msycamore

Here's a video sample of what to expect: http://www.sendspace.com/file/kczofq (the dune sea of Tatooine)

It should be noted that what I will upload is not color corrected, only calibrated. But you can clearly see the night and day difference from this sample. The limitation of the source also become quite apparent. But it looks nice on my old tube, how it looks on my flat screen TV, I haven't dared to check yet. ;)

csd79 said:
- there are two mixed frames (consisting of fields from different frames) in the Yavin battle
- my copy has a problem on side C where Vader is chasing the Y-Wings in the trench: there are 10 or so frames with one field shifted vertically. Not all problematic fields show up in every capture.

Hmm, weird. Seems like our copies may differ then. Now I'm curious to see if my new copy have these deviations.

I own that UK VHS release, it's the same transfer that was used for the UK LD.

poita said:

A decent car, clothing manufactured in the last 5 years, a social life....

Sad to hear that you lack a social life. :( Hope you will be able to rectify this soon enough, that's important stuff. Thankfully I have a rich social life but I sorely lacking a decent car.

Back on-topic... csd79, in your technical details you mention: fixing bad frames (like frames consisting of a single field, etc)

Is this something you have encountered more than once? I'm only asking because I found this particular telecine to be one of the most pain free experiences I've ever had doing IVTC on. IIRC the only instance of "a bad frame" was at the side break at the end of side 2.

'78 crawl? There is the original '77 crawl and the revised ANH-crawl for the '81 re-release. However, there is a possibility that the crawl saw a re-composite during the original '77 theatrical run. The crawl on Verta's north american Kodak print differed somewhat from what's on the 2006 DVD bonus feature. His being a bit more unstable IIRC.

poita said:

I have captured the SWE with my X9 if that is of any help? I don't have fast enough internet to upload it.

That would be awesome to have access to. Is there anything you don't own poita? ;) Would have loved to help upload this for you. Unfortunately my own internet connection has proven to be very unstable lately. I hope someone will take up on your offer.

Thanks for checking csd79! Hmm, might be my player then. I recall it appeared quite random on my captures so out of the five I did it was never exactly on the same frame, hence why I was able to get rid of it.

No problem, D_M. But if you would go through the trouble checking it whenever you have the time I would appreciate it. Thanks.

dave88 said:

I hope a wee bit of "herringbone" doesn't stop you?

No, it won't stop me. I just wanted to rule out if there's a problem with my player. The screenshot posted there was an unprocessed frame from one of the 5 captures before g-force's median script took care of it. If you check the DVD I uploaded you can see that it's no longer present.

I'm sorry that I've not yet uploaded the recalibrated DVD. It may still be some time before I'm able to. Thanks for the interest guys and sorry for keeping you wait. The good news is that csd79 is currently doing a preservation of his copy:  http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Star-Wars-SWE-LD-preservation/topic/16578/

TV's Frink said:

I hope everyone has a beard.  Even the women and children.

I also hope there's a few exploding moustache guys in it.

Darth Mallwalker said:

I do hope csd79 announcement won't discourage msycamore sharing his version 2.

And I hope csd79 version beats both!

Yeah, that's the spirit! :) And no, this won't discourage me sharing the improved one I did. It will perhaps even encourage me to finally making that color corrected version I also had my plans on, if only to make it different  from csd79's upcoming upload.

Like Mallwalker indicated, nothing bad comes out of several preservations of the same LD. It only benefits the members here. And my corrected upload has also seen quite a lot of delays. I believe Antcufaalb have also stated he was going to do his discs in the past. The more the merrier.

I also had hopes to get my copy captured by Althor last year but the damn disc never arrived. With my luck I lost both my copy of this LD and a bunch of DVD's for the THX project last year. I'm done with the damn postal service. Fortunately I received another copy of the SWE technidisc around that time, so I still own one.

csd79 said:

Feallan: Actually, Msycamore's capture is the very reason I'm doing this. When it was released it was the first time that the look of SW on video really resonated with me, so I owe him. But I knew it could be better if captured with color calibration in mind etc. I've never even saw a real-life LD player before I bought one this year to do this. So he'll get credit when I'm releasing this capture. I'm also looking forward for his v2.technidisc

Well, you know what I think about that version I uploaded, now that you own the disc yourself I think you may easily understand how much better it can look when seen properly calibrated. Still, I'm glad to know it made you embark on your own preservation. Looking forward to see your results. A better version needs to be out there. And you owe me nothing, instead we all owe Mallwalker for shedding light on this unique telecine in the first place. :)

Btw, is that herringbone pattern talked about in my thread something you have seen on your copy? I've yet to get any confirmation if this issue is player related or not.

