msycamore

Ha-ha... those fuckers at Anchor Bay doesn't seem to be able to tell what track is which any longer with all their dickin around with this classic. That films on DVD and BD doesn't contain the original sound mixes have sadly come to be expected these days, it has been the norm for the last 15 years and it sadly seems to be an unwinnable situation, no matter how much complain there has been about this, the studios continue to ignore it. I think they should begin colorize all their black and white catolog titles when they are at it as well.

A minor correction on my previous statement about Anchor Bay's old THX DVD in PAL territories including only a fold-down of the re-mix instead. I only own the reg 1 disc myself but a friend of mine told me the original mono mix was actually present on the PAL disc, but it was incorrectly encoded as a 4.0 Dolby Surround whereas the intended Dolby Surround mix was presented in mono on that disc - they switched places. It still had the 5.1 though but Anchor Bay surely knows how to handle this title with respect. ;) I'm quite sure this have added to the confusion regarding the original audio on several message boards in the past.

Can unfortunately not answer what mix is on the BD's, there seems like there's been conflicting reports regarding the mono tracks on Anchor Bay's many earlier releases of Halloween, I suspect the reason for it being that the '99 NTSC DVD contained the original mix whereas the same release in PAL territories had a fold- down of the remix instead. I can only agree that the PCM on the old Criterion laser would be fantastic to get ripped.

A better picture of the mid-sneeze.

TV's Frink said:

I want to see an exploding mustache.

Sorry, Frink. It was all I could find.

There's too few exploding moustache guys in films nowadays.

Harmy said:

And what was also left out of the debate so far is that the ultimate release of Star Wars in '77, for which the crew must have been aiming, was not 35mm prints but 70mm prints.

What's to debate? It was definitely the rolls royce with its fantastic magnetic six-track audio and superior projection quality. But Star Wars was a 35mm film, the 70mm prints were blow-ups. The way I understand it - a much coarser image compared to the olden days true 65mm/70mm films. But a brighter, sharper and more steady image compared to regular 35mm showings.

I managed to see ESB in 70mm in '80 without even knowing it until many years after. Damn, how much I want to travel back in time.

poita said:

Actually, the assumption is correct.

This is why Leia looks like she had the make-up gun set to whore in the bluray releases and why we have lobster-men and other weird colour anomolies.

In the 70s and 80s when working on film, we were conscious of what film stock we were using and what stock was expected for the theatrical prints and how many generations down they would be.

So makeup had to 'overdo' the makeup by a known quantity (talk to any makeup people from that era and they will now all about exactly how that red colour rouge will end up looking like pale peach on a release print), the costumes were chosen for how they would look on the release print, not how they would look on set, as was the lighting and props and everything else.

The good crews would know that everyone in this shot needs to look a bit candy coloured to achieve the required colour pallete on the theatrical print. They also know what detail will be lost, so where detail is important, where extra detail is required and where it can be softened down.

The answer print was often what they were working towards, but good DoPs and crews would often work towards the theatrical print as being how they wanted the film to look, and shoot accordingly.

Enter film scanners and computers that can extract *all* of the data from the neg, and change its characteristics endlessly and deliver that colour gamut and sharpeness directly to a digital screen, and what the original film-makers intended to be seen vs what *can* be displayed changes immensely.

It is exciting in some ways to see detail that has never been seen before, and interesting. It is also not what was seen at the film's release or even in the director's screening room.

This leads to interesting problems, leia looking like a hooker, Luke looking like a wax dummy, some effects shots looking dodgier because you can now peer into the shadows etc.

It is difficult from a restoration point of view, that information was on the negative, so should be preserved, but it may never have been intended to be seen, or at least seen that way.

Much like Jurassic Park which was shot open matte. The effects shots are all in wide, but the live action is full frame. The film was never meant to be viewed that way, but if you scan the neg, that is what you get.

It is interesting to watch, but it isn't how the film was shown at the time, or intended to be.

