danny_boy

AntcuFaalb said:

danny_boy said:

AntcuFaalb said:

I see you forgot to include the following:

It should be noted that this data is widely discredited by the film community – the numbers that resulted from looking at test patterns did not measure up to the resolution that is widely believed to exist on film. On the other hand, none of the discrediting parties has published any test results that show better performance. Politics cloud the science.

 

Ummmm----this proves my point!

On the other hand, none of the discrediting parties has published any test results that show better performance. Politics cloud the science.

So a lack of further research "proves" your point? I must have learned the scientific method incorrectly, then.

On the contrary the research has concluded the following:

Lucasfilm technical director Mike Blanchard says, "Almost all of the resolution that’s lost is through the printing process. It’s really funny about technology and the film business right now. People get caught up in these numbers games that are flat-out ridiculous. They say, ‘Film is 4k,’ but it’s not 4k. It’s 4k on the camera negative, but no one has ever seen a camera negative projected. Countless studies have shown that what is shown in U.S. theaters [via the interpositive/internegative photochemical printing process] is between 700 and 800 lines of resolution when you get to the release print. We get that easily(using 1080*1920 digital capture and projection).

http://mixonline.com/sound4picture/f...ars_episode_2/

You show me official data that indicates that 4th generation 35 mm release prints exceed 1K-2K and I will offer a retraction.

Good luck---"You are gonna need it!"

Tyrphanax said:

Bingowings said:

I see tables, but I refuse to believe mere facts without bar graphs, pie charts and Venn diagrams.

I need some numerical statistics, box plots, a frequency distribution, a line plot, and a scatter plot with regression data as well as a hypothesis test and a 98% confidence interval, and a written comparison of all of the above.

Well how about you publish the above stats in favour of film!

In the meantime take it from Robert Harris(restorer of Lawrence Of Arabia and who offered to work on Star wars for free)-----regarding the Jaws Blu Ray

Bear in mind that Harris owned a 35mm release print of Jaws:

"The new Blu-ray is more highly resolved than would have been seen theatrically, with more accurate color and densities."

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/t/322696/a-few-words-about-jaws-in-blu-ray/60

AntcuFaalb said:

I guess I just don't understand how/why you think that one published report is the same as:

Peer reviewed International studies conducted in theaters across the globe concluded that the average release print has roughly 500-800 lines per picture height.

Across the globe? WTF? The table you provided clearly shows data from four cities, all on the same continent.

Please explain to me how the source you provided is:

1. Peer reviewed

2. International (conducted in theaters across the globe!)

3. Conclusive, at all

Sorry--I confused that study with this one:

http://www.cst.fr/IMG/pdf/35mm_resolution_english.pdf

Which was conducted in a couple of US and Canadian cities---aswell as Milan and Paris

And they reached the same conclusion:

The highest resolution that the assessors could still discern in the sharpest part of the screen(not neccassirily it's center) in the most performing movie theater was about 875 Lines/PH

AntcuFaalb said:

I see you forgot to include the following:

It should be noted that this data is widely discredited by the film community – the numbers that resulted from looking at test patterns did not measure up to the resolution that is widely believed to exist on film. On the other hand, none of the discrediting parties has published any test results that show better performance. Politics cloud the science.

Ummmm----this proves my point!

On the other hand, none of the discrediting parties has published any test results that show better performance. Politics cloud the science.

AntcuFaalb said:

danny_boy: Where did you find the following?

Peer reviewed International studies conducted in theaters across the globe concluded that the average release print has roughly 500-800 lines per picture height.

This seems very wrong to me, so please provide the necessary citation(s) if you're claiming that it's correct.