Mike O said:

I didn't mean any disrespect, so I apologize if you took it that way. I merely meant that what you were suggesting was that what he was saying was incorrect (Or at least that's how I interpreted what you were saying.). It just sounded like you were saying that he had his facts wrong, and I was wondering why you believed that. I apologize if I came across as confrontational in any way, that was not my intention!

It's cool Mike, no problem. :) I guess in the last bit in my response to you I also appeared a little more grumpy than what's really was the case and intended. Irony doesn't do well in text form and English isn't my first language either. Still, I personally find it difficult to make any sense of what the former ILM'er really is talking about in that vague anecdote. I really recommend anyone who is interested in the subject who haven't yet read the great coverage on the SE over at American Cinematographer to take a look, Kaminski aka Zombie also did a nice summary on the SE restoration here: http://secrethistoryofstarwars.com/savingstarwars.html

We know from the facts presented to us that the original negative was in bad shape when they started to work with it, and that it had to be repaired. The shots on the infamous CRI-stock (mostly optical effect shots, wipes and dissolves etc) had deteriorated and it was decided to digitally recomposite most of those shots, (this is obviously the part where it stopped being a true restoration) in other instances new negative pieces were made from interpositives and separation masters. Had the mindset behind this project only been restoration and not enhancement the faded CRI-stock segments had been lifted from interpositives or separation masters as well. But as we know, the digital recomposites were only the beginning...

But the story from Tanaka about negative being partly dissolved in a chemical solution when reproducing interpositives doesn't sound good no matter what he's talking about in that context. Speaking as a layman the MO sounds very unprofessional. The ones who had the task of cleaning the original negative knew that Star Wars consisted of several different film stocks, it's nothing weird or incredibly unique, so they knew perfectly well what had to be done. The stuff in Tanaka's story sounds more like a clown operation, "Let's do this and see what's comin' out at the other end!" But with Lucasfilm nothing would surprise me any longer.

In the end all of this have nothing to do with the absence of Lucas' original films on DVD or BD anyway. Some fans and nutcases seem to still believe that those deteriorated (I believe 62 shots) on CRI-stock is the reason we cannot get this classic film restored when it's only a case of a single person who doesn't want it to happen.

Mike O said:

I'm not saying this to be a smartass, but are you sure?

If we are to believe what has been said and written about it in several magazines, articles, documentaries etc, yes that is the way they approached the cleanup process.

http://www.theasc.com/magazine/starwars/articles/sped/ssws/pg1.htm

Fortunately, Fox's head of postproduction, Ted Gagliano, made the restoration of Star Wars a personal labor of love, working closely with YCM Labs, Pacific Title, Lucasfilm editorial, ILM and Skywalker Sound. Had the negative been constructed more conventionally, the first order of business would have been to wash it in a sulfur bath a 104F, then wipe it down by hand. But those four different film stocks couldn't be washed together; instead, they had to be separated and washed in batches. That meant dissecting the original Star Wars negative, washing it, and then reassembling it. "That made everybody suck in their breath, " Kennedy says, recalling the stressfull situation. "Thankfully, Robert Hart, the neg cutter on the second and third films, came in to put the negative back together. After doing various tests, we found out right away that nothing beats scanning original negative. Star Wars was an A-B neg cut, which meant that they could actually lift and slug original negative and send it back to ILM whenever we were enhancing a live-action shot. I think this is the first time someone has tried to bring a Seventies effects film back to the big screen."

Mike O said:

Do you think he was lying, misinformed, or just being an idiot?

No, I absolutely don't think he was lying, being misinformed nor do I think he's an idiot. David Tanaka were a visual effects editor at ILM who was directly involved with this "restoration." He was apparently responsible for finding the elements for the original optical effects so that they could be digitally recomposited.

I just find it frustrating hearing these vague stories on how things went down as there's been a lot of confusion and different thoughts on what actually was done to the original negative. It effectively muddies the water. Reading that quote from arstechnica again, my guess is that when he says original negative he's actually talking about those negative bits and pieces they had to track down for recreating and making their new visual effect shots and not the actual finished cut negative that was disassembled, washed and reassembled. But what he was saying may of course have been perfectly clear to you or everyone else besides me.

