adywan

The first shot has the light partially submerged which is lighting up the muddy water creating the orange/brown glow. Then the ship moves and you can see that this wing raises up slightly and the light is no longer submerged, so we have the white light and is more illuminating. In fact the very first time we see the xwing set should have the orange glow added as the ship doesn't move before this.

Asteroid-Man said:

I know the GOUT looks like that, but my brother told me in the theatrical release of ESB it was a light brown. I dunno, he could be wrong.

It's the same robe he wore in the medical bay on Hoth

Asteroid-Man said:

adywan said:

Got ya :)

As if i would change something as iconic as the imagery of the end scenes

Ady do you plan on fixing R2's colours and Luke's robe colour?

R2's colouring has been fixed and Lukes robe only appears a lot more coloured in the promotional shot because they have boosted the reds/yellows to make 3po appear more golden. You can see that the colouring i have for the robe in this shot matches the GOUT

TheBoost said:

 

adywan said:

 

I'm glad this was just a goof on us, but regardless, it sure is purdy.

Well the pic was inspired by and old ESB publicity shot

vaderios said:

Cool.

Greece is Awaken too ;)  I can offer you a Beer or Coffee ;)

What is the shot ady?

 

-Angel

It's the final interior window shot on the frigate so i can add the new background. rotoscoping 3po takes a long time

ah, a fellow brit. watch it guys, we're taking over. lol

I'm probably going to be up for a fair few hours yet. I won't sleep until the video i'm working on is finished. And there's an awful lot of rotoscoping to do in this shot so it's going to be midday probably before my head hits the pillow :)

Lemonstein said:

 

In light of Ady's recently posted image, I think the debate now shifts to: Forming solar system or nebula? :-)

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!

;)

Got ya :)

As if i would change something as iconic as the imagery of the end scenes

i replied to your post in the CED thread but i thought it would be suitable to post it in here too.

I'm sorry clone_wolf, but you are completely wrong with it being in there only in the theatrical release prior to ANH being added. It wasn't and there is physical proof with the 1977 bootleg of star wars. You also need to listen to the commentary again because NOWHERE does Burtt mention that in ANH luke initially misses. here's what Burrt says:

We had at one time a scene where Obi-Wan and Padme fire a wire across an abyss and swing across together. It very much recalls the fun of the first Star Wars. And they were quite charming in the scene, 'cause she had to hang onto him. He had trouble getting the cable across. It kinda bounces off the first time and he has to reel it in and shoot a second time and she's kinda like, you know, "Jedi, huh?"

He's talking about the Obi-Wan/Padme scene and NOT the original star wars scene with Luke and Leia.

I'm also one of the "old farts" that saw it countless times in 1977 and that scene was never in there. At 10 years old i saw it so many times that i could recite the script word for word. I was also given a bootleg VHS the following year and there was nothing different in the chasm scene. The only differences were the lines of dialogue between the monomix and the stereo mix, and these differences were in there in 1977 and not changed when they added the A New Hope title.

There is also proof with the musical score. There is no section that this could be placed

And if that interview ever existed with Lucas admitting that scene was originally in the film on such a national talk show then some proof of this would have emerged by now, but it hasn't.

I'm sorry clone_wolf, but you are completely wrong with it being in there only in the theatrical release prior to ANH being added. It wasn't and there is physical proof with the 1977 bootleg of star wars. You also need to listen to the commentary again because NOWHERE does Burtt mention that in ANH luke initially misses. here's what Burrt says:

We had at one time a scene where Obi-Wan and Padme fire a wire across an abyss and swing across together. It very much recalls the fun of the first Star Wars. And they were quite charming in the scene, 'cause she had to hang onto him. He had trouble getting the cable across. It kinda bounces off the first time and he has to reel it in and shoot a second time and she's kinda like, you know, "Jedi, huh?"

He's talking about the Obi-Wan/Padme scene and NOT the original star wars scene with Luke and Leia.

I'm also one of the "old farts" that saw it countless times in 1977 and that scene was never in there. At 10 years old i saw it so many times that i could recite the script word for word. I was also given a bootleg VHS the following year and there was nothing different in the chasm scene. The only differences were the lines of dialogue between the monomix and the stereo mix, and these differences were in there in 1977 and not changed when they added the A New Hope title.

There is also proof with the musical score. There is no section that this could be placed

And if that interview ever existed with Lucas admitting that scene was originally in the film on such a national talk show then some proof of this would have emerged by now, but it hasn't.

This will stop the argument about whether it's a galaxy or a forming star....