Film theoretically has very good resolution capabilities. What is delivered to the theatre is another story. If we believe the ITU tests, then images captured at almost 2400 lines per picture height on the camera negative deliver significantly degraded on screen resolution through the projection system – in the range of 500 – 800 lines per picture height. 500 lines corresponds to about 9 line pairs per degree from 2 screen heights.

 http://www.etconsult.com/papers/Technical%20Issues%20in%20Cinema%20Resolution.pdf

zombie84 said:

Yeah, I don't buy that study either. I've done extensive lab-quality tests of my own using Panaflex cameras, resolution charts and 35mm film, and I wasn't getting those results. 800 is a believable number, but 500 in the average? Sorry, there's a reason why we don't screen really good VHS tapes at theaters. There is great generational loss, but 500 discernable lines is pretty crappy, I find that hard to be typical, plus there are things other than resolution, which was the problem with early HD.

CatBus said:

danny_boy said:

Peer reviewed International studies conducted in theaters across the globe concluded that the average release print has roughly 500-800 lines per picture height.

I understand the difference between negatives and release prints, but 1) you're still only talking resolution (a single aspect of "quality"), and 2) averages hide the fact that there's some variation between release prints, and even within a single print.  And what about colorspace?  What about audio?

I certainly wouldn't say Star Wars theatrically was 4K equivalent, nor did I intend to imply that.  Certainly some of the scenes with multiple optical effects are sub-DVD quality in the resolution department, but luckily that does not apply to the entire film, though it does bring down the average, perhaps even down to the levels you quote.  Audio is still Blu-ray quality (lossless, let's ignore the channel variations) throughout, and colorspace is better.  I'd say resolution exceeded 2k at the peaks, but neither of us has any data to back that up or refute it, so feel free to consider that claim dropped.  FWIW, my >2k claim is simply from the observation that when the local theatres switched from film to digital 2k, everything looked worse resolution-wise, and it didn't start looking good again to me until they upgraded again to 4k.  Certainly this was with a non-random sampling of films, possibly not average ones like yours, and like yours they were also not Star Wars, so it doesn't really apply.

Thanks for the clarification and I agree with your points.

Although we have to remember film has other problems too---the accumulation of dirt,tears,dye blobs and the sometimes unstable/jitter/jumps as it passes through the projector---all of this affects the perception of sharpness as experienced by the viewer.

All of the above would have been prevalent to audiences who hit the theaters to watch Star Wars in 1977-1991.

There is also a problem with tonal reproduction as you go through the generations.

Film did have a slight advantage in dynamic range over the first generation of digital cameras/projectors but even this has been matched or exceeded by the  latest iteration of digital cameras provided by the likes of Arri,Sony and RED(be they 2k or 4k).

Understanding this photochemical degradation is at the heart of why Lucas has done what he did with regards to the digital alterations.

SpilkaBilka said:

danny_boy said:

The irony is that the duplication process used in the fotochemical workflow  tended to "even out" the discrepancy between the parts of the o-neg that were 1st generation and the other parts that were optical duplicates.

So by the time you got to that 4th generation release print the film looked relatively seemless.

But if you strike a positive digital "print" from a 4K scan the difference in granularity between all the constituent parts that make up Star wars will be jarring.

I know very little about all this, but in a way I've come to the same conclusion, which I think is sort of the same point you're making here:  filmmakers account for generational loss, and it is in fact part of the intended look of the theatrical print.  (And therefore, wouldn't a scan of a theatrical print be the definitive way to watch SW, or really, any movie?)

Not sure if you saw it, but have you seen the thread where I asked about this:

http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Trying-to-understand-film-preservation-perhaps-a-stupid-question-but-shouldnt-digital-masters-be-struck-from-theatrical-prints/topic/14944/

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.

Thanks for pointing me to that thread---I had not seen it before.

back in 1977 Lucas compensated for the quality differential between dupes and 1st generation by actually  using 2nd generation inserts to mask these same differences!

Other pieces weren't even original negative, but intentionally degraded duplicates that Mr. Lucas had stuck in to avoid emphasizing the quality of adjacent optical effects, some of which were so crude as to be almost unacceptable.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB854660380658056000.html?mod=googlewsj

RickMcallum said that the CGI inserts used in 1997 had to be degraded to match the lower quality of the original negative.

