doubleofive said:
I'm sure its from Jedi. He leaves & goes back to his stardestroyer several times in that one.
And when he were at it, he also took the opportunity to grab the Emperor-scream for Luke, a true labor of love it was. ;)
yoda-sama said:
Interesting. Which original sources did you compare with?
A faded 35mm scan scratched to hell and pan&scan video, to my tired eyes it isn't present. Team -1 might be able to give you a more definitive answer.
doubleofive said:
I will always call BS on that. No one uses the word "stardestroyer" in the movie, and Vader never left his ship that he would need to alert it to prepare for it! He starts on the SD, moves to the Blockade Runner, is on the Death Star, then on his TIE Fighter. Where would "Alert my Star Destroyer to prepare for my arrival" fit in? When he left the Blockade Runner? I know the rough cuts were long, but that's ridiculous.darth_ender said:
My understanding is that the redub was not JEJ recording a new line, but rather a discarded line originally intended for ANH.
http://filmsound.org/starwars/starwars-AQ.htm
To me the line sound more like something ROTJ-Vader would say. Wasn't stardestroyers mentioned in the SW-script? Still, it doesn't make the change any less awful no matter where it's taken from.
yoda-sama said:
BTW, has anyone checked if that dark spot on the opening Star Destroyer is present on the GOUT?
My guess is that the dark spot anomaly was probably introduced or possibly made more visible when the sequence was recomposited. (except for the starfield, it looks like the original elements were still used) It can also be seen in the '97SE transfers but not in any original sources, if it's not visible in the original due to generation loss caused by the optical compositing or because it's not actually there at all is hard to tell.
althor1138 said:
I kind of expected that some people would not like the denoised 720p stream. I will definitely take your ideas into account in the future. I'll probably still apply some denoising to the 720p stream in ROTJ though. There is always the untouched 480p for people that want a "pure" transfer. I'd like to hear some methods for doing this without introducing an unwanted amount of artifacting.
I am excited to see what the Technidisc is going to look like. I hope I don't have to capture it 5 times like the last guy!
Yes, I totally understand the purpose of the denoised version, that's why it is so great of you providing a choice, and your denoising might also look alot better on ESB as you hinted at.
Not sure how the crosstalk-mastering defect works, if we're lucky your player will handle it better and you'll be fine with one single capture, with your fine combfilter/capture-chain it may perhaps be enough. Looking forward to check out your ESB, thanks again for sharing! :)
I have only seen your ANH but I agree with g-force, definitely try to reduce the noise reduction, there's alot of smearing and other artifacting present.
As already been said, your unprocessed stream is a superb capture, a very fine job althor! Definitely the best SC I've seen yet, noticed some clipped whites in some instances but then I'm being very nitpicky, that could also just be a case of different luma between pressnings. Great job! :)
Will be very interesting to see how your fine gear treat the somewhat problematic Technidisc LD (althor has offered to help cap it for me :)
Thanks marvins and Mavimao for posting that french interview, great insight into the dubbing/mixing process.
Bobby Jay said:
Could someone please point out what is inaccurate about the information given on the old davisDVD site?
Despite popular belief, this was not the only transfer made of Star Wars. At some point, a second fullscreen video transfer was created from a 16mm flat print source. Since an anamorphic (2.35:1) 35mm print had been reduced down to a flat (1.33:1) 16mm print, this 16mm source featured different pan & scan decisions made during the print reduction. One main difference in this transfer was that Luke's macrobinocular POV shot of the Banthas was squeezed to actually show the Tusken Raider walking to the side of the frame. This video transfer was only shown on HBO and was never offered for sale or rent [ Special Thanks to David C. Fein ]
That video transfer was offered for sale in both CED and LD format, whereas the VHS and Betamax contained the other P&S transfer.
