Very nicely done Harmy! It's amazing to see a tiny snip-it of how much work you put into this project. It was also interesting to learn how many other members who contributed their time and effort, to work on the project with you as well.
Very good choice, I'm pretty certain she'll like it.
poita said:
Yes, the cinema you saw it in, the light source of the projector, size of the screen, film stock, ambient lighting and even your seating position would mean that every one would have a different viewing experience. You would see different colour depending on the lamp colour temperature and film stock, you would see different colour intensity depending on the size of the screen and the number of foot lamberts output. I was the son of a projectionist and actually got to thread and screen Star Wars as a child, the handling of film is pretty rough, but it is usually lubricated and the threading etc. is just the leader tape which doesn't have any of the movie on it. Film is very hardy, you should see how it is treated by the film editors when cutting a film!
The IB print will be a pretty good indication of how the film was *meant* to look and would have looked at the first screenings in a small cinema with a great screen. It is as close to the original negative as we can get, but it won't necessarily be the way any given person saw it.
That is why I don't get too tied up about reproducing the *exact* experience, there is no such thing. Some cinema screens would have been so dark that the garbage mattes would be invisible, others so bright that they would have been clear and bright. Some projectors would have terrible weave, others pretty stable etc. etc.
However, the overall colour balance and tone would have been much the same, so the IB print allows us to know if the greys were actually a little green, if Uncle Owen's hair was nearly black or more browny-grey, if the monsters in the Cantina were dimly lit with dark shadows etc. etc.
While everyone's experience would be different, we can at last answer a lot of questions about how it looked in '77 if you happened to see it from a great print in a good cinema.
and I'll put money it didn't look much like the bluray release....
A great and informative write-up poita, thanks so much for this. A nice read!
I bet that was nearly a thrill of a lifetime, being able to actually thread in the movie Star Wars in 1977. I can only imagine that you were giddy with excitement!
A question to you though. Do you have any clue as to how many, of the movie houses/theaters showed the Technicolor print, versus the non Technicolor print? or what was the percentages made of the Technicolor print versus the non Technicolor print? I thought I read it was very small.
Also, a Technicolor print would look a lot different than a non Technicolor print, and thus would have a totally different color timing look, as noted in the pictures from Mike, posted above.
You could also check out Dark Jedi & You_Too's "Star Wars Theatrical V3 DVD" available on Myspleen. It is the best representation of how it looked in the day. IMHO
Also, Check your Private Messages!
The new color timing. I really have to get used to it. The difference is astounding. Especially on Tatooine. Is this how the film looked back in 1977?
CatBus did a good job of explaining the color timing, in that it came from a "high-quality low-fade print", and the fact that a LOT of factors go into how a person saw the film in the day.
It could very though WIDELY how a person saw it, starting with the kind of projector that was playing it, the kind of illumination (sometimes a bulb) the projector used to illuminate it, the number of foot lamberts and sometimes even the screen may have had a factor on how it was viewed, and how it was/is remembered.
The prints that were in-part a factor of how this version was color timed, according to what I have read here on this forum by the author, and others who were involved in this project, were said to have been from Technicolor I.B. prints, if I am not mistaken. Please someone correct me if I am wrong people. If those facts are correct, we all know that Technicolor prints have a completely different look to them than non-technicolor film, and may be in-part why the color timing looks different to your eyes, and I and others on this forum, don't recognize this look, to how it was in the theaters in the time of it's original run, unless you/they were viewing this movie in a theater which was showing Star Wars in Technicolor, IMHO.
Technicolor has a MUCH warmer and vibrant color palette than non-technicolor prints do. If you've seen some older movies, of the silver-screen era, you most likely know what I mean...They are beautiful to watch.
Given all these facts, and others that are not mentioned here, there is a good chance that this is indeed not how it looked in the theaters that did not show a Technicolor print in the theater in the days of Star Wars original film release.
I know these statements will not give you a clear answer, but I'm sorry to say, that there is no clear answer. This version is a good HD representation of what a Technicolor print of Star Wars might have looked like in 1977, but I was not privy to that version, but do wish I could have seen one.
