, the Falcon's dish is present in the Luke-on-the- weather-wane-shot.

Also, the likelyhood of a 70mm print going astray, and that some fly-by-night operation would have the equipment to scan it is improbable. I am also unsure if any 70mm prints were shipped to the UK (The print has a UK rating card lead-in).

In the new Making of Empire book, I read that due to the film only being shown in 70mm the first couple of weeks(?), the usual pirating of 35mm prints was staved off. I was not aware that copying of 35mm film was a common mode of piracy at the time. That opens up the possibility that what I have is a telecine of a pirated print, one generation removed from an actual exhibition print.

Progress report:

I've finished my second transfer of ESB, greatly reducing the wobble and finetuning the analog tracking in the process. I've mixed and matched my two transfers to keep the best of both. I am left with some intermittent interlace artefacts in the encode to DVD, but will have to let that pass. If I ever intend to get this out the door I'm going to have to stop fiddling with it.

Jedi suffers from extreme blocking when encoded at 4-5 mbps, due to the extremely noisy source. Doing a dual-layer release would avoid this, but I don't see the point. I have tried a half D1 encode, removing much of the blocking but also softening what little detail was there in the original. At this point I'm leaning towards just releasing it as-is.

Covers are done, menus are done, (The most enjoyable part of the process to me).

You know, I'm sympathizing more and more with people like Harmy and Puggo who have done several releases. It takes forever to get these things done.

Ripplin said:

Sorry if I missed it somewhere, but how can one go about getting the discs when they are finished finished?

I'll send discs to a  forum member who'll make them available in the usual manner. When they're available, he or I will note so in this thread.

I just retransferred Empire, with some tweaks to the tracking. That'll set the progress back a day or two, but nothing major.

Revised covers:

At this point, the discs are more or less finished.

Thanks for all the words of encouragment.

I made the cover for Jedi today. It will be available on the disc. A matching Empire cover will be done over the weekend.

zombie84 said:

I wonder then, given the pretty big red shift, does this date to 1980, or was it a print that repertoire cinema had or a private collector had that dates maybe to the mid-80s instead? Print pinkness is a sign of aging and shouldn't be there if it is 1980. I just assumed it was some weird video transfer thing that happened, but you may be on to something.

I believe I bought this as early as 1982. My website originally said 1984, but I realized I had this at least a year before Jedi was released. We got our first Beta machine in 1980, so 1982 sounded about right. (I've been confusing a lot of dates lately, though.)

I don't know if the particular colours on my copy relate to the print used or the duplicating done in the day. There is no way of telling how far removed my tape is from the master. To my eyes, all colours seem equally boosted. They don't look like the red shift I see in my Super8s or 16mm reels. For all we know, the telecine was done the first week of release in the UK, but your theory holds merit.

It would seem I've hijacked this thread completely. I will start a separate thread about the bootlegs if anyone calls for it.

Anyway, I'd just like to update everyone on how the DVD conversions are getting along.

Let me tell you, I have elected not to do any post-processing on these. I made a few valiant efforts, but my learing curve with Avisynth is too steep, and it would only delay the release of these by months.

Jedi:

With regards to the Jedi cam, well, you can't polish a you-know-what. It may benefit from some stabilizing, but I won't bother. All I've done is crop out the noisy edges and centered the image, leaving the image slightly windowboxed. It shouldn't show up on most monitors. Encoded to DVD5 and ready to go.

Empire:

The Empire boot had a lot more going for it. However, I must insist you all lower your expectations. The clip I uploaded was small, and from a portion of the tape with few tracking related errors.

I have experimented with both Avisynth and Virtualdub to eliminate/reduce the excessive telecine wobble, with little effect. Granted, my skills are pitiful, but the wobble is off the charts in some places. Someone else may give it a shot down the road. Also, the first 45 minutes suffer from tracking related noise along the bottom of the image. This could also be lessened by some clever scripting, but...  Last, the way I "captured" these from Beta was with a budget model DVD/HD recorder. It has the annoying knack of pausing the recording whenever the image goes out of synch (tracking, or tape damage), missing out on a few frames here and there. You'll notice the "Nerfherder" rant being cut off mid-sentence.

The one major snag is that the wobble wreaks havoc with my encoder (TMPEG) and targeted bitrate, and causes some stuttering on playback from time to time. I may attempt a re-encode using a different encoder, but at this point I may not bother.

So, if I haven't put you all completely off these transfers, I'll have them out in a couple of weeks. To-do list: Burn to single-layer DVDs, ship to accomodating forum member, wait for him to upload.

At the moment, it is my intention to design covers for these, just because I'm looking for an excuse to get me on the custom cover bandwagon. (I moonlight as a graphic designer and illustrator). If I manage (timewise) I'll enclose them in a DVDROM folder and/or upload them here.

/sitrap

none said:

Do betamax tapes degrade in any significant way? 

Would the original recording have been impacted by any technological limitations of early 80s home systems.  Any guesses on camera type? 

Return of the Jedi bootleg was camcorded off the screen.

I don't believe they had any professional gear for camcording in the cinema. There were commercial cameras around by 1983, but they were bulky so you couldn't sneak them in to a public showing. You'd have to have an arrangement with a projectionist or indeed, a stolen copy of the film like the one you alluded to in a previous post.

(Though I remember having a bootleg of Back To The Future that was camcorded at a public showing, with people responding (laughing) and getting up to take a leak, crossing the screen. Someone really had cojones taking one of those ginormous video cameras into a public screening.)