The letterboxed Japanese transfer was used to create this edition and since the picture on that had been shifted up, some slight re-adjustment was necessary to equalize the letterbox bands and place the 2.35 frame closer to the center. How this was done was through a "controlled video scroll" (like adjusting the vertical hold on an older TV set) to move the picture to the approximate center of the screen. The top of the frame, now vacant of the original picture, was matted over with a black letterbox band. Now here's the kicker: since this was all done by eye, at some point during this correction process the top letterbox band began over-matting onto the top edge of the picture. This essentially changed the aspect ratio of the film midway! To check for yourselves, grab this laserdisc and chapter to the cantina sequence. Go up to your screen and mark where the top letterbox band meets the top of the picture frame. At the point Greedo gets shot, the top black band will creep down lower than its original position. And to make matters worse, this happens a second time somewhere during the course of the film. So by the point the rebels are preparing to attack the Death Star, the film's aspect ratio has changed from 2.35:1 to 2.55:1. This "Incredible Shrinking Ratio" was later corrected in 1992 and issued on both VHS and laserdisc. See below for that [ Very Special Thanks to David C. Fein ]
Sounds like a very weird way of handle it... actually both top and bottom letterbox bands increase in size during the transfer and I don't believe this to be the reason for the "incredible shrinking ratio" problem, the Special Collection and SWE ISR LD's are made from the same film elements/master, but the telecine is not the same, actually in some cases the ISR transfer shows even more picture information than the Special Collection transfer. See a few examples here: http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Print-variations-in-77-Star-Wars/post/602483/#TopicPost602483
The 1989 laserdisc was quietly reissued with the newly corrected letterboxed transfer, completely doing away with the "incredible shrinking ratio" problem. This release, pressed by Mitsubishi Japan, features the same catalog number as the 1989 release. So how can you tell the two apart? This corrected edition is released by "Fox Video." Coupled with the 1985 audio mix, this could very well likely be the best presentation of the film [ Thanks to David C. Fein ]
The "incredible shrinking ratio" problem is still present on the Mitsubishi pressing, it was the Technidisc pressing that corrected the problem.
georgec said:
msycamore said:
Top lingering questions; Is Garindan doing well? Did Garindan end up with a girlfriend perhaps?
I can't imagine Garindan being single or undesirable to the ladies. Have you seen the length and girth of his snout?
Yeah, you're probably right but it seems to be shortage on women in that galaxy. They definitely need to make a spinoff Garindan spy movie if we don't get the answers in the new trilogy.
Top lingering questions; Is Garindan doing well? Did Garindan end up with a girlfriend perhaps?
You_Too said:
AntcuFaalb said:
A question first: Are most of the glue marks in GOUT ANH similar to the one at the bottom of NTSC GOUT ANH frame #12675?
That one's not a glue mark, it's a yellow flash. No idea what caused it. Check 66414 and you'll have a purple flash! Weird stuff.
Most likely splicing tape.
You_Too said:
For some "nice" glue marks check 14120, 14121, 14412, 23697, 24672, 25356, 26507, 26565, 26822, 27105.
You are at least spared from this one. ;)
TECH vs. GOUT - 27313
Yes, there are different opinions on this matter obviously, and I should state that it's not the looks of the actors that's my concern, I see no big problem there actually, it's the very idea of these characters showing up as old versions of themselves, it's only rooted in nostalgia. These are basically comic book characters, you don't want to see a 70+ year old Solo, trust me. At least I won't.
Darth Hade said:
There’s not enough makeup in the world to make Fisher look human anymore.
I don’t understand why she would want to be in this film.
That is not someone who belongs on the big screen.
Ford should vanish as well.
;)
Darth Hade said:
All that is needed is Hamill’s version of Obi-Wan (Old Luke).
The word that all three seem to be coming back reeks of desperation.
Agree, I think some fans don't even know what they wish for, I don't think Hamill as an old Luke is a good idea either, these are sort of fun ideas in theory and on paper but Hamill is no Guinness. We love Carrie, Mark and Harrison but I expect it will be painful to watch even as small cameos, it will be fun for those making the film, but not so fun for the audience. Seeing these characters as old are an even worse idea than any ideas Lucas managed to realize in the prequels.
hairy_hen said:
While information about the '85 mix is hard to come by, certain qualities of its sound can lend themselves to informed speculation about its origins.
4) The '85 mix has been dynamically compressed to a greater degree than the '77.
Interesting, didn't know that, do you know if this is the case with all incarnations of this mix? I recall that you found the SWE Technidisc to be the loudest of the bunch in your investigations. Would be interesting to compare all pressings and incarnations of this track in even more detail sometime, from all LD's all the way from '86 SC up to '93 SWE, from Japan pressings: Pioneer and Mitsubishi to USA pressings: Mitsubishi, Pioneer and Technidisc.
