hairy_hen

Yes, but Pellaeon had no way of knowing that.

That's something Zahn excels at, and one of the things that makes his writing seem more real than others', in that he only gives the characters whatever information it makes sense for them to know, in context, and not just having them hear of things because the reader knows them.  Little subtle details like that help sell the story, and are not there because the author has an agenda.

I say keep them, because the complaining was really stupid and petty.

I noticed the snow appearing purple in some shots, and I think that does need correction back into actual blueness.

As for the amount of blue, I think this was inconsistent in the film itself, so it's hard to say for sure how much there should or should not be.  I keep going back and forth about it in my own mind, but I'm pretty happy with it looking as it currently does, provided the strange purple issue is eliminated.

The level of nitpicking that goes on never ceases to amaze me.

If Harmy is going to be called out for something so miniscule, then I might as well be taken to task for the 5.1 tracks that accompany these releases.  In several respects I make creative edits that don't necessarily duplicate the original audio mixes to 100% accuracy in all technical respects.  But what I do sounds damn good, and replicates the spirit of the original work very convincingly. For its intended purpose, it's far and away the best that can be done with the source material available, and nobody has ever really had a problem with it that I'm aware of.  I stand by what I do—just as I support Harmy's judgement in the visual aspects.

As it happens, film prints actually do have rounded corners, and given that these movies were shot on film, it's not like such a thing is coming out of nowhere.  As has been mentioned above, cropping of the image is always going to occur to some degree on any presentation, and each copy will be cropped slightly differently, for a variety of reasons.  There is nothing to suggest that the Bluray version is somehow a completely reliable record of every single scrap of sacred picture information, or that losing a miniscule amount at the edge to accommodate the needs of the venue somehow violates the sanctity of the movie experience.

At the end of the day, this is not a complete restoration as such.  The stated goal is to recreate the experience of watching the original versions of the movies, starting from the special edition and working backwards.  It isn't the actual untouched original in every aspect (and neither are my audio tracks, for that matter).  With the advent of 35mm sources for some shots, the project has evolved into taking on a more film-like appearance, which I think is awesome.  But sometimes the film-like qualities have to be replicated digitally (which is now possible with recent developments in analog modelling), and as such a certain degree of creative judgement is called for in applying them.  But to call this project a fan edit is very misleading, and inappropriately dismissive of its nature and intentions.

When all is said and done, we want to be able to just sit down and watch these movies like we were kids again.  If anybody is going to let a tiny part of the very edge of the frame ruin that experience for themselves, then they are in a strangely confused state of mind and ought to re-examine their priorities.

This is looking seriously awesome.  That shot with the aliased windows is the most obvious improvement, but every one of them shows marked increase in both detail and color accuracy.  Excellent work!

New 5.1 mix is nearly done, by the way.  The bass sounds way better now than it did before.  ;)

I don't have any kids, but I'll eat yours for you.

I recall there being confusion about this a while back until we finally got it sorted out.  As Harmy indicated, what's going on here is that there are three different composites of this scene that were made over the years.  The first being the original from 1977, with no episode number or title; the second was the 1981 version, in which 'Episode IV A New Hope' was added and the starfield background was changed to one that had been used in The Empire Strikes Back; and the third having been made in 1997 for the Special Edition, which retained the 1981 version of the text but returned to the original 1977 starfield.

Assuming I'm understanding what you're saying correctly, Mike, it appears that all the elements of the 1981 version were reused for the SE (aside from the starfield background), including the timing of the laser blasts and explosions relative to the beginning, and also the total number of frames in the shot.  Both the 1981 and 1997 versions appear to be missing one frame compared to the original (the 'STAR WARS' title card must come in a frame late, and both the Technicolor print and the Bluray are missing an additional frame at the end of the shot, accounting for the total 2 frame discrepancy).

Undoubtedly this timing difference was a mistake introduced in 1981 when the shot was redone for the first time, and not intentional; the error would then have been unknowingly carried over into the special edition since no one knew there had been a mistake there in the first place.  Any discrepancy in audio synch would probably have been small enough to have gone unnoticed since the tracks were not remixed in 1981.  Due to the aural character of the sound effects used in this scene, being somewhat drawn out in duration and of unusual timbre, small timing errors with respect to the picture would be harder to pick up on than might be expected.