Both are great to have, but for me personally, the best viewing experience of Star Wars would be a scan that was cleaned up to the point that it would be equivalent to a first day screening on a really great print.

As Harmy said, in some ways the BD has more detail, but it is also missing a lot of detail from the original movie, the grain, the correct colours, the correct gamma and the 'look' that the original movie was designed to have. There was a resurgence in the late 70s to go for that softer 1930s look in film, the crews on Star Wars were trying to achieve that look (it is mentioned in many crew interviews) and that 'detail' is totally missing from the BDs.

Well put. In the case of the original Star Wars you even have instances of none-special effects sequences that are dupe material to make the transitions between live footage and effect footage be as seamless an experience as possible.

Take matte paintings for example, that beautiful art is almost always misrepresented on new HD-transfers, the contrast, softness and grain build up can cause a beautiful illusion, but when seen as on the negative and on most blu-rays with a lot of grain reduction applied, it is seen exactly for what it really is - a dead painting. It's interesting if you want to see brushstrokes but not if you want to get immersed in the film. I recall Raiders on the new blu-ray was quite horrible in this regard.

timdiggerm said:

msycamore said:

That's not an assumption, the theatrical release prints was the finished and intended product.

Theatrical variations notwithstanding, of course

Exactly, despite my poor grammar in the above statement, only if you have the same or a similar mindset as George Lucas, it's not. A new variation doesn't make the earlier one unfinished.

Joel said:

msycamore said:

Do you really want a film look like a 4k scan from the original negative, when nothing close to that was ever seen in theaters? The generational losses that occur in the stages from original camera negative to release prints works miracles for sets, costumes, models and special effects. I fail to understand why anyone would like to see these films straight of the negatives when they were never made to be seen that way, that's making the films a huge disservice. You would see mattepaintings, make-up and effects work for what they really are instead of blending in nicely with the rest of the footage.

 

There is an assumption here that the print is the intended product, which isn't totally accurate. Just because people don't see the O-Neg in a theater doesn't mean that the print is the ultimate viewing experience.

The O-Neg is the intended finished product, not an unfinished product waiting to be somehow "corrected" by generational loss. 

To make an audio analogy, HD audio releases come from the master tapes because that is as close to the original event as possible. They don't come from a recording of the released vinyl or cassette whether those were the intended release formats or not.

So to answer your question: Yes - I, personally, want to see the O-neg scanned in 4K because I want a document that is as close to the original event as I can get and that has suffered as little generational loss as possible. 

 

That's not an assumption, the theatrical release prints was the finished and intended product. Home-video and its future advancements wasn't on anyone's mind when making films back in those days. And this generational loss was very much something you took into account when making films back in those days, especially with effects laden films. An artform in itself. And I'm not arguing that you shouldn't scan the negative in 4K or 8K, that's great if it's done.

In the end this is a matter of opinion and taste I guess but do expect to see stuff that was never intended to be seen that's visible on the O-neg but was never visible on prints. This is something studios recently have realized when releasing some of their classic catalog titles, where they instead aim for something that is more representative of what would have been seen in theaters instead.

Do you really want a film look like a 4k scan from the original negative, when nothing close to that was ever seen in theaters? The generational losses that occur in the stages from original camera negative to release prints works miracles for sets, costumes, models and special effects. I fail to understand why anyone would like to see these films straight of the negatives when they were never made to be seen that way, that's making the films a huge disservice. You would see mattepaintings, make-up and effects work for what they really are instead of blending in nicely with the rest of the footage.

TV's Frink said:

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!

Not crystal clear enough, you should be able to pick them. ;)

Harmy said:

And now imagine what kind of detail level could be achieved if they did a proper 4K scan of the original negative, when even a poor 1080p scan of the o-neg, that doesn't actually resolve much beyond 720p, can show more detail than a 4K scan of a projection print.

I imagine that Mark Hamill's blackheads will finally be visible to us.