As it stands,
35mm Dolby Stereo - digital track (Japanese '91 Pan&Scan LD)
'85 home video mix - SWE (Technidisc)
overall the best sources for these tracks so far, am I right?
hairy_hen said:
Now let us consider a few other facts:
1) The 70mm version had a few additional sound effects not heard in the 35mm stereo mix, which also do not appear in the '85 version.
2) The '97 SE mix, which is said to have been derived mainly from an original 4-track master, does not contain these 70mm additions either.
3) The stereo imaging of the '85 mix seems to line up exactly with what is heard in the 70mm and '97 mixes (apart from the changes, obviously).
4) The 70mm and '97 versions do not contain the additional music reverb.
What may we deduce from this evidence?
1) Despite their overall similarity, the '85 mix could not possibly have been derived from the original 35mm stereo. The missing reverb alone would tell us this much; and the imaging discrepancy lends it further credence, for while there are ways of widening a stereo field, it is unlikely that artificial processing after the fact would yield a result that aligns so closely with sources that had not been narrowed to begin with.
2) The '85 mix must therefore have been derived from an earlier generation source that did not contain the reverb or any added sound effects, and had the full panning width.
3) The similarity of the '85 and '77 stereo versions, in spite of the differences they do display, is such that they must have a common ancestor in their background.
When we add up the facts, it seems to me that the most logical conclusion would be to say that the 1985 stereo mix is derived from the original 4-track master. It is a fresh downmix of an early, discrete channel source, with the tractor beam line added on top and the dynamics compressed down to a level that was deemed acceptable for home video release. This explanation accounts both for the similarities and differences between versions and makes the most sense given the audible properties of each, as well as fitting with the information available to us about these matters.
Yeah, it's important to select your wordings right, I said '85 re-mix earlier which is of course an inaccurate description when it is its own mix or digital remaster. So I'm sorry if what I said implied that it could be a remix or a derivation of the 35mm Dolby when it's clearly not.
All theatrical stereo mixes was derived from the 4-track master mix, that is the groundwork. Still it's impossible to tell for sure without more information if the '85 mix was a fresh down mix from the master tapes or a remaster of an existing mix. We can only speculate even with these facts at hand. That's why it would be nice with more concrete info about the creation of this track. When it comes to the '93 mix and '97 mix we know for the most part what was done, on this track we only have that quote.
Moth3r said:
It would make sense though - instead of a new remix, the 1985 release had its audio digitally remastered from an existing mix.
Then again this David C. Fein seems to have credentials (despite the inaccuracies about the ISR laserdisc) - it looks like he now works with Michael Matessino (the guy who gave us the list of ESP 70mm print differences) at a DVD production company called Sharpline Arts.
That's great info, moth3r! yeah there are inaccuracies with both the ISR LD's and the pan & scan transfers, but that certainly gives it more weight. No one is perfect and that site and info is old anyway.
Damn, I had hoped there would exists some more info regarding this, I also guess if what he states is correct - an early home video mix rather than just remaster, I guess it will be hard to find any info on it due to when it took place, maybe there was some blurb in a magazine back in the day when this VHS was released.
interesting that they were broadcasted on Disney channel, I guess it must be the "'85 mix" as he later mention the different Aunt Beru voice as a deviation in the 16mm.
Mavimao said:
As far as non-dubbed foreign releases, I would say it was the mono mix that was sent out. Just look at puggo's swedish 16mm (can't recall the name) and the various vhs broadcasts from the 80s in Europe : they have the mono mix.
But this is just a guess.
Both stereo and mono versions could be seen in Sweden as far as I know, it's just that not that many theaters were equipped with the then quite new Dolby system. I'm not sure but I don't think any theaters in Sweden were equipped with it yet, only one or two theaters I can think of if that was the case, I know that it was in place for Alien in '79 and ESB premiered in 70mm. Anyway, it was the Dolby system that was new, stereo and surround had been in place for a long time, UK and bigger countries than little Sweden certainly had their fine presentations including Dolby Stereo and as already mentioned four-track magnetic stereo prints were shipped out. It's not like the stereo versions were US exclusive.
