amatin

Is this why Star Wars effects were deemed so crummy they were replaced by CGI? I.e. in ESB and Rotj were the effects composited in 65mm then copied to 35mm which is probably better?

All the Star Wars films used VistaVision for their elements. That was ILM’s thing during the entirety of their photochemical years. Boss Film used 65mm. And in all three films, the final VFX shots were squeezed onto Anamorphic 4-Perf stock in order to be cut into the negative reel with all the Non-VFX shots.

In terms of which is better, VistaVision or 65mm - Their quality is so high that that a direct comparison is almost inconsequential. It is like asking, which University is Better Princeton or Yale? Which tastes better a blood orange or a navel orange?

The only person who deemed the VFX shots in the original Star Wars as “crummy” is George Lucas. Because he imagined something larger.

Tell me if you think I am being too harsh. But I finally decided that I am drowning in different Versions of Star Wars. So I decided to put into the trash

TN1 Silver Screen Theatrical Version 1.6 (currently saved on BD Disc)
4K77 V 1.0 DNR (Currently saved on UHD 4K BD)

I am still hanging on to:

4K77 1.4 DNR
4K11 1.4 No DNR
4K77 2.0 HDR
4K77 2.0 SDR
Harmy Despecialized 2.7
D+77 2.4

I am questioning whether to hang on to V. 1.4. I watch the movies on a 75" TV (Not a Projector) so DNR does improve the image. But no one has made a 50GB UHD BD of that version. (It is still easier for me to watch stuff off on disc than a drive). I am not even entirely sure what the Destiny versions are. It seems to be like Harmy’s Despecialized editions, but he is not making a point of putting back obvious errors that were fixed like Obi-Wan’s sword losing its glow or the hard matte lines on the Rancor.

Can I get a download link or Resilio Key for 4K77 2.0?

You will have to forgive me. I work in Film Editing, not VFX. Also, as I mentioned, none of these techniques are used anymore. CGI was already around when I started in the business. Digital Intermediates started replacing cut negative and photochemical Opticals about 6 years after I started.

Hi-Con film is a type of B/W where there is no Gray. Stuff comes out either as completely Black or as completely White. They use this film when shooting title cards as well.

Blue was used because of the three color layers (Red, Blue, and Green) on film it had the finest grain structure. Green is used for CGI because it has the highest luminance and can be the easiest for computers to see.

Have you ever seen an Anaglyph 3D image or movie? If you look at the raw image, there is a blue and/or red off set. When you look at it through glasses where one eye is blue and the other is red, The eye with the blue lens does not see the blue offset. The other does. And same for the red offset in the other eye. Your brain then fuses them together.

It is basically the same idea here. If you use color filters when running a Blue Screen element through the optical onto Hi-Con film, you can get it so the camera doesn’t see the Blue. The light shines through everything that is bright blue and hits the negative turning the silver emulsion black. Anything that was not blue is masked. No light hits the negative and it stays white. Because it is Hi-Con film, anything gets even a little bit of light turns to pure black.

Now that you have a hold out matte where the actors are black and the blue screen is white, that can be run through an optical printer to make the reverse matte where the actors are white and the blue screen is black.

The one where the actors are black will be used when running their element through the optical printer. The one there the background is black will be used when running the death star element. Same would go for the the Tie Fighter element (with its own matte). You use the mattes to prevent double imaging. Otherwise you would see a little bit of the background superimposed over the foreground elements.

Blue screen and B/W mattes are still used in CGI. But created in a totally different way.

As someone who actually works in film editing and has actually worked on projects that were not cut digitally, I will explain.

First of all, the first post that shows A/B rolls. That is only 16mm. Almost never used professionally for material shot on 35mm except in rare circumstances.

When they shoot a film, what is in the camera is the negative. Also called “Original Camera Negative” or OCN for short. Did you ever take still photos on a 35mm camera and when you get them back from the drug store there are “negatives” with your print? This is the pretty much the exact same thing that comes out of the 35mm film Panavision camera. The color values are reversed and the stock has an orange base.

What Richard, Marcia, Paul, Sean, and Duwayne actually “cut” on Moviolas and flatbeds are what is called a “one light” workprint. Meaning a color timer looks at the negative and strikes a print from it. He takes a best guess at what it should look like. Sometimes there are notes on the camera reports from the DP.