So, Mike O, what did you make of his story? Do you think I am misinformed, or just being an idiot? ;)

Tobar said:

Tanaka: I remember when we were working on the Star Wars restoration, that was a different process. I think we optically recreated interpositives. But in order to do this, it went through some kind of warm chemical bath cleansing. The weird thing about Star Wars was that it was made up of different film stocks, so it went through this bath and they didn’t know what would come out on the other end...

Parker: You mean if it would survive or not? ‘George we might destroy your entire film, but it’s... we think it’s going to be OK.’

Tanaka: There’s a space battle shot and a close-up on Hans Solo, and the original negative is coming out of this cleaning solution and it’s just acetate.

Parker: It’s all clear. Oh no, did the bath dissolve it?

Tanaka: Yeah, it dissolved it, depending on the film stock.

Source

Seriously though, how many different versions and horror stories are we going to hear about how things happened for this "restoration"? What is described doesn't make much sense to me either or do I misunderstand what he is saying, he mentions that he think they optically recreated interpositives and the chemical bath dissolved parts that were of different film stock but then he suddenly says the original negative is coming out of this cleaning solution partly dissolved.

The original negative for Star Wars contained four types of film stocks, as two of them couldn't be exposed to the bath, each stock was treated separately. It was disassembled cleaned and reassembled to avoid just such a scenario he described.

DominicCobb said:

SilverWook said:

DominicCobb said:

THX 1138 is definitely not lost. I watched the original on-demand a couple years ago. I believe it was standard definition, but still.

 You think you could track that down? Even an SD version might be better than the dodgy Laserdisc master that's caused the preservation project more than a few headaches.

Hmm, I wouldn't know how. I saw it almost three years ago now on Comcast On Demand in the free movies section, and they rotate stuff in and out of that. 

Quality wasn't great but it was probably better than Laserdisc, though this is coming from someone who's never seen a Laserdisc.

As with the Star Wars trilogy and American Graffiti, the last transfer done of the original THX 1138 was done in the early 90's for VHS and Laserdisc. So that is most definitely what you saw. Still interesting and nice you were able to see it that way.

Nice sample frame, AntcuFaalb. Thank you for doing this! I would definitely like to help you out if there's anything I could contribute with, not sure if I have the time at the moment though.

SilverWook said:

If you have time, do a quick capture of the spot that gave msycamore so much trouble? I'd like to finally nail down if it's something unusual with the LD master or an anomaly with my DVD recorder.

Hi SilverWook! I think the spot you're thinking about is the conversation between THX and LUH when he get to know about her shift change. But the problem was that the captures lacked frames/fields in different spots, so unfortunately something weird happened when these were being recorded. I wish there was an easy way for us to figure out what exactly caused this, I suspect the recorder being the culprit as captures on different players have these issues. Not funny if future recordings are to be made and not knowing if they will be all right or not. :(

Any theories on what could have caused this weird hiccup anyone? Both fields and frames missing on different spots between captures. I can try to post a sample of a problematic spot. Not that I think we would be any wiser from it. The only thing I can think of is if you could check other recordings you've made with the same equipment and see if you can perform IVTC on them successfully.

Knightmessenger said:

msycamore said:

Baronlando said:

The '97 certainly started out as an honest restoration, which the movie needed, even the original plan of a few shots wouldn't have been unreasonable, but then turned into a perfect storm of drunken digital crayon mayhem and classic movies being used as R&D. The lameness of the blu-rays is probably just basic cheapness.

True, it may have started out as an honest attempt at restoration but it was pretty clear from the beginning that Lucas was also going to revise the film. They started storyboarding changes to ANH in 1993, added Jabba in 1994 for example.

What I don't understand is why the heck did FOX pay for all this restoration and not release a home video release of that effort or even produced new prints before the drunken digital crayon mayhem began?  Instead they went with George's wishes and re-released the '93 telecine as a "Last time available" video in '95, simultaneously with this "restoration" being worked on. But I guess they were Lucas' lapdog at that point with the forthcoming prequels on the horizon. I don't think a restored original release on the shelves would have diminished the income for their Special Edition theatrical release either.

Fox is basically as much guilty as Lucas in this travesty.

 Did either of you watch "Anatomy of a Dewback" on the third blu ray bonus disc? It's surprisingly low quality for something you think would have been ported over from a studio videotape master. However there are a lot of interesting parts.

Lucas says he saved everything from the films 1) in case he ever wanted to reedit them and 2) he is like a packrat that doesn't throw anything out.