AntcuFaalb said:

msycamore: My plan is to keep all large/easy-to-spot anomalies (tantive orange errors, hair, etc.) in.

I intend to check each frame against another source (e.g., Technidisc SWE) in order to determine which anomalies stay and which don't.

As with any restoration using **Clean, each frame will have to undergo evaluation before getting the proverbial SealOfApproval(TM).

Trust me, I'm not one to half-ass something like this.

I definitely trust your judgement, I only thought I responded to a question on restoration in general, your post looked that way to me.

Looking forward to this, your samples look excellent, Poita.

_,,,^..^,,,_ said:

I like this thread, and think it should deserve its own database. Here you are my last capture - it will be released soon:

Movie: Alien

Format: Laserdisc 876085

Input Soundtrack: Dolby Digital AC3 5.1 48KHz 16bit, bit perfect

Output Soundtrack: untouched - BD/DVD/AVCHD compliant

Synced To: 2010 Blu-ray Release Region A Theatrical Edition

Ripped/Synced by: _,,,^..^,,,_

Notes: Sound remastered from the 6-track magnetic masters of an early 70mm mix and contain alternative lines of dialog.

This is awesome, are you willing to do its 2.0 surround track as well? The PCM I did was just a basic capture and not bitperfect.

Bingowings said:

The building though real is about half the size of the building it's meant to be in the film so they had to put the speeder in post as it would be to the wrong scale otherwise.

Interesting, could be the reason they went with an optical alternative. It actually never occured to me.

Top: John Jympson Cut Below: Film Version

Looking at them again side-by-side, I think they did the right choice even if the angle and composition of the shot is a bit uninspiring, the doorway seen straight on in the Jympson cut could be another factor for their choice. The interior scenes was originally actually timed quite dark compared to the earlier video releases where it was often incorrectly timed quite bright, but I guess that's a bit too much, we later also see windows in the set for the interior. Talking about the doorway, the nights must have been freezing cold, I would have invested in a door if I was Ben. ;)

As for clear blue skies vs cloudy skies discussed earlier, they also had to struggle keep matching adjacent shots as good as possible back then whereas nowadays you do all that in the computer, there's sometimes a lot of time between takes and different scenes when shooting a film which made these things difficult when you're on location.

poita said:

It doesn't really matter, there would have been different gate weave on every projector that ever showed Star Wars, once gate weave is removed, it looks dead/non-film to me, but it is a personal preference thing.

Amen.

As for dust and dirt removal, how do you decide what to keep and what to remove? IMO you either keep it all or you remove it all for consistency, I think it's preferable to make two versions - one that is cleaned up and one that is not.

In the case of old special effects films with a lot of opticals like SW, the issue get even more tricky, as there's tons of dirt and scratches built into every optical. Heck even the opening Fox logo had picked up a hair in one of its searchlights in the '70's. In a true preservation things like that should stay. That's what was so beautiful with photochemical restorations in the past, when you didn't have computers cleaning every frame. The average person expect to see sterile clean looking images without grain these days, they have basically forgotten how films look. The only thing they care about is resolution.

poita said:

The source is an International negative, all films for international release usually require a neg that is free of any subtitles so that subtitles can be added in the required language.

The Derann Super8 print uses the International master and is a straight print from it, so it is lacking *any* subtitles, so the poor viewer has to guess what Greedo might be saying.

I don't know, the Technidisc & THX LD's sources doesn't contain subtitles either, there are however clear indications that both of these sources might have contained them - Technidisc takes on a different (correct) aspect ratio at that point and switches back as soon as the scene is over and IIRC the JSC have an editing point there with a few missing frames.

This JSC-source also contains what is assumed to be the opening day Yavin X-Wing takeoff matte shot. But who knows, that matte-shot along with the other credit roll might be an international print variation but the IB Tech-prints tell us differently. I've seen that the Derann Super8 prints just like JSC does contain the "opening day" Yavin X-Wing takeoff matte shot, I assume they also have the more common credit roll found on all home video versions?