Radi0n said:

Haha, Bingowings, very funny :)
Ady, could we maybe get an update on current proceedings?
Perhaps on what scene you're editing as we speak, rather than acknowledging or contradicting things you will/aren't using? :)

I'm working on the end rebel fleet scenes at the moment

Monroville said:

My only real beef with the last shot is the trajectory of the Falcon - regardless of the galaxy being a "galaxy" or newly-forming star (or whether it is replaced by something completely different, slightly different or altogether pretty much the same thing), just seeing the Falcon veer off to the middle to upper left just looks wrong.  You almost want to yell out "Hey Lando!  The friggin galaxy is THAT way!"

you see that's why i don't think it was ever meant to be the galaxy and the explanation that came a long time after the film was released that said it was the galaxy is just another of the many history revisions surrounding these movies.  Now ILM do these shots, which are all carefully planned, and add a view of the galaxy. So why the hell did the falcon fly AWAY from it? If it was supposed to be the fleet outside of the galaxy wouldn't they have had the falcon fly towards it? I'll always see it as a forming star.

I will be adding more ships to the fleet to eliminate the static matte of the ships in the final shot, as well as other shots. Plus the falcon as it undocks from the medical frigate has a new falcon model to eliminate the really bad transparency issue and when we see it fly from the frigate from the window point of view the falcon has been replaced so it flies from the correct section of the ship instead of the incorrect way it emerges from underneath the window. In fact every shot of the falcon from its undocking, the model has been replaced

vaderios said:

Quick question.

Is there any particular reason why ady used/using the same starfields in both episodes so far, at most if not all space shots?

I'm not

I haven't seen any emails from you Ghostbusters. I'll have to double check when i get back to my house because i can't access my older emails from my Dads house.

You won't see Anakin becoming Vader, Yoda will still be in the prequels and it's going to be a lot bigger than just cutting a few parts out. The PT is going to get ripped apart and reconstructed, new scenes will have to be filmed, and there will be NO death star at the end of ROTS. But apart from the few things i know i'll be changing, i have to work out how i'm going to pull it all off and even if i can. But thats a long way away yet

Monroville said:

If there are more AT-ATs than just the single one in that last shot, it would be very impressive actually if either the front 3 were still standing (with Luke taking out one of the rear ones) or at least 2 (if Luke takes out one of the front row AT-ATs) and show them combine their firepower to collectively take out the shield generator.

Have you been accessing my computer? ;)

BmB said:

Your loss.

I love what you're doing here but if you are simply too stuck up to take criticism proper, then I can't help but fear for the final quality.

Oh, i see you edited your post after i put you on ignore and had already answered this.

Too stuck up to take criticism? You just proved my point that you're just trying to be an ass with that one post. I can take criticism perfectly well, and have done for the years i have been working on these edits.If i was too stuck up to take criticism then i wouldn't be on these boards and would just do the edit without any input. Idiot. 

What i can't stand is someone is someone who will constantly go on about something when..

a) I had already said that a shot that was posted a long time ago and was unfinished at the time with a lot of work still to do on it, including a matte.

b) even thought it was pointed out to you that it was unfinished and that it has gone through a lot of changes you continue your rant, even though you have no idea what the alterations have been and how the whole composite looks now

b) Someone else posted a shot that shows that the lighting is in fact right, yet this person ignores this and still says it's wrong and posts their "proof" yet points out completely the wrong sections but still claims they are right

You did the same type of thing with the transport scene. Saying that it was incredibly fake and that having an xwing destroyed ruins the whole scene. And then giving you reasons why it looked fake but still going on and on about it when you were proved wrong and your posts were just plain rude. I'm afraid you are the one that it too stuck up in this debate. You have an attitude that you are right and everyone else is wrong as if you are something special, which i'm sorry, but you are not.   If you want to act like an asshole then be prepared to be treated like one.

Just take a look at the 7.00 render that Vaderios did. Pretty much the exact same shading that the matte has in the OLD clip WITH edge lighting, which proves your whole argument wrong. I know all about shading and had studied this for a very long time. If i knew F all about this then i wouldn't have got an art degree now would i?

BmB said:

Your loss.

I highly doubt that

BmB, i'm pretty sure that you just want to argue the toss for the hell of it now as you have done with almost every other post in here. Can you not see that you are pointing out the WRONG sections of the city in the pic you posted of my matte when comparing it to the other matte? And that if you had pointed out the correct sections then you would see that the gradient is almost the same? And the matte is shaded completely different than the original so i don't know what the hell you are talking about. The lighting is in a completely different direction. Vaderios has already done renders of the city which proved that the gradient isn't how you say it should be, but you'll just keep harping on about it and, quite frankly, i'm getting a little sick and tired of it. It wouldn't matter if Vaderios rendered a hundred pictures that would prove you wrong because you would still not accept it. And even when i explained that the shot was way off being finished in the video clip you just had to continue.