All the new and enhanced stuff, which cost about $15 million, then had to be "degraded" to match the original images, McCallum added.

JOURNEY TO THE CENTER OF A FILM
`STAR WARS SPECIAL EDITION' PRODUCER TRACES THE RESTORATION AND RE-ENVISIONING OF THE ORIGINAL

SOURCE:    By Deborah Peterson

Of the Post-Dispatch Staff PUBLICATION: St. Louis Post-Dispatch
SECTION: GET OUT

DATE: January 30, 1997
EDITION: FIVE STAR LIFT
PAGE: 31

It is these compromises that pushed Lucas to go digital.

CatBus said:

Father Skywalker said:

What's is the main problme/issue here, exactly???

For 20 years, the original films were available for average people to see in better than Blu-ray quality.  All you had to do was go to a theatre showing them, buy a ticket, and watch.  Today, if a theatre is caught showing the original films, they are quickly confiscated.

Back in '97, most didn't immediately see the impact of this policy change.  Like you said, the public still had VHS tapes and Laserdiscs, which, while certainly not as good as 35mm film, were good enough for most people's televisions at the time.  And since going to the theatre was falling out of fashion even then, people might not have considered exactly how much better the films looked before they were reduced to VHS and Laserdisc.

Now, not only are those obsolete formats becoming increasingly difficult to play, but two new formats (DVD and Blu-ray) have come along to remind audiences about that quality gap between 35mm film and VHS tape.

The GOUT release (the out-of-print bonus disc DVD release) was a Laserdisc-quality release on the DVD format (not to mention that Star Wars got the wrong soundtrack in this release), so it didn't really do much for fans other than provide a really distorted view of what the originals looked like to the uninitiated.  Even today, you'll hear people say that the originals looked all low-res and dirty like the GOUT, that the Special Editions fixed all of that, and that the originals simply aren't worth an HD release!

In summary, the purists remember the period from 1977-1997 when it was possible to watch the OT in super-high-definition, compare it against today when your best officially sanctioned option is a crappy Laserdisc transfer from the early nineties with the wrong soundtrack, and we feel shafted.  Especially those of us with children.

Or, to put it even more succinctly, when Beverly Hills Chihuahua 3 beats the hell out of Star Wars in the visuals department, there's a problem.

Got to strongly disagree with you here.

35mm 4th generation positive release prints shown in theaters(as Star Wars would have been from 1977-1991) resolved the equivalent of 1K or even less of "screen information"----- i.e less  than Blu ray or Digital Cinema 2K.(but probably a little higher than standard def DVD and obviously better than the GOUT)

Peer reviewed International studies conducted in theaters across the globe concluded that the average release print has roughly 500-800 lines per picture height.

People keep conflating information captured on the camera negative with positive release prints(shown in theaters).

It is the same as confusing the 5k of information captured on the digital panavision/genesis camera(used for superman returns)----this 5k is then down converted to 1080p/2k  for release

The camera negative of film has the capacity to store upto 2400 lpph of info(or 3-4K).But you don't watch the camera negative in a theater!

But Star Wars's "original negative-o-neg" was compromised by the fact that large portions of it were composed of opticals and dupes(for wipes/dissolves ect ect)----In a sense  parts of the o-neg were not really original!

Sure----the model work was captured on Vista Vision cameras ----but even that is subject to degradation through the photochemical process of duplication.

They even  did comparisons in 1999 with  the release of the Phantom menace using a pristine 35mm print and projecting it side by side with a 1st generation digital projector with the digital version coming out on top.

I am up for seeing a release of the 1977 edit on blu ray as the next man but I dont subcribe to the misinformation/disinformation that 35mm release prints in the 70's and 80's were "ultra-high def" (which by the way  equates to 4K)

If you were to strike a 4th generation release print from the 1977 oneg of star wars in 2012 you maybe surprised to see how grainy some of those original optical composites were/are.