Still, I'm not saying that what was included on the '85 home video release is not a home video exclusive mix, as such things are quite common afterall. It could very much be the case but if we only have that quote without any facts, anything is possible IMO. The reason I have become a little hesitant towards this info, is because that page contains factual errors from this same guy, and I just wonder if this '85 mix info originate with this old blurb? Haven't been able to find anything else regarding it, have you?
Mavimao, remember that not every country dub their films. And as far as I know Lucas and Burtt was quite involved when it came to those foreign mixes as well.
danny_boy said:
Yes I agree.
I always wondered where this information came from.
Yeah, I suddenly recall this old post from you:
http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/4-as-opposed-to-3-audio-tracks-for-the-original-theatrical-run-of-Star-Wars/topic/13006/
A lot of confusing facts in that article you posted and it's easy to see where that article is wrong but IMO it's entirely possible that the "'85-mix" is in fact a more rarely heard fourth theatrical mix from '77.
Mavimao said:
Well the mix is different from the original 77 mix because:
1) There is the inclusion of CPO's tractor beam line
2) Hairy_hen has said in Harmy's thread that "the '77 version has the channels panned inwards by a fair amount (presumably this was to reduce crosstalk in the surround, since upmixing processors were less advanced in those days), while the '85 has the full stereo width"
So in my mind, the 85 is a tweaked and modified 77 stereo mix. So yes, in effect a new one.
Well of course it's a different mix than the optical 35mm Dolby Stereo, my point was; do we actually have more information on this "1985 home video mix" other than that old quote from David C. Fein?
The film was released in may '77 with;
35mm two-track (four channel) Dolby Stereo
70mm six-track Dolby Stereo
and later in June in 35mm Academy Mono.
The fact that a fourth format was made available for international release; 35mm four-track magnetic Stereo, (probably made available because Dolby was still fairly new back then) begs the question, what was the content like on those prints? That Burtt would've made a new mix for home video in '85 isn't hard to believe, that's what everyone says happened, it's just that it would be nice with more actual info on this rather than just that old quote.
NeverarGreat, I guess you refer to the discussion started here:
http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Star-Wars-Colortiming-Cinematography-was-What-changes-was-done-to-STAR-WARS-in-93/post/567929/#TopicPost567929
And yes, it's typical modern Lucasfilm production quality, I also think what jero said pretty much sums it up.
NeverarGreat said:
It's not as if they just pulled the 97 special edition coloring, as that is much more orange.
Are you talking about this one?
^^ It is indeed the recomposited '97SE sunset and it's how it often appeared in Fox promo material before/after release.
DVD documentaries / SW DVD menu and DVD case
'97 home video release / DV broadcasts
The original '77 sunset was much brighter than these two...
Bingowings said:
No it isn't.
Said in jest it was. But you can still see the character design of Stuart Freeborn in that crude form compared to the Phantom Menace puppet which to me simply looks cheap, more like a redesign or a bad fan-made look alike than a younger version of the same character.
could these two be the mother and father of the Yoda of Episode 1:
Thanks for preserving these althor!
I wish we had more concrete information on what exactly the "1985 home video mix" really is, I'm not saying that the info provided is wrong but this David C. Fein fella provide incorrect information in other instances on that page.
Is this the only source of information we have on that mix?
Who knows what the fourth format (35mm four-track magnetic stereo) made for international release sounded like.
Had a quick look at Dr Gonzo's DC preservation which was made from an early pressing and the only one that differ is the scene in Ben's hut.
Thought there was a similar issue in the Falcon scenes but it seems identical to subsequent pressings.
The Definitive Collection Flaw List: http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/The-Definitive-Collection-Flaw-List-1993-Laserdisc-Box-Set/topic/12305/
bigrob said:
FYI Mattstevens did a SUPERB job on doing a homebrew Suspiria DVD with the AB Video and Laserdisc audio
Yeah, that's still my preferable way watching it, he did a fantastic job!
bigrob said:
i also have on BD the fan restored effort from drsapirsten but haven't got roudn to watching it yet
Oh, that sounds nice, what BD was utilized for video and does it include the original mono as well?