Sorry but i just can't be doing with this type of crap at the moment so i'm going to choose to ignore you. Congratulations, you're now the only one on my ignore list.

This thread has become bogged down with too much crap lately and the serious posts have become lost in the pile

Monrovilloe, that AT-AT shot has gone through a lot of changes since i posted that clip. The AT-AT doesn't fall and the background has been completely changed (sorry Vaderios, but you matte no longer features in ESB:R)

As for the changing clouds/ light direction, well i'm not going to be doing anything about that. It's just too much work and it hasn't really bothered me

And there is nothing i can do about the bottom of the speeder because the trooper who stands in front of it as it lifts off & all the background troops are  partially covered by the underside box and there wouldn't be any way i could replace the missing sections

005, i've found a few shots that you have missed in ESB: (just right click>view image to see full size)

1 & 2. Recomposited and slight change in position of cockpit foreground

3. Recomposited and background now 1 frame later than original

4. Recomposited and background position shifted

5. Completely different background

Monkey ESB :)

Part 1

Part 2

BmB said:

You really insist on misinterpreting my every word? Okay, let me show you instead.

http://imageshack.dk/imagesfree/eXQ12102.png

And yes, while the original is more heavily filtered this is to (successfully imho) create a very gloomy look where colour is nearly absent in favor of dark silhouettes against the sky. Your version is far more well lit and should have some more colour in it. Or, less, actually as both cloud city and the falcon are entirely grey.

No i do not insist on misinterpreting every word you say at all. All i have done is answer back to exactly what you wrote. There is no misinterpreatation at all as it's as clear as day what you wrote.

And that picture you just posted with the comparisons you have actually proved yourself to be totally wrong. You are comparing completely the wrong sections of the city and , as you have shown, my new matte has exactly the same type of gradient so i really can't see the problem

And you have obviously checked the colouring on the 2004 set for this shot as it was never as dark as it is now, which is why i said to check the original, not the SE.

BmB said:

There's a difference between shading and light source. You can still shade it the same way and have a different source for the light.

Are you serious? Shading is directly affected by position and intensity of light and shape. You couldn't shade it the same way as the image you posted and have the light source in a direction that would illuminate the whole front of the city. You also have to take into account ambient light. The shot you posted the city is higher above the clouds than in the video. All these things have to be taken into account when calculating how the shading of an object should be.

BmB said:

Vaderios' renders do a good job of showing that "deep gradings" don't occur unless the object in question is close to being paper thin. The transition phase from light to dark has a roughly fixed depth based on the shape and type of material.

To say that because the video shot matte doesn't have the deep shading as the picture so it must be paper thin is just plain wrong. Vaderios has even proved this with his renders posted and these are 3D models not "paper thin" as you like to put it.

BmB said:

First, it seems to suffer from orange-itis, which is to say many films these days - particularly Star Wars Episodes II and III are guilty - suffer from an apparent inability to contain other colours than a deep, brilliant orange. It's almost monochromatic, and somewhat out of tune with the generally more natural coloration of the OT. The clouds are largely fine, but the falcon and the city itself should probably show more of their natural colour rather than being almost chameleon like in their pigmentation.ast.

Maybe you should go back and re-watch the original because that certainly doesn't have natural colouring because of the heavy all over colour filtering done to it.

BmB said:

And I know it's unfinished. However I also know that "unfinished" may also mean "close to final look" and figured any criticism would still be relevant to the parts you hadn't changed.

If it was close to the final look then i wouldn't have wrote this then would i...

It still has a lot of work left to be done to it.....

BmB, maybe bothering to read the description in the video you linked to would have given you a bit of a clue to the finished state of that shot

An unfinished clip from ESB:Revisited showing the new approach to Cloud City. It still has a lot of work left to be done to it but it gives you a good idea of how the new shot will be like

This video was uploaded ages ago and since then other shots have been posted showing the progress of the colouring.

As for the cloud city matte, the picture you say the shading should be like has the suns position completely different than the one in this shot. That picture has the sun almost directly to the side of the city, which would illuminate only that section and cause that deep grading. As you can see in the video, the sun is almost directly facing the city, so that kind of gradient would not happen