Well, according to Lucasfilm the original films are now basically deleted scenes, so I guess we were still on topic. ;)

Fang Zei said:

RAH's letter begs the question: just how good/bad would the '85 IP have looked if it'd been re-scanned in 2006?

As the IP was a good enough source for the '97 restoration, I would guess it would have been good enough for making an anamorphic DVD release.

The '97 SE work was partly done in 2K whereas the new scan in 2004 was done in 1080p. Like Laserschwert said, the '97 SE was done for theatrical exhibition and the resolution of that work has nothing to do with what later happen when making a video release. We are fully aware that Laserdisc doesn't equal 35mm film resolution. This stuff is irrelevant anyway, the question that often comes up is whether they did the '97 "restoration" by actually alter the original film elements without having or making backup material, which is extremely doubtful. It's Lucasfilm marketing speak.

imperialscum said:

When they applied the changes for the 1997 SE, then they actually reduced the size/resolution to fit Laserdisc.

??

imperialscum said:

If you ask me, the theatrical versions are already digitalised and cleaned up somewhere in LucasFilm archives. That is unless Lucas specifically ordered to destroy the source data.

Even if for some absurd reason they aren't, there's perfectly viable film elements out there to make new video transfers. This is not and never has been a question of film elements in poor condition but a creator that has continuously stood in the way of it to happen. The official words from Lucasfilm was:

Lucasfilm's PR Response Regarding the 2006 DVD Box Set

I don't know, both work but I always liked the shot/angle used in John Jympson's early cut of the film more:

I recommend the nice article American Cinematographer did on Gil Taylor years ago if you haven't seen it: http://www.theasc.com/magazine/feb06/taylor/page1.html

IMO, the Cinematography of Star Wars is much nicer than people often give it credit for, and it doesn't help that much when it cannot be seen in its true light any longer when his cinematography is completely destroyed in the video releases, especially in the horrible 2004/11 transfers.

RIP Gil Taylor, you made fantasy look real.

Tack said:

Does it have the alternate take of "Princess, we'll find Han. I promise." from the original 70mm mix?

No, there is probably a lot more subtle differences in the 16mm audio not mentioned in my post but all the major ones should be listed there.

Tack said:

So, why exactly hasn't a ESB 70mm preservation started yet?

You'll have to ask Lucasfilm.

Tack said:

Is it because we don't have 100% information, or is it just a lack of time?

Joking aside, the simple answer is that initial release prints of ESB contained a slightly different cut of the film with minor visual effects differences including different wipes and dissolves, we have the info but you cannot restore or preserve something you don't have access to. An in-theatre audio recording has surfaced, that's all. You could make a sort of half-assed reconstruction but it would be pointless IMO.

Haven't been able to find any info regarding this but I still find it entirely possible that the 70mm prints that was prepared for foreign markets later that year could've contained the "final cut". I saw ESB in 70mm in Sweden later that year but I can of course not recall if it contained the different editing nor different audio seen and heard on American 70mm prints. I've seen british folks say they heard some of those lines listed in my post when they saw it back in '80, true or not we cannot say for sure what this mono mix really is, it's entirely possible it reflects the final English mix prepared for European exhibition or a '81 or '82 re-release mix.

I think we possibly could have an early cut on 70mm and a final cut on 70mm which also means two different mixes. Only a theory, that any additional info regarding 70mm ESB is impossible to come by speak against my theory though. You would think something would have been documented on the numerous re-releases if new prints were made containing differences. Apparently there was even 35mm prints shown at drive-ins in May '80, which means 35mm prints with the early rare cut of the film.