Going from these logical conclusions, it is then easy to assert that only the 1977 original, as agreed upon by both the Kodak print and the 2006 DVD, should be considered an authoritative representation of the timing for this scene.  The 1981 and SE versions can be safely disregarded.

Maleficent.

Pretty much the ultimate revisionist fairy tale.  Angelina Jolie was incredible in this film, and I really enjoyed the way the story of Sleeping Beauty was reimagined.  Maleficent's origin story seemed to be a horrifying metaphor for sexual assault, and it was utterly impossible not to feel bad for her—even when she became inexcusably cruel and spiteful later on, I was still rooting for her much of the time.  Seeing the usual Disney tropes deconstructed so thoroughly, only to be later upheld in quite unexpected ways, was very interesting.

If, like me, you like the show Once Upon a Time or the movie Enchanted, chances are you'll enjoy this film quite a lot.  It isn't perfect, of course, as the script probably could have used some additional fleshing out of certain elements, but it adds up to a very satisfying whole, and I highly recommend it.

I'm sick to death of reboots and retconning as well.  Batman Begins and Casino Royale are fantastic movies, and their franchises badly needed new life breathed into them, but pretty much everything else that has tried it has been crap.  Hollywood is using it as an excuse to remake old stories over and over without bothering to be creative or do anything new, and it has become very tiresome.

Vader's blade may not always have been as strongly red as we'd imagine in every shot, but there is no way it should be that pink.  You'll notice that Luke's blade is pushing well into cyan and even almost flat-out green at times, which is certainly not correct either.

I strongly suspect that the film has been scanned with a light source that is inappropriate to the color timing the film was actually aiming for, and that rebalancing the whole image to compensate would help eliminate this issue.

Other than that, it looks really great . . .

The Hammer is Stinky's penis.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCwLirQS2-o

I was quite surprised by how good the '97 SE looks.  Since it was never touched by any of the harsh color and contrast manipulation of the 2004 version, it looks much more natural and is easier to watch by far, even with the occasional softness and compression issues.  The CGI shots fare far better here than they do in the official versions, and yet again I'm amazed at the ability of LFL to have screwed up their later releases so completely.  Well done, guys!

As for the cinema DTS track seeming to 'destroy' the Dolby Digital version, the reason for this is that the laserdisc AC3 is encoded with a DialNorm value of -27, meaning that the gain is automatically lowered by 4 dB during playback.  This is non-defeatable on most equipment, so in order to make a fair comparison between the two, you must raise the volume by 4 dB to compensate when listening to the AC3.  Once this total level discrepancy has been eliminated, the differences between them are much more subtle.

Most Dolby Digital tracks on home video have traditionally been encoded at -27, and this is the primary reason for the persistent belief that DTS is better than Dolby—we almost always automatically believe that whatever is louder must also be better, especially when it comes to bass levels (our ears perceive bass more clearly at higher levels, so this can fool you into thinking that a mix is different even if all that has happened is that the monitor level was changed).  The most recent Dolby encoders now default to a DialNorm value of -31, so there is no gain reduction.

It is possible to change the DialNorm value of an AC3 track without actually re-encoding the audio itself, so if this was done, it would be considerably more difficult to tell the Dolby and DTS versions apart, since they are essentially the same mix in every way that matters.  Aside from the bitrate, and a possible slight phase difference in the LFE, they are quite the same.

I think I am leaning towards using the stereo mix again, because I do like the way it sounds more in that version.  It may work well enough not to be an issue if I edit in and out in the right spots and take care to match the EQ and level more precisely.

Despite having switched to the '85 mix for the replacement sections in the first movie, I did still keep one part from the '77 stereo (the explosion that convinces C-3PO to get in the escape pod) since it sounded more robust than the '85 did for that particular effect.  Even though the stereo image does change, it's quite difficult to hear the transition in that spot since I was very determined to find a way to make it work, and I did.  ;)  So I'm hopeful that this will be equally successful.  I won't know for a couple days since I'm currently mixing some music for a friend, but I'll get back to it as soon as that's done.

This would, of course, be easier if they had made '85 mixes of ESB and RotJ with full stereo width as they did for the first movie (or if the '93 version weren't inexplicably missing the crash sound to begin with).  Oh well.  I'm not sure if a hybrid version would be possible, but I'll look into it.  Perhaps if I extracted the sound from the center channel of the SE and blended it into the '93 directly?  Hmm . . .