No, I wouldn't touch that ridiculous BD set with a ten foot pole. But if it is indeed the same featurette that can also be seen on the official site, I've at least seen it in the past. I recall it was just a fluffy Special Edition PR piece with a bunch of ass kissers and nerds who finally got the chance to play around in the SW-sandbox.

Knightmessenger said:

They do show a video of the Look Sir Droids scene, as to how they add to it in 97. But it does include a clip of the original unaltered scene, that appears to be sourced from the YCM restored print. That means the stormtrooper doesn't have 4 eyes. And before that scene, the sandcrawler goes off in with clouds visible in the sky because it was day for night. Well, in the clip they showed, it was much more apparent that it was a daytime sky than the GOUT. (which is tinted darker to hide it somewhat)

So whatever they used had to be like the most original highest generation print of the restored film without any changes.

What the hell did they do with that tape? We're told they spliced in the new footage into the film print but still wouldn't they have made some kind of a video master from that? If nothing else to use as a reference?

But wouldn't that tape have been preferable to use in 1995 for the faces set? Or the 2006 dvd? And if you're going to make an archival tape, why not stretch it anamorphically because surely, LFL knew that would retain more detail and might be useful if widescreen televisions ever became popular.

Don't know what tape you mean but yes, it's basically what I was saying. That's why the "restoration" done in the 90's wasn't exactly honest even in its origin. You simply don't release "A Last Time Available" video release simultaneously with an ongoing restoration. It was meant as a replacement from the very moment the restoration began and Fox allowed it and payed for the whole thing. Sad but true.

If for some miracle the big "George champion of film preservation Lucas" suddenly made a complete 180 and wanted his earlier works of cinema available in modern video standards, Disney, Lucasfilm, Warner or Universal wouldn't exactly oppose his desire. George doesn't want them released, that's why we haven't seen them released on modern formats. It's not an issue of nonexistent or deteriorated film elements. The roadblock has always been Lucas, period.

Fang Zei said:

Cameron didn't quite do the same thing as Lucas with his newer transfers of Aliens and Titanic, no, but then again I think Cameron puts more emphasis on the original version's edit being what makes it the "original version" than any digital revisions that may be found within otherwise identical edits, and he "fixed" a whole bunch of things in Titanic for its most recent release. Funny enough, the theatrical cut of Aliens on the blu-ray can't technically be called that from an editing standpoint either: Cameron corrected the order of four shots where Ripley picks up a flamethrower, puts down a machine gun, picks up a machine gun, puts down a flamethrower.

Wasn't sure if Cameron's latest SE tweaks were applied to both cuts, thanks for confirming. That's sad but with that new color timing I wouldn't have upgraded anyway.

That pulse rifle / flamethrower edit mixup on the dropship, had apparently been corrected already for the '89 TV-broadcast version where most of the footage in the Special Edition first appeared. I don't recall if that continuity error was present in the Special Edition when it was first released back in 1992 and the DVD's brought back the continuity error or not.

The Special Edition of Aliens isn't exactly a Director's Cut in the truest sense either, new visual effects had to be created back in the '90's for example. It's just unfortunate that the 1986 theatrical cut also gets affected just because the director cannot stop dickin around with his Special Edition.

Fang Zei said:

Although I guess I should simply be thankful that the only thing he erased in Aliens (AFAIK) is Lance Henricksen's torso sticking out of the ground in a shot during the final action scene. It's almost like the snake pit reflection to Aliens' RotLA.

There was a few other minor tweaks done on Aliens, see here: http://www.movie-censorship.com/report.php?ID=294598 

If I recall correctly, the hangar matte painting was also tweaked. Besides the alterations in the Well of Souls, Raiders of the Lost Ark also have the pole guiding the boulder erased. But the other tweaks done in 2003 didn't make the jump.

darklordoftech said:

Might Disney make further changes?

 He passed away in 1966, so I guess you are safe.

AntcuFaalb said:

I'm getting very close to having everything in order for my THX 1138 captures.

My capture chain will be Runco LJR-II =(svideo)=> Blackmagic Intensity Shuttle (Thunderbolt).

The Runco LJR-II's builtin comb filter is better than my Extron YCS-100 because it was tweaked by MSB specifically for it, so that's one less A->D->A conversion in the chain. ;-)

I own three copies of the US LBX LD and I intend on doing a full median-of-three (basically, a TooT) with them. Thankfully, the Blackmagic Media Express software stops capturing if even a single frame is dropped, so I don't have to worry about any dropped frames in my completed captures.