That is why Lucas decided to replace them.

The irony is that the duplication process used in the fotochemical workflow  tended to "even out" the discrepancy between the parts of the o-neg that were 1st generation and the other parts that were optical duplicates.

So by the time you got to that 4th generation release print the film looked relatively seemless.

But if you strike a positive digital "print" from a 4K scan the difference in granularity between all the constituent parts that make up Star wars will be jarring.

I go from one extreme to the other.

I watch the original 1982 VHS(Pal)-----I think it has value because it has  the film without any digital alterations----it is a 100% analogue product.

That is the era that Star Wars belongs to.

here are some screenshots (from my tape)------some of the defects contained in the print that was used for this same 1982 VHS transfer can be seen:

But I also watch the 2011 Blu ray on a Sony 4K Home projector----it is called a VW1000es

I can't take screen shot of  this myself----even if i could it would not do it justice:

But here is a screen shot from projector reviews.com:

http://www.projectorreviews.com/sony/vpl-vw1000es/

 

msycamore said:

danny_boy said:

I recorded this broadcast myself in the summer of 83' and again in christmas 1984 on my then trusty V2000

Interesting, so this telecine was at least broadcasted three times, does your recordings contain the credits? if so, which ones: http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Credits-Leaders-Thread/topic/12960/

I think your recordings would be a great asset to this project: http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/1983-UK-TVS-Star-Wars-premiere-anybody-still-have-a-recording/topic/14122/

 

yes----

It was broadcast in October 82',May  83',December 84' ,July 86', somewhere in 88'---and possibily into the early 90's too----although I had lost interest in SW by that point.

I think this ITV broadcast is derived from a  different print to the one used for the 82' official VHS release as there is tear in it that runs across Luke's face when he is in the Lars homestead which seems to be absent from the VHS.

Will try and get screen grabs at some point.

Unfortunately my recordings from 83 and 84 are long gone(made on the long extinct but underated V2000)----i do have a copy of the 86' showing on VHS(duped from a friend in 2005).

msycamore said:

Russ was kind and uploaded an avi of his 80's ITV-broadcast recording, and I must say this is a very nice transfer with most of the original timing intact, no gamma tweaks like those we're used to be seeing in the jawas-canyon was applied here, it's very film-like in its quality, this along with AntcuFaalb's bootleg is great reference material to the timing on Eastmancolor prints if I may venture an opinion like Threepio would say. Must've been awesome to have this one recorded in the 80's. Anyway, as I mentioned earlier his recording doesn't contain the credit roll, only the first credit card but look what I found:

^^ Instead of the iris, there's a dissolve.

The credit card is not video generated, it is identical to what we see on other prints with the same starfield and everything:

So, what the???

Haven't checked this source in detail yet but the source used is unique among all the transfers that's for sure, I also noticed what appears to be TV-cue dots.

Would be kinda cool if ITV still have the print or the telecined transfer on tape(or both!?) in a vault somewhere?!

I recorded this broadcast myself in the summer of 83' and again in christmas 1984 on my then trusty V2000

negative1 said:

danny_boy said:

 

Sony 4K(4096 x 2160) 1000es projector(upscales 1080p using propriety Reality Creation algorithm)

Panasonic BDT 100 Blu Ray Player

Sony 7.1 A/V STR-DN1000 surround set up

 

 

very cool, maybe you win the prize!

do you have any pictures?

 

same to everyone else,

pictures of the setup and room layout

would be nice.

 

later

-1

No pictures of my own im afraid!

Even if I could I would not be able to do it justice.