Edit: Does anyone have an know how many theaters showed the Technicolor version, or what the percentage was versus the non-Technicolor prints?
Those snapshots were indeed very interesting, thanks again Mike. They leave me wondering however, if the particular projector ones local cinema used, was a major factor in how you literally saw each movie.
Also, those pictures that you posted were from your I.B. print, which are from a Technicolor presentation, if I understand it correctly? If that is the case, it is no wonder the colors are more vibrant than the non-technicolor presentation that I personally saw at my local cinema in the day, but still none-the-less very interesting!
Here is a video that might be of interest to you all. A fellow describes how projectionists did their work about 35 years ago using a carbon arc projector:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0iScIfqfCGk
After viewing this video (and others that are related), I can easily understand how these films got so beat up, feeding the film into the projector alone seemed to be somewhat rough at times, not by this fellow in particular however, but in general handling of the celluloid film seemed, well...rough at best. It was though, a very interesting video to see, and worth watching.
Hey, thanks Mike,
They appear to have a very warm pallette, and are very vibrant. Do they project that same way as seen in these pictures, or do they differ at all, due to the back light or camera settings?
poita said:
I've never heard of an IB print fading; I've had trailers from the 50's that look perfect, and there's stuff dating back to the 30's on nitrate that's supposed to look outstanding. IB matrices can widely vary though. I've had 3 or 4 prints of Thunderball over the years, and only 1 had perfect color registration. The others were off. I don't think that was due to fading, but more due to processing.
They definitely fade, just nowhere near as fast as other stocks. in 1996 I had two IB prints to work on for a restoration, both struck one after the other in 1972, one had faded noticebaly more than the other. One had been kept in a temp controlled film archive, the other in the general office area in a desk. If kept well, the fading over a decade or three is pretty minimal, but eventually all things chemical change with time.
You also get considerably colour differences between prints done at different times, so they are not the be-all and end-all of colour references. You could have three different people print from a neg and get three different results. IB prints tend to be more contrasty too.
However, for Star Wars, an IB print will be the closest we can get to knowing roughly what the colour was like back in 1977. If kept well it won't have changed much. It would have looked a bit different at every cinema anyway, but it is a great starting point for colour restoration. I'm very excited by the prospect of getting to know those colours again after the odd colour pallete of the bluray releases.
When you say "Fade" what exactly do you mean in film stock terms? I know what the terminology of fading means in general, but does film stock fade differently than say, photographs or pigments used in painting? Is it different with each print? Do the prints colors loose saturation, or become a different color, like we all have seen, to a pinkish-red, or can it be a myriad of things?
Hey Mike, did you get to those reference prints yet? I'd like to see how yours may differ from some others.
Thank you both poita and hairy_hen for this information!
The information you've provided here is invaluable, and would explain how individual prints can, and do vary slightly, and how people might perceive images differently from another persons perception of how it might have been, or looked at a given time.
Do IB prints deteriorate/degrade in any way, as far as anyone knows..? Or do they always maintain there exact image qualities for an indefinite period of time?
Another quandary...When theaters played the movies in the day, how does one determine, or even know, what equipment was used to display said movie in said theater? Was there only one professional projector used for every theater in this, and other lands? If a certain projector used a certain type of bulb, or other piece of equipment, could that have tainted the way the filmed look in any way? Is it possible that the screen itself could have displayed the image differently from one theater to another?
It's really quite amazing to think of how many variables could have played a factor into what each of us saw, or thought we saw, when we saw it. It must be factored in. Just because a certain person says "This IS how it looked in 1977" doesn't always mean that is how it looked to me, or to others who saw it at there local theater. Now if we all saw the same movie, in the same theater, using the exact same everything, then, and only then, could one, or a group of people say, "This is how it was" IMHO
dlvh
Mike seems like a real nice guy. I've emailed him a couple of times now, and he seems easy to get along with, accommodating and not condescending..that in itself is refreshing! I'm looking forward to some more informative posts from him here pretty soon.