The editors cut away on these “one light dailies.” They try things: trimming, extending, swapping out takes. Over the course of the editing process, it gets pretty beat up. Occasionally the film will get massively scratched or shredded. A new print is struck of that shot (called a re-print).

Once the film is finished and they decide they aren’t going to change the picture cut anymore, the film editor’s “workprint” goes to the negative cutter. He takes all the OCN and carefully matches it to the reels they cut from the “one light dailies.” This is a meticulous process. Negatives are always handled very carefully. The “cuts” the picture editors make are done with scotch tape. The negative cutter does “hot splices.” which basically fuses the two pieces of film together. Obviously if the editor cut a scene, and then decided to extend a shot (which happens a lot) the workprint will have a splice in the middle of a shot. The negative cutter will not replicate that cut. He matches the cut perfectly because all film negative has “key numbers” on the edge of the film. He matches everything by numbers.

Once you have the master negative reels, this is where IPs and INs come into play. Not really before. From the cut OCN reels, several Interpositives are made. This is basically making a positive print (proper color values) but it is on orange negative stock. From each of those IP’s several Internegatives (INs) are made. INs are basically copies of the Cut OCN master reels, but they have the final color timing baked in. And there are no splices. From each of them several “release prints” are made. Ultimately thousands of them. How many IPs and INs are struck depends on the size of the release. A studio usually tried to get at least 200 “Release Prints” out of a single IN. For large “premiere” venues in major cities they may strike what are called “EK Prints” directly from the Cut negative. “EK” stands for “Eastman Kodak.”

Now in terms of VFX, that is another can of worms. When you cut VFX movies, typically you want to get VFX heavy scenes done first. It is very expensive to have to do VFX over. Nor do you want to shoot a 10 second shot and then scrap half of it because a scene got trimmed. That’s money wasted. And the VFX guys need as much time as possible to do their work. That still applies today with CGI VFX. But in the photochemical world, let’s say you have as shot with two elements. You will strike IPs for both those shots. The IPs will only be the section used in the cut with some “handle.” In film it would be 1-5 feet. (3 feet = 2 seconds).

These will be run through an optical printer. Which is basically a camera mounted against a projector. The two elements run through the projector side optical printer - one at a time. One one piece of new unexposed 35mm negative will be run two times through the camera side. This will create a new piece of negative with new key numbers which is often called “Dupe Neg” or “Optical Neg.” And like a xerox copy or a dub of a cassette, there will some quality loss. That is why VFX elements are often shot on large format film. It mitigates quality loss. ILM used “VistaVision.” When Richard Edlund left and started Boss Films, they did everything on “65mm” film.

A one light print is struck from this new negative. And assuming everything went right, it goes to the cutting room and they “eye match” it into the workprint. Basically matching the action by looking at individual frames. I massively simplified the process of photochemical VFX.

And almost everything I have described - is a relic of the past. Very few movies are shot on film. And almost none are finished on film anymore. But this is how it was done on the original trilogy.

I realize this thread is several years old. But hopefully someone is out there listening…

Harmy said:

Despecialized v3.0 will he much better, in that it will be much more like ROTJ v2.5.

How do you mean? Less custom mattes and more whole sale cutting of shots from 35mm prints?

Hopefully the larger raster size will help with my problem of increased darkness and contrast of 35mm bumping next to the blu ray material.

Harmy, I realize some of my comments here have been a bit incendiary. In spite of what I may think about ROTJ v2.5 and the contrast and darkness of the LPP. I want to thank you for all your hard work and I really love what you have done to date with Star Wars and Empire.

As I said earlier, while it is nice, I still prefer your Despecialized version 2.5 over Team Negative1’s Silver Screen Theatrical Version. Not only Picture quality (better saturation, sharpness, and less grain) but also having 5.1 as well as subtitles, chapter stops, and commentary tracks.

I eagerly await and remain optimistic about Despecialized 3.0 in 1080p of all the films.

Harmy said:

If the BD had a seamless branching choice of either version, then the version without that scene would have been a restoration.

How myopic… The restoration of Spartacus was done photochemically in 1990 for a theatrical release. Long before DVDs or Blu Rays.