But a reviewer at projectorreviews tested the blu ray of a new hope on this same Sony4K projector and took some screen grabs:

http://www.projectorreviews.com/outstanding-product/outstanding-projector-2012.php

Sony 4K(4096 x 2160) 1000es projector(upscales 1080p using propriety Reality Creation algorithm)

Panasonic BDT 100 Blu Ray Player

Sony 7.1 A/V STR-DN1000 surround set up

Baronlando said:

danny_boy said:

<span style=“font-style: italic;”>We did a lot of work but</span> <span style=“font-style: italic; text-decoration: underline;”>there is nothing that I would like to do more than go back and redo all the special effects,</span> <span style=“font-style: italic;”>have a little more time.</span>

I like when people try to equate a guy in 1977 wanting to re-do bad composites and rough motion control (and basically just pushing the movie to December like Close Encounters did) with what ended up ultimately happening in 97, as if it’s exactly the same.

George Lucas (March 6th 1978):
"I’m simply trying to become a free man. I’m trying to set up an alternative film making that allows me more freedom to do what I want, within certain parameters.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,915986,00.html

Mod Edit: a working link to the above Time article, dated Monday 6th March 1978, can be found here:-

https://web.archive.org/web/20120201012220/http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,915986,00.html

George Lucas-1977 Rolling Stone Interview

"Star Wars is about 25% of what I wanted it to be. It’s really still a good movie, but "it fell short of what I wanted it to be.

We did a lot of work but “there is nothing that I would like to do more than go back and redo all the special effects, have a little more time”.

http://starwarz.multiply.com/journal/item/10/1977_Rolling_Stone_George_Lucas_Interview

Mod Edit: a working link to the above article by Paul Scanlon, dated May 7th 2007, re the 1977 Rolling Stone interview, can be found below:-

https://web.archive.org/web/20121115114146/http://starwarz.multiply.com/journal/item/10/1977_Rolling_Stone_George_Lucas_Interview

none said:

danny_boy wrote: I am one of the few average Joe's who owns a Sony 4k 1000es projector-----and the SW blu ray's look amazing-

No one's debating the amazingness of a blu-ray disc.  Is 'one of the few' still territory of the 'average Joe'?

The two pics share a resemblance.  But they remind us of what the threads about.

 

Well---you might wanna call me a "slightly above average Joe"! lol!

Just to clarify----I did not mean to come across as antagonistic---I love 35mm/70mm----and I respect and admire the painstaking work that Negative 1 is doing.

But i aslo don't subscribe to the 35/70mm is great and digital is crap crowd either----hence the comparison.

Well---I am one of the few average Joe's who owns a Sony 4k 1000es projector-----and the SW blu ray's look amazing----here are some screen shots from projectorreviews.com.

http://www.projectorreviews.com/sony/vpl-vw1000es/image.php

On the above is the 35mm original from negative1's print  and a different frame but the same scene from the Blu Ray(upscaled on a Sony 4K) below:

negative1 said:

bkev said:

What in God's name is the point of posting thumbnails if you post the full-size ones right after?

those aren't full size.

look again, they're clipped.

later

-1

Hi Negative1

been browsing this thread with amazement for a while-----thanks for posting all these pics------forgive me for being unfamiliar with the context of these fotos----- but have you aquired a complete 35mm print?

The only thing that I remember seeing(besides the movies themselves!)when I went to watch SW and ESB back to back in 1981 is this Pearl And Dean AD:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCo1Ffn9_u8

There might be other UK members here who remember the same?!

Erikstormtrooper said:

I think it goes without saying (or at least I thought it did), that the more popular a movie is, the more uproar everyone will make when it is "disappeared".

Since ST:TMP has not fared well over time, I can see how the Director's Cut sort of got a big "meh".

Plus, it's not like the powers that be ever said the original ST:TMP would NEVER released and in fact had been PURPOSEFULLY DESTROYED.

Unfortunately----the popularity of a film and the degradation of the original negative that ensues because the film is popular-------are inextricably linked.

And this is where Lucas deserves praise.

All the original elements that comprised the hundreds of special effects that feature throughout the original cut of Star Wars were saved by Lucas----which allows him to restore those frames  if needed(the seeker ball training scene onboard the falcon being one example).

I am not sure other big budget /effects heavy films from the 70's/early 80's  have had their composite elements preserved as meticulously as Star Wars.