I also hear that this version actually has the "non-existent" dual-throwing grappling hook scene, that so many say was NOT in Star Wars in '77 as well, okay, okay, not really, I just wanted to get your attention, and to see who is really reading this.
pushad said:
Ignore button, such a wonder full thing.
LOL!
This is indeed VERY exciting to read! I'm not certain how I can help, but you have my support. I am also another one of those "grumpy old men" who saw Star Wars in the theater in '77, and have been patiently waiting to see Team Negative 1's progress on their 35mm project, and now this? This is starting to be a very good year... I feel almost like I did early in 1977, waiting for Star Wars to come to my local theater!
Han's shirt was actually an off-white/cream(ish) sort of color then. It IS interesting to see it change colors in multiple scenes, to a yellow(ish) look though, especially seeings that Luke's outfit (Cloak?) was quite similar in color, stay mostly consistent throughout this project, as did Leia's (Dress?), which was much more of a Pure White, but I don't recall seeing IT having any color issues to-speak-of!
A couple of things I spotted:
1. I noticed that the opening star field has a bit of gate weave still...Is that intentionally left in?
2. R2-D2 has some flickering while hiding from Obi-Wan in the rocks.
I was going to mention an audio issue where Han is talking to Luke on the Death Star, and asks after finding out about Leia being held prisoner, "What are you talking about?", but hairy_hen probably already knows about that one.
Otherwise, that's it for now.
Harmy said:
Hang on a second there dlvh - we were never talking about what looks better (that is very subjective) but what is more accurate to the original. Now, you claimed to remember the colors looking more like the DVD version, so basically you claimed not that the DVD version was better looking in your opinion but that you thought it looked more like the original.
But even if you did remember the impression you got from the colors in 1981, you must take into account that the brain automatically adjusts for visuals - if you're sitting in a dark cinema and then the film starts and it looks consistently warm from the beginning, your brain automatically adjusts to it and you perceive it as natural colors, unless of course you consciously take note of the color timing, which no one normally does, especially not on the initial release of the film, so you came out of the cinema, remembering natural looking colors.
I looked at the DVD shot you posted and sure enough, it registered as pretty natural, so when I switched to the warmer BD shot, it of course seemed too warm to my brain, but I kept looking at the BD shot for a few more seconds and then switched back to the DVD shot and suddenly the DVD shot registered as too cold.
This works pretty much the same way, only over a longer period of time - you were used to watching the DVD colors for years, so the colors on the BD register as wrong regardles of whether they are closer to the original color timing.
Harmy, I mostly agree with your statements here about how the brain remembers visuals, except for the fact that, ever since I saw Star Wars in the theater in 1977, I became used to the fact that theaters show movies in what I, and now you, call NATURAL colors (like IMHO the 2003 DVD) are. IF I were to have gone to another movie and saw it in what you call WARM colors, I would have wondered why that movies colors were so...off compared to what Star Wars (and now ROTLA) was.
I very much enjoy old movies that are broadcast, that are of the vintage era...the later 30's - the 50's. It was the golden age of Technicolor, and although I love the color of those movies, my eyes and brain realize that those are completely different than anything you might see in the theaters now days, but it is beautiful none-the-less, but certainly not Natural compared to modern-day (post Technicolor era) movies.
Just the look of this Bluray release immediately registered to my brain as...WRONG...too Warm, from what I remember seeing in the DVD and in the theater, and yes, unnatural, to me. I cannot speak to what you may have perceived if you were to have seen this in the theater in 1981, but if you did, I would likely say, that you would have called the color timing "Natural", but depending on what you may have been used to, it could have been considered to COLD as well, compared to the Blu rays "Warm" look is... IMO anyway.
Perhaps I am misunderstanding what the original color timing is, if it's not what was displayed in the theater in 1981, and in the 2003 DVD, and then to what I perceive as Natural vs the Blu rays Warm color timing?