Oh, and that Bambi story is horrific BTW. I’m not surprised about Disney doing it - they have a long history of awful revisionism with their animated classics’ “restorations” but I would never have believed Mr. Harris would condone something like that.

Disney did not do it. That was not Disney’s decision. It was the restoration team’s. In fact, all of the Disney restorations went back to their original title sequences from before Disney had Buena Vista as a release arm. The early films were released by RKO and RKO is credited at the head of the films. While he didn’t state it directly, his tone when he spoke implied that this was not the way Disney wanted it, but they were over-ruled and the restoration team had complete freedom. But that could have just been what I inferred.

And that is why I brought up the notion of “ethics” in restoration. You obviously have a much more “purist” point of view. But it is not one shared by most people who do film restoration professionally. In Spartacus, they added back the scene with Tony Curtis and Lawrence Olivier about snails and oysters which was meant to imply that Crassus was bisexual. The Legion of Decency and Motion Picture Production Code objected and the scene was cut before the film’s release. Even though the filmmakers wanted it in there. The restoration team found the negative, but the soundtrack was lost for the scene. So they had Tony Curtis re-record his part. Since Olivier was dead they had Anthony Hopkins who was once Olivier’s protege to do an impression. Should they have not put the scene back just to replicate the original release even though it was not what the filmmakers wanted?

And I disagree with you about the quality of the LPP. When Darth goes up to Needah to ask about the shuttle, I noticed that Darth was considerably darker. I thought, “Wait, this wasn’t changed, was it?” I then went to your photo comparisons to see that it was in fact from the LPP. You also praised the Silver Screen Theatrical Version that Team Negative1 did saying it was better than the Despecialized 2.5. But I found it to be grainy, soft, and undersaturated compared to yours. Maybe that is because I have seen the original version of Star Wars three times. Every time was in a movie Palace with 1,000-2,000 seats and a new print (Once in 70mm, the other two times 35mm).

Oh, BTW you reference “sub-par blue-screen optical compositing” in the Rancor scene. There was no blue screen used in that scene. It is all hand roto. That is why the Matte lines are so bad. Just thought you might like to know. But in the five shots I brought up, even in the current special editions, the comps have the same level of quality. That is why I question if they really were redone and probably only re-color timed.

But anyway, thank you for all your work.

towne32 said:

You’re entitled to your opinion of course. But this suggests to me that you’re not familiar with the work involved in cleaning up 35mm film, or the state of the raw scans.

Well considering I work in Hollywood in Post Production, I think I am familiar. I started my career in New York with Merchant Ivory and have worked with Carl Reiner, John Landis, Joe Dante, and Oliver Stone to name a few. I started on films cut on Steenbecks and KEMs before learning the Avid. The last film I worked on for Disney had 900 VFX shots. But there were no “scans” since it was shot on the Arri Alexa. My friend worked on Episode II and I visited him on the ranch. I passed by George on my way to meet him in the cutting room.

The funny thing is that I am horrible at color timing. Directors have complained about lighting being different or color shifts that I do not see. So for me to notice the change in contrast and softness when Harmy cut to the 35mm LPP even when I am not looking for it - means that it was pretty glaring.

And I will go off on a tangent that will probably fan more flames. But I sat in on a UCLA class with Robert Harris (who restored Lawrence of Arabia, Spartacus, Rear Window, and Vertigo). He spoke of the “ethics” of film restoration. He spoke of if you find an error that was not intended - do you fix it? In some cases you do. He spoke of an animation error in I think Bambi where a baby deer disappears for a few frames. They decided it was not helping the film. It was not intended. It was probably there because of a lack of time or money. So they fixed it. But when they had to re-record the foley tracks for Vertigo, he made sure to try to replicate the original sounds as much as possible. It was not their place to try to improve on what was originally there and now totally degraded.

I understand Harmy’s desire to restore the films to their original state “warts and all.” I will not debate that decision. He is doing the work. So that is his decision to make. But something should be remembered. I saw Star Wars at the Loews Astor Plaza in 70mm with Baby Boom Surround Sound. My experience and memory of how it looked is going to be different than someone who saw it in 35mm in a shoe box sized multiplex in mono.