Remember, even if the copy I have is on Beta, that doesn't mean it was captured on Beta. Beta L-500 blanks ran 2 hours, 10 minutes, while VHS were 120 minutes, so Beta would make a better fit for +2 hour film. They probably used either 3-hour VHS blanks or 3h, 15mins. for Beta anyway.

..and beta does not degrade differently from VHS, if at all. The actual tape is identical (to all intents and purposes). A guy wrote in to heavyweight UK magazine What Video, that he'd successfully spooled VHS blank tape onto a Beta cassette and could record to it as normal. You couldn't play back VHS recordings in this way, obviously, but the tape is the same.

The Empire Strikes Back is obviously a telecine done with professional equipment at a duplicating store or somesuch. It is not an official transfer, as they used a worn release print (especially at the reel changes), the contrast is too high and the framing is off at reel changes. And the telecine wobble is just atrocious.

satanika said:

Video Collector said:

I'm using a consumer DVD/Harddisc recorder that captures realtime MPEG2 to harddisk. Not an ideal solution, granted (even at the highest quality setting there is some compression-related blocking).

In my experience you can eliminate a lot of the recorder induced noise/blocking by recording for example 3 times and then averaging the captures in avisynth.

That is assuming the amateur doing the capturing can handle avisynth :-)

I have thought about this actually, but it wouldn't be first and foremost for the blocking. (The compression to fit these 2+ hour movies on a DVD5 would negate that). I believe averaging would take care of most of the tracking-related garbage as well.

The Empire boot in particular is suffering from severe telecine wobble, so I'd like to use Avisynth to stabilize the image as well. That would probably entail some minute cropping, but it's worth the tradeoff.

Also, if both averaging and stabilization were applied, the damn thing would compress better.

So, who's up for teaching me Avisynth and sending me the scripts to accomplish all this, then?

SKot said:

You'll be interested to know that there have even been reports of a version having been broadcast in your own country as well.  Unfortunately, we haven't turned up any hard evidence to support the claim.  Here's what I have in my notes for it:

Stjernekrigens helligdags-spesial
("Star Wars Holiday Special")
Norwegian HS differences

Aired:
- [airdate unknown, but probably around May 31, 1979 when it aired in Sweden]

Running time:
- [unknown]

Subtitles:
- [unknown]

Notes:
Information has not been verfied with hard evidence.

-----

So basically all we have is a title, and a claim that it aired there.  Can you do some research on that in Norway to see if you turn up anything?  Maybe check with the TV stations there, or see if you can find any old listings.

The Swedish version, by the way, had material edited out.  It would be interesting to find out if the Norwegian version was edited as well.

--SKot

I'm on it! At the time there was only one, state owned television channel in Norway. I'll try to get in touch with them and see if they can't confirm this.

I'll settle for this being the KMAR version for the time being. Thanks for all your help.

Does anyone know anything about the European and the Australian broadcasts? The special was obviously shot on video, so these would have to be converted to PAL for broadcast outside the US.

What was the network procedure for such conversions at the time, I wonder. Did they have the ability to go directly from NTSC to PAL, or did they make a 16mm preservation and shoot a PAL version from that?

If anyone has them, I'd love to take a look at them. The Swedish broadcast is so close to home (Norway) I can't believe I'd never heard of it before.

SKot said:

Regarding your 8mm and 16mm films, you should definitely hook up with Puggo here if you haven't already...he is able to do and has done a number of transfers to DVD from those formats for preservation.  I'm thinking of that 16mm Boba Fett commercial in particular: I'm betting it's for the large-size action figure, and it would be great to have it digitally preserved in excellent quality.

I am an admirer of Puggo's work and have enjoyed the Puggo Grande many times.

I am in the process of having that 16mm commercial transferred by my brother-in law, actually. He's a wizard with the old school tech, but I may pass his transfer on to someone on this forum for the final, digital tweaks and restoration. I'll alert everyone once all the stars are in alignment. (Figuratively speaking)

Okay, maybe you guys could help me pinpoint the origin of my mystery Holiday Special?

Like I said, there appears to be no station IDs of any kind. The first ad break comes about 19 mins. in, and features two commercials only; One for General Motors ("People building transportation to serve people"), and then one for the "Trailtracker" car toy.

The ads seem to match the main programme in general image quality (reddish tint, uniform bluriness etc.) so I believe they are part of the actual, original recording.

This is identical to the one I have with the Rifftrax commentary, actually, but the image on the Rifftrax seems to be darker, and with more neutral colors. Maybe the same source with some post colour tweaking?

So, where are these from? Ring any bells?

(The other ones I have are the KCMO and WMAR2.)

SKot, I'm a longtime admirer of your Holiday Special site. You should get a book out. This info needs to be organized and preserved.

MattMahdi said:

Video Collector said:

I also have DVDs of the KCMO and CBS.

Pardon me for asking, but... CBS?

I thought that all [US] versions were CBS. Different call letters, but all the same network.

BTW, your collection is frightening in its scope!

Okay, I believe it is the WCBS one mentioned at the Holiday Special site. That's just because it doesn't seem to have any identifiers of any kind, and there was a CBS Newsbreak in it. Do pardon my ignorance of the US networks, I'm Norwegian.

..and my collection frightens my wife too :-)

I tried uploading a snippet of the MPEG at Imageshack, but they converted it, the b'stards.

http://img593.imageshack.us/img593/3721/5fm.mp4

...and just for kicks, a framegrab superimposed on the same frame from the 2004 DVD.

(I had to correct the boot's aspect ratio by 92,5% vertically and 94% horizontally to match. This was also the basis for the correction of the aspect ratio before encoding to DVD5.)