The problem is that the theatrical stereo mixes have narrower stereo imaging than the '93 versions, presumably to reduce crosstalk when the tracks were upmixed during playback (upmixing back then was more primitive than it is now, so this was a bigger concern at the time).  When I made my first attempt at recreating the SW 70mm track, I replaced the '93 added sounds with the '77 stereo mix, but this was not ideal because the shift in the soundstage at the edit points was noticeable.  The second version used the '85 mix instead for these sections, which has the full panning width, so this is no longer an issue.  It is more likely that I'd be able to achieve a fully seamless result for the snowspeeder crash by using the '97 version than with the '80 as I did before.  But the crash sound itself seems to be mixed somewhat differently, in level and duration, in these two mixes, so I'll have to try it both ways and see which works out the best.

In the '80 stereo mix the crash sound is longer and louder, so it sounds very cool, though from listening to the 70mm recording, it seems like it may have been shorter and less prominent like in the SE (though it's impossible to say for sure, since the recording is very rough and fuzzy).

Either way, the LFE is getting a bit of an overhaul, coming from the Bluray this time rather than the DVD, but I think it'll still mostly sound the same as before.

They're mostly pretty good.  The music actually seems more prominent than in the original sometimes, which is cool, and the fidelity may actually be a bit better than the '93 versions as well, unlike the first movie.  Sometimes they got too carried away with the fact that they were 'improving' things for the 5.1 format and made the surround effects and bass overbearingly loud when they didn't need to be, and of course there are various new sounds that were added in a distracting and unnecessary manner.  There's one explosion sound during the snow battle which is clearly heard in the original but in the SE is totally missing.

None of these issues are insurmountable, though, and with some careful editing it may be possible to transform them into excellent and usable mixes.  I've given some vague thought to trying to conform the '97 mixes to the original edits, taking out the annoying changes but keeping the discrete channels.  This would not replace the upmixed '93 tracks, but rather present an interesting alternative: what the SE audio 'should have been', if you like.  But if I do attempt such a thing it would not be for a long while yet.

Both the DVD and Bluray versions of ESB and RotJ still use the '97 mixes as their main source, only splicing in individual new changes for each release.  They haven't been remixed from scratch the way the first movie was.

There aren't yet, but I'm actually starting work on a new version of ESB right now.

As with SW, the main benefit will be the improved surround decoding.  Further changes from the previous version will be minimal.  I think I'll have another shot at integrating the missing snowspeeder crash sound into the '93 mix to see if I can get it to work more seamlessly.  As yet I'm undecided as to whether the original stereo mix or the '97 SE would be a better source for this (it sounds somewhat different in each).

I'm thinking of reworking the LFE channel somewhat, but I'm not sure how extensively I'd want to change things around, since it already sounds rather good in the previous version.  Unfortunately, the in-theater 70mm recording of ESB is too low quality for me to make out the low end of the mix with much clarity—even when boosting the bass by 18 dB I can still only just barely hear it.  With a hifi subwoofer or headphones I can pick out enough nuances in bass tones that I think I know what the original is supposed to sound like; or at least, I have a very rough idea of what bass was there and what wasn't.  It actually sounds like it's pretty similar to what's already in the '93 mix, which isn't really all that surprising. But even if the content is starting to come into focus a little more, the levels remain a complete mystery, and anything I do is still only a guess at how they might have done it back then.  So in the end I just have to go with what sounds good, as before.

New stereo version?  I haven't made a new stereo version.

The 'new' 5.1 mix is simply a better quality upmix of the same stereo track I'd used before.  Improved channel separation and an edit to the level of one bass effect are the only things that were changed—the stereo source hasn't been altered in any way.  If you have the TeamBlu SW77 that just came out, it can be found on audio track #2.  But since not everyone seems to have it, I can upload it somewhere, sure.