It is probably one of the reasons why films such as Close Encounters and Superman have only been subjected to 2k scans---any higher scans(4K) would only expose the limitations of the optical compositing.------and it probably also explains why Lucas thinks that those effects don't hold up(he is on record as not being happy with the effects as far back as the summer of 1977.)

evan1975 said:

danny_boy said:

It is relevant because in the period that it was not available Wise(and Paramount) were never castigated in the same manner that Lucas has been.

1) People WERE pissed about only having the DCs on DVD.  But at least all the scenes that were changed WERE on the DVD as deleted scenes bonus features.  A fan editor could have used those and reassembled the original cut if they wanted to.  (I don't think anyone did, though.)

2) People ARE pissed about the current inverse situation, where we can't get the DCs on Blu-ray

3) But the majority of people don't give a damn about Star Trek: The Motion Picture.  It was a lousy to mediocre movie depending what cut you watch.  Many, many more people love Star Wars, thus a disproportionate outcry.

But you know this already.

Well---no film is perfect----but if there had been no Star Trek The Motion Picture-----then there would have been no ST movie franchise ------ Period.

And if I am not mistaken----after it is adjusted for inflation---ST:TMP  had been the highest grossing ST movie(yes---even more than the beloved Wrath Of Khan!)----until the 2009 release of Abrams's new ST film.

I do agree with your points that you made above------- having said that there is a certain amount of subjectivity when it comes to this kind of analysis.

I personally felt that the CGI version of the Vger spaceship looked exactly that----CGI!

I also think that  the CGI depiction of the Vulcan planetscape also looked out of place for a  movie made in 1979.

Also---the deleted scenes did not include every scene that had been replaced by CGI.

It should also not be forgotten that the CGI additions made for this 2001 Star Trek special edition were only rendered in a modest 480i resolution(when 2K was already considered a standard)-----thus they would not hold up on a big screen.

All of this would have been more than enough for Trekkies to make a rumble.

msycamore said:

danny_boy said:

If the original negative had not been cleaned and restored(as you claim) then how  do you think they managed to get the picture quality to a level to be able to re-release it to cinemas in 1997?

No I didn't claim that, I clearly said that the original negative was disassembled cleaned and reassembled but just because they washed all the elements from dirt doesn't mean that all deteriorated and faded elements were magically restored. They are probably in the same condition today if not worse than when they replaced them with recomposites and CGI etc.

Apologies for the misunderstanding.

Having said that  the public have never been shown which or what frames(that featured optical composites) have/had  deteriorated.

A lot of the original composites are still in the special edition----and they look to be in excellent condition(although they exihibit the extra grain and contrast associated with 3rd generation elements)

1990osu said:

danny_boy said:

An interpositive was struck from that original negative------it was that 1st generation interpositive that was then hacked up into pieces and conformed and manipulated into what would become the special edition.

Do you have a source on that?

This 2004 article(that coincided with the DVD release) made a clear distinction between the original negative and the special edition negative.

Interestingly, the negatives that were scanned were not those of the original releases but of the 1997 Special Edition reissues, because of their additional effects sequences (more of which are said to have been added in the DVD releases). Defects such as dirt and scratches from the original negative, then, had made their way through to the 1997 negative

Restoring the Star Wars Trilogy.

Article from: Videography | September 1, 2004 | Hurwitz, Matt

Baronlando said:

Don't you understand? It's a double standard. Why was Robert Wise spared the fans outrage merely for being dead? Why didn't fans conduct a seance to yell at him for Paramount's decisions? And why have fans consistently failed to build a time machine to yell at 90s Ridley Scott for not releasing all the various versions he had no control over? Where is it?

The double standard is your own.

Robert Wise was alive and well in 2000---he even contributed a commenatary track to the DVD  highlighting why he made the changes he did-----all those peeved off Trekkies obviously failed to make their voices heard ----when the theatrical cut was witheld eh?