There have been debates on hold out mattes in the Despecialized edition. Whether they are visible depends on a lot of things that are out of anyone’s control. A difference of 1º in the temperature of the bath at the lab can affect the density of a print. Was it the first print in the bath (when it was clean) or the last one when it was dirty? Is the screen Matte White or Reflective Silver? And of course, is it a release print, a 70mm blow up, or an EK print (struck directly from the original neg, without going through the IP process)? And of course how bright is the bulb at the theater? Spielberg said in and interview in 1990 that they have to make some prints thinner to compensate for for dim bulbs at crappy theaters.

And in video these same variables exist. Was it transferred from the cut neg or an IP? Was it transferred at 4K or 2K or HD? Was it transferred for CRT monitors and 601 color space or for modern HDTVs which are RGB and much brighter? Back in the eighties and nineties, they used to strike a Lo-Con print just for the transfer to video because CRT video added a lot of contrast. And of course, in video the end user is also the “projectionist.” In the editing room there is a joke that the projectionist gets the final cut. Most people don’t have their monitor’s calibrated. Where they have the contrast and brightness set will decide if they see garbage mattes.

Mileage may vary depending on how you first experienced a film.

I find the whole 35mm shots to be vastly superior to some of the mixed-source rotoscoped shots in the other releases. Though part of that may be due to his ever increasing skill and sources, since the rotoscoped parts of Jedi 2.5 look fantastic. But this thread really isn’t for general reviews and preferences. It’s for pointing out actual errors.

Well I guess this is where there is a difference of opinion. While I may have written in the form of a review. To me the errors are that while watching the film I could tell almost every time it went to a shot from the 35mm LPP because it doesn’t match the surrounding material because of the darkness, contrast, and softness. I was taken out of the the story.

Shots that were rotoscoped in other editions (even dating back to 1.0) were all pretty seamless to me. I was not taken out of the story. In my book, if you are noticing a color shift, and getting jarred out of the story - that qualifies as an error.

Also, I just went back and looked at the Rancor scene from the official release and compared it to my LaserDiscs of the GOUT and v2.5. There were at least five shots that Harmy claims were recomposited. Four when Luke puts the bone in the Rancor’s mouth and then when the Rancor keeper is crying over the beast’s death. But for the life of me, they appear to be the same.

Times of the shots in v2.5 (sorry, I don’t have frames)
25:37
25:55
26:01
26:03
27:46

And saying that this film was given the short shrift doesn’t mean Harmy didn’t put a lot of work into it. I thanked him for all his work. But considering the amount of roto he did on Star Wars (even going to so far as to keep the original star field while removing the praxis ring) it does appear to me that he put less work/effort into ROTJ and had a lesser standard for what passes muster than he did with SW and ESB.

ROTJ v2.5

I am very thankful to Harmy for all the work he has done. But I must say, I feel he dropped the ball on this version.

He became too dependent on his 35mm workprint version. It is much darker and more contrasty and softer than the official release Blu Ray. There are a lot of places where he could have (or should have) done a custom matte to maintain more of the Blu Ray. But instead he just used the entire frame from the 35mm LPP. Specifically (but not limited to) shots in the Rancor pit, where only the edge of the Rancor is needed for the hard matte line. Also various shots over the Sarlacc where only the Sarlacc pit itself needs to be replaced. And the end shots of the Jedi ghosts where we only need Sebastian Shaw. The rest of the frame with Obi-Wan and Yoda can come from the Blu Ray. Those are the places that immediately come to mind.

People often give ROTJ the short shrift. Harmy seems to be no exception. I think if this film had Wookies instead of Ewoks, it would hold a VERY different place in history. Personally, it is my favorite of ALL the films. I love that we finally meet Jabba. I love that we also finally meet the Emperor. I love that in this film the story finally has an ending. Luke becomes a Jedi. The Emperor is killed. Darth Vader is redeemed. The Empire is destroyed and the Republic restored. Good triumphs over evil.

ROTJ V 2.5

All the new shots in the Rancor pit from the Workprint totally don’t match. They are all much darker and much more green. Could they be taken from the HDTV broadcast? My memory is that fix was not done in 1997, but in 2004. Best would be a custom matte done along the edges of the Rancor just to return the hard matte line. As it stands they are totally jarring. (Although I will admit this is one of two fixes George did which I was happy about. The other was when Obi Wan’s lightsaber lost its glow being pointed towards camera in ANH).