While we're on the subject, I'd like to take a moment to reiterate something I've mentioned before, but bears repeating: if you're listening to my 70mm recreation on a stereo sound system, and not a 5.1 system, significantly better sound quality will be attained by choosing the stereo track instead of the surround.  This is because there is a certain amount of crosstalk between the front and rear channels which even the best upmix can't fully separate, and with a delay being applied to the rears it is inevitable that there will be phase distortion when they are recombined in a downmix.  The technical term for this distortion is 'comb filtering', and it manifests as a strange sort of warbling instability and hollowness in the sound due to the unpredictable ways in which certain frequencies cancel out and others become boosted.  I did my best to minimize the effects of the comb filtering by manually editing the rear channels after upmixing was performed—by shifting the surround delay to 10 milliseconds rather than Prologic II's minimum of 15, and by inverting the polarity of the right surround, I was able to make it sound significantly less distorted when downmixed than it otherwise would have been.  (The inversion of the right rear also had the effect of decorrelating the mono surround effects from each other rather than allowing them to phantom image behind the listener, giving them a more diffuse quality.)  If I hadn't performed these two steps, downmixing the 5.1 track would sound far, far worse than it does now.

So while the downmix I've described does sound acceptable enough for me to not continually fuss over whether the stereo version is or is not included on any given project, it really is much better just to use the stereo track when listening on a 2-channel playback system.  The sound is purer since there is no comb filtering whatsoever, and the lack of an LFE channel is a moot point since this is almost always dropped from downmixed 5.1 anyway.

If I could be absolutely sure that no one was ever going to downmix the upmix, I would have kept it closer to the Prologic II output and not bothered to try to make stereo playback of the 5.1 work.  In such a case I would have insisted upon the stereo version also being included, preferably as the default track on a disc, with the user having to manually select the 5.1 if they had a surround system available.  But since I don't have that level of control over how other people listen to it, some flexibility is in order.

A few months ago there was some discussion of the merits of DTS-HD MA vs Dolby TrueHD for authoring custom Blurays.  Since I'm able to use the Dolby Media Encoder application, TrueHD would have been my first choice, since the format allows for any given surround mix to also include a separate stereo version within the same MLP audio stream, which the decoder would automatically select when the system was set to 2-channel playback.  This would ensure that the proper mix was heard regardless of what kind of sound system was being used, without the end user having to select a separate audio track.  But since TrueHD's implementation on the Bluray format requires that it also contain an interleaved AC3 track for backwards compatibility, and since only a few absurdly expensive authoring programs have the capability to interleave MLP and AC3 in the required fashion, it doesn't seem to be an option.  Alas . . .

Anyway, I'll get to work on uploading the stereo 70 track soon.

If that means Easterhay's posts get deleted, so much the better.  That guy's as full of it as a constipated septic tank.

Crossfadiing of audio edits is essential to arriving at a seamless result when joining tracks together.  If it isn't done, the edits will instantly stand out and jar the listener away from their suspension of disbelief, which is the very last thing you want to happen in something that is supposed to be an uninterrupted movie experience.

Edit points must also be chosen very carefully, particularly when there is music involved.  Trust me, I wrestle with this kind of thing all the time . . .

I've been deleting all of them, since I'm secretly Fink in disguise and am ignoring myself while going peepee.

. . . now I really want to see the Ghostbusters show up and blast that horrible Hayden-ghost with their proton packs.

How about instead of 'you people', we call them 'you Easterhay-people'.

Cuz I don't see many others so determined to be offended by dislike of the prequels.

One reason for changes going unnoticed is that the most recent round of alterations has made the Blurays so bad, nobody even wants to watch them in the first place.

I myself am not nearly masochistic enough to subject myself to that level of disappointment if I don't have to, so I avoid them at all costs.  The only exception is if I have to go back and check something for technical reasons while working on a project.

It's kind of funny, but mostly sad, that many here have become so accustomed to bashing and disbelieving anything George has to say that they'll make dispirited remarks about him even when the topic doesn't warrant it.  I don't see what any of this has to do with disproving 'lies' he has supposedly told about the music of the film.  It seems much more to do with the evolving nature of how one thinks about a project and how time may obscure certain details that were once clearer.  There's no coverup or self-aggrandizing going on here.

For my part, I would never seek to belittle or negate the importance of his contributions to the landmark film he directed.  Whatever may have happened later, there's no doubt he had some truly genius ideas and did a lot of really great work on it back then.  I would urge that none of us here ever forget that, regardless of what we think of anything else he may have done or said.