jero32

My eyes literally just widened. This is so exciting.

So...how does George Lucas get away with claiming he can't restore the original version again?

Man those esb shots look awesome.

Stil seems a little washed out and green tinted but DAMN is there alot of detail in those shots.

I Thought he was basicly taking a picture of the projection directly. (so not bounced off a screen)

For the record, I invited him to the board. (Should've posted earlier I guess) Since I figured people here might be able to help him with some of his technical issues.

Tbh I think the first one looks better. The second one has a bit of an overly greenish tint to it. (granted i'm watching on a pretty shitty monitor)

<p>What photoshop/other program options do you typically use to correct the red colour? In gimp the "curves" option (under colors etc) seems to work, but I can't get all the red out sometimes.<br /><br />edit: using tint and saturation seems to work a little but it might've taken out a bit too much color.</p>

I see, thanks for the "tip" negative :P

It's actually letting out a somewhat high pitched shriek of awesome.

Don't forget the noooo they added...UGH so distastefull. (probably my most hated change)

You just made me squee! (litterally)
Man this is awesome work you're doing guys.

Hehe I always loved that stormtrooper hitting his head.
Anyway I love how sharp those shots are, if the non "play" versions are better than that even as you claim we should have a pretty damn good version of the movie by the end of all this.

One little question: I was rereading the entire thread, looks like you had episode 5 but it was too damaged to scan in? Or did you obtain another?

They had one of those I think, let me see if I can find it.

edit: appears those were only "test" clips and not star wars.

That looks really good actually. (ignoring the damage to the frame and the redness)
Are there any more 720p clips out there?

edit: that is any more besides the "trailer"

Won't comment on the ethical implications. But just because you own the gout it doesn't mean that you having this is "legal". It's just a nice gesture basicly.

.

They probably didn't replace them because they were IN the movie, not uncommon to just place them on top in that case.
"customary" is to just have them replace the subtitles.

Of course I live in the Netherlands where they usually don't dub things, but just have subtitles in the first place.

lurker77 said:

canofhumdingers said:

I should also mention that, when scanning film the quality of the source material is incredibly important. Working with a high quality OCN or IP can certainly provide enough information to make 4k scans or better worthwhile. It's just important to understand you're not seeing anything NEAR that at even the best theater. Which then opens the debate of should the goal of home video be to reproduce what you would've seen opening night? Or provide the best possible viewing experience, even if it's technically significantly BETTER than even an absolutely perfect theatrical presentation?

Depends on when the film was made. Like I said, recent-er films go through a digital intermediate for colour correction, so what you get at the theater is no better than whatever resolution the DI was made at. Older films are analog from negative to print, so even though perceivable information drops, you're still getting a "pure" transfer - it's more of a softening than a downrezzing...

Here's a way that I like to put the debate. If you watched Star Wars in 1977, the photons from the studio lights bounced off of Mark Hamill, and were chemically transferred to film. Then that image was chemically transferred down several generations to the theatrical print. Along this line, the film that was on the set naturally reacted through each successive generation eventually into your eyes, so what you got to see was the equivalent of sitting on the set, with a hazy filter set up in front of you.

If you went to see Attack of the Clones, the studio lights bounced off of...one of the actors, and each photon was mechanically estimated almost exactly the same way each time by a digital sensor. What you got you see was a very sharp binary equivalent of the set.

So what would you prefer? A blurry direct view of the action, or a very accurate estimation of the action by a group of transistors?

Isn't the analog film stil an estimation? In a purely theoretical world you could capture everything perfectly on analog film. But for one you're assuming that the photosensitive material on the film will result in a perfect representation of the colours on the scene. (being analog this might actually be HARDER to get right every time than with digital)
Another assumption you make is that the lens is perfect (which to my knowledge is never the case) so the light's always gonna be inperfectly imprinted on the film. (minor edit. What I mean to say here is that it's "imperfect" as in slightly off. This does not mean this is neccesairly noticable)

Thing is that just like digital these changes can be so small that we can't actually physicly perceive them. (in theory, not saying digital in neccesairly 100% there yet.)

Also to the guy that said we live in an analog world. We perceive the world to be analog, there's no real reason to assume it actually is. (for all we know this is a simulation run by a supercomputer somewhere)

Is this project stil one of the best ones out there? Or has it been surpassed?

Wow that's like night and day almost. So does the stuff work by "filling in" the emulsion? Similair to how you can project from inside a fluid?

Well your method seems to be literally combining frames. Which opens a whole new can of worms. It could look really good for a "view" version though. (vs a preservation version)

No worries then. Just really excited :)

Man I'm getting excited reading about all these technical things. Any chance we could get some more preview shots? (moving ones)
Or do we have to be more patient :)?

I guess there's not audio since that is probably captured seperatly from the video. It's probably RAW files since that would make most sense to me.