Hope that clears somethings up.
dlvh
OK, This first image is from my 2003 ROTLA DVD. Notice in particular, how the plane is a nice Silver/Gray color, like a lot of planes were of that era, and notice the other items in this snapshot:
And this is from the Bluray release. Notice how the colors are a fair amount different in the shirt, the water and the plane itself:
Now I also know that peoples TV's or Projectors may be setup a bit different colorwise & brightness wise, and this may in part, be the reason I am seeing different colors & brightness than other people are.
This is only one example of what the difference is between the Bluray and the 2003 DVD release, but to me, everything thing looks just a lot more natural on the DVD version. I may be wrong, I never said that I was right, only that this is my opinion. Everyone has one.
And, I have gone through this thread, read the posts, and still believe the Bluray is not the best looking, for the reasons stated above, but again, it is only my opinion given various media and how my devices are setup.
Harmy...All I can say is... What a wonderful job you've done! The Luke meets Obi-Wan scene looks very nice now. The light saber battle between Darth and Obi-Wan looks fantastic! All the hard worked you've put into this project, has really paid off! Great job!
Thanks for the listening to all of us giving you hints and suggestions, and putting them into there proper prospective. You've really given this whole movie, new life!
Best to you & Thank you again!
jero32 said:
So despite evidence to the contrary (namely that 35mm print, which is indeed not definite proof) that the blu-ray is at least closer to the theatrical timing than the dvds,. You maintain that your memory (humans have been shown to be very flawed in remembering things like colors) is more accurate than any of the evidence shown in this thread?
Anyway I've said what I think about the blu-ray, and I think if you don't agree with me, I doubt you'll ever agree.
(and no the blu-ray isn't perfectly accurate either, but as I said I'll 'blame' that on digital color timing)
Yes, that is correct. My memory, along with the 2003 DVD release (which I am currently scrutinizing over as we speak) and the WoWoW project, all point to the fact that the Bluray is flawed in both brightness, contrast and color timing. The Bluray is too Orange(ish)-Yellow in color and brightened a bit too much, in laymen's terms. You_Too demonstrates this pretty well in post #161 in this thread, even though he used "Temple Of Doom" to prove a point, and ROTLA has even a bit darker look to it than Temple Of Doom did in most parts...IMHO.
Another good indication to look at, is the WoWoW youtube comparison, and this is what I experienced in the theater in 1981 and still see in the 2003 DVD release:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQhCypYcjBo
I hope that help explain it a bit better, but if not, I will try and get some comparison shots posted here before too long.
dlvh
I also saw this movie in the theater in 1981, and the colortiming & grittier look of the WoWoW edition is much closer to how it actually looked in the theaters then versus the current Bluray release. I have the 2003 DVD release as well, and although that has some flaws to it, it is more theatrically correct also.
Is anyone who has this WoWoW version, planning on uploading it to MySpleen in the near future? I see that there are links to the WoWoW veersion on the Paradox site, but they are so slow.
Just a quick edit:
chyron8472 said:
I made a new SW:DE cover for myself by cannibalizing other cover art, posters and such. I know there's another thread for this, but I didn't know how often people visit it.
I like the idea of it saying it's the original theatrical version (which it is) on the box, instead of "Despecialized." I thought it would go over well with my family and friends should I give them a copy of the DEED trilogy.
I like it, except for the words "Episode IV A New Hope"
jero32 said:
I think the senator shot might be a little overexposed actually. But its hard to prove exactly.
I agree jero32.
I believe, Harmy's original mission was to re-create the movie to how it looked like in the theaters in 1977. Scans of photos and camera pictures taken of a movie shown in a movie theater can be deceiving, if taken with a less than professional camera, and even at that, can be... misleading.
Well Harmy, I'm glad that you are now using a external monitor to base your color correction scenes with. Secondly, whatever footage you saw, I'm glad that you spotted it before releasing version 2.1, and I'm happy to see you're re-editing some scenes that were in question in version 2.0
Your recent edits are refreshing to see. Please do keep an eye on whatever footage that you've seen recently...that have turned you to re-think how this project is supposed to look like...like the way it was in the summer of 1977.