Is it easy to manually IVTC this beast? How many wonky cadence changes does it have?

JEDIT: Also, do we have a bit perfect rip of the PCM track?

I f**king love you Antcufaalb. :) The IVTC on these are pretty straightforward contrary to what you may believe from this threads' history... cadence change mid-reel, nothing weird.

Spaced Ranger, no receivement?

imperialscum said:

Star Wars is a fantasy and pretty much the main purpose of a fantasy is to generate a world where the audience can escape to. Despite being short, set establishing shots (e.g. Ben's house) and transition shots (e.g. sandcrawler, R2 in the canyon, approach to Mos Eisley) have a crucial role in that. These shots are the small window of opportunity to relay the information about the world to the spectator since the main scenes usually focus on the actors.

And I am not a fan of the CGI creatures added to some of the shots. But I can live with them. The crappy original shot of Ben's house just don't live up to similar scenes in ESB and ROTJ.

I probably knew what "fantasy" was before you were even born so there's no need for lecture. I think we all are aware of what genre Star Wars belong to, and in that regard and up to that point in time Star Wars was pretty much the most brilliantly realized fantasy world ever created on film. It still to this day put a lot of imitators to shame. 

I totally get that you don't like that shot of Ben's hut in the original film (I don't believe everyone did back then either) but what I'm trying to understand is how the hell can you find those shots in the original so displeasing and yet at the same time fully endorse those cartoony shots in the 1997 incarnation of Tatooine that to me completely break the "Suspension of disbelief" and find them so visually pleasing? You said that you are sensitive to visual aspects in film and yet... the Special Edition.

imperialscum said:

hairy_hen said:

You know, it continually amazes me how many so-called 'fans' of Star Wars don't actually seem to like Star Wars that much at all . . .

If it helps you, Star Wars is one of my top 3 favourite films of all time. The other two being Empire and Jedi of course.

What hairy_hen was trying to communicate was Star Wars the films not that laughable R&D project in the 90's.

imperialscum said:

For example, (to my knowledge) the new Ben's house shot uses a combination of model and matte painting which is the same technique extensively used in the original versions. So it looks just as "cartoony" as many similar original versions shots.

When I said cartoony crap I was referring to the stuff mostly seen in the 1997 Mos Eisley. The original shot of Ben's hut is nothing visually exciting, I give you that but ultimately it served its purpose. If you are indeed so sensitive to visual aspects in films as you say I simply cannot understand that you find this short transitional shot of Ben's hut in the original film so jarring but at the same time are not being taken out of the film by the pointless additions to Tatooine in the SE.

To me the SE is visually a Frankenstein Monster with every tweak and addition being as subtle as a TV commercial break, often butchering the storytelling and John Williams score in the process. But maybe these things didn't feel so out of place to people who first saw Star Wars this way.

imperialscum said:

msycamore said:

imperialscum said:

While I appreciate the original versions and I support the struggle to get them released in HD, I just prefer 1997. I am very sensitive to visual aspects and quite frankly most of the original Tatooine scenes in ANH are unsatisfactory and below my standards.

That's some pretty high standards you got there.

Well a shot like this just doesn't inspire any of the magical feeling I got from 1997 SE counterpart.

My comment was of course in jest... I get what you're saying but in my mind if you are indeed sensitive to visual aspects in films, how can you possibly NOT be sensitive to the visual aspects in the 1997 version of Star Wars, IMO it's the prime example of an uneven product. Do you seriously dislike the minor transitional shots from the Jundland Wastes to Death Star to Mos Eisley in the original film and somehow are able to be pleased with the cartoony crap in the SE?

Fang Zei said:

I was convinced Lucas was gonna eventually get around to it before any of this Disney business happened. The guy reversed himself on so many other subjects. Why would the OOT be an exception?

Why wouldn't it be an exception? Not that it really matters, but what was it exactly that George did that made you so convinced?

The guy had destroy orders on original prints FFS...

RoboCop (1987)

VideoPhonic said:

First time seeing the film, but it included the Buck Rodgers trailer before it, which leads me to believe it's the late 70s rerelease version.

The Buck Rodgers trailer was in the original 1971 release as well, a 1971 review in Variety mentioned it. But everything seems to indicate you guys saw the 1978 re-release version.

The five 1888' reels on the BFI label explains the running time they had on their site.