Empire was released in at least five different formats in its original release:

1) 70mm six-track Dolby-encoded magnetic
2) 70mm six-track non-Dolby-encoded magnetic
3) 35mm with optical mono soundtrack
4) 35mm with optical Stereo Variable Area (Dolby) soundtrack
5) 35mm with mag-optical soundtrack (magnetic 4-track + optical mono)

Five different formats, not necessarily five different audio mixes... but all this can make your head spin.  I'm pretty sure there are some collectors out there who owns the rare cut of ESB. Who knows, maybe some day...

• When we see the snowspeeders taking off (after the scene of R2, "Imperial walkers on the north ridge"), there is no music.
• When R2 is being loaded into Luke's X-Wing, C-3PO's "And" is more clearly heard before saying "do take good care of yourself."
• Yoda makes a frightened "Ehhhhh!" just before Luke says "Like we're being watched" and points his blaster at him.
• In the asteroid field, after C-3PO says, "Oh, this is suicide", he says, "There's nowhere to go."
• In the Yoda training scene, Yoda is clearly heard saying "Yes..." before "run".
• "Anger, fear agression...the dark side of the force are they. Easily they flow... quick to join you in a fight...." is mixed much louder.
• Yoda: "Consume you it will... as it did Obi-Wan's apprentice." It seems a different, less aggressive take of "as it did Obi-Wan's apprentice" is used.
• Right after Luke's failure in the cave, the establishing shot of the fleet features the classic TIE sound effects from "Star Wars" just like in the 70mm cut.
• The droid's "Eh chuta" seems to be a different take.
• C3PO only says "Hello?" once when he thinks he hears an R2 unit and the voice of the unseen guy who blasts him is different.
• Added Chewbacca vocalization heard over the shot when Boba Fett makes his entrance after Vader's "We would be honored if you would join us."
• Han screaming when he is getting interrogated is much louder in certain spots during the Vader and Lando conversation.
• C3PO has an additional line at the very beginning of the carbon freezing scene.  "Oh dear, what now?  I don't like the look of this."
• When Luke forces Vader off the ledge in the carbon-freezing chamber, his grunt from earlier in the battle is reused instead of his "Ahhh."

Some additional notes from various posts on this forum:

*Right after Luke puts the charge into the AT-AT and blows it up, the very next speeder Veers' AT-AT shoots down has an airplane sound effect in the 35mm which is mixed much, much softer in the mono.

*Music is generally mixed much more prominently, with much punchier brass and violins. For a good example see the Hoth base scene right after the power generator is blown up. The music is inaudible in the 35mm and only fades in when 3PO appears- the missing music is not only audible, but very prominent in the mono. For instance, in that very same scene, right before Leia falls down, she screams twice in the mono mix.  No extra explosion before she falls. And as C3PO is climbing up the ramp, the most prominent sound in the mono mix is the flutes and the swooping strings. In the 35mm, it's C3PO footsteps on the ramp, and the ramp sound effect- only to have to dial the music back up for the next scene (Vader).

*The shot after the Falcon escapes Hoth, the X-wing flyover is not nearly as prominent.

*The asteroid field sequence- all the sound effects are drastically muted and some are entirely missing.  Focus is on the music.

*There is much louder computer sound effects in the scene right before the big Han/Leia kiss on the ship.

*Right after Leia screams seeing the Mynock out the window... audio of her footsteps on-set is much more prominent.

Many of these later reappeared in the Special Edition.

Tack said:

I once heard from someone who said that they had a 16mm print of ESB that contained some audio idiosyncrasies. Namely, Luke lets out a little scream as the floor gives out under him in the Cloud City vents. Is this on Puggo Strikes Back?

The 16mm print used for Puggo Strikes Back does indeed contain a completely unique mix for the film that differs from both the mixes heard on American 70mm prints and 35mm prints, but no little scream from Luke in the Cloud City vents is heard in this mix.

I believe that someone you heard from might have been thinking of the cheesy scream in the Vivaldi teaser trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EH9z8se3Aho 

Thankfully that scream of Hamill was never heard in any theatrical release. But, we got something worse in '97. ;)