msycamore

Asaki said:

Well as we discussed elsewhere, the 35mm version has a lot of white clipping that may or may not have been intentional.

I don't think that clipping is ever intentional. Which 35mm version are you talking about, one of the 35mm prints -1 had acquired? As I understand it, interpositives has lower contrast than regular release print stock, to take into account for the contrast that builds up in the internegative and release print stages, I'm sure there are differences between different prints and what film stock it is. But what's going on in the case of what we are seeing on the video transfers on the Technidisc or the GOUT is obviously clipping introduced when they did the transfers, nothing unusual.

^ It's a nice theory. We should perhaps try to contact Michael Coate over at in70mm.com about this, and perhaps ask around in Film-Tech Forum, some projectionists over there may have an answer, maybe you have done this already, none? Would also be nice to get an answer about the opening crawl, like you suggested in the other thread, send a few questions to Richard Edlund, my English isn't as good as yours though, but I might give it a try if you haven't already.

Regarding alternate takes, check the scenes when THX visit SEN, almost all scenes Donald Pleasence did are lifted from other takes and digitally manipulated into the scenes, whenever there's a shot of the two actors in frame, his eyeline doesn't even match Duvalls', he's looking and talking in another direction, looks terrible. Those few scenes that are still left from the original in that scene is often digitally reframed, zoomed, shifted sideways or whatever, similar to what was done on Star Wars.

Even the lighting/cinematography on some original scenes have been tinkered with, actors faces that was earlier in shadows are suddenly in light etc. There's much more changes to this film than what most people realize, albeit subtle.

Yeah, that's what so disturbing about that release, it's so extremely revisionistic in its approach. (Is revisionistic even a real word?)

Jonno said:

Don't forget Walter Murch - the visual/audio montages have his fingerprints all over them (especially the opening).

Definitely. A real masterpiece in sound design.

Jonno said:

Referring to your earlier question, I assume the 2004 version's subtitle was a marketing ruse aimed at those who hadn't heard of it - it's the director's cut of the film, and that director is none other than GEORGE LUCAS!

Of course, as you rightly suggest, it isn't really a director's cut - it's a film where large chunks have been remade. The "We couldn't achieve what we wanted to at the time" mantra is especially hollow in this case - of course they couldn't achieve these CG vistas in the early 70s, no-one could... they simply made the best film they could under the circumstances (subsequent studio meddling aside).

Agree, it's most likely what you suggest, marketing, the title is just so damn stupid, just call it what it is instead, a Special Edition. Wonder if it was Warner Bros or Lucas himself who was behind the title. Is it still there on the blu-ray cover?

Jonno said:

What's particularly frustrating is how beautiful the restored (as opposed to altered) footage frequently is, particularly on the BD. Sadly I think this might be too big a repair job even for an Adywan or a Harmy...

Except the resolution and clarity of the footage, personally I'm not that fond of how it looks as it's sometimes so far removed from the original, the raw documentary style of the original is gone, degrained, high contrast look with skintones that are often ash gray or blue. But I agree that some scenes look very good though, it's just that you know the original could look even better if it was restored, that's what makes it even more frustrating.

The original version was quite grainy and even though the film is highly stylized in its photography, except for the limbo prison sequence which was handled by Haskell Wexler at a TV studio in LA, it was shot entirely on locations and used natural lighting as much as possible, the actors didn't even wear makeup.

Lucas in American Cinematographer, October 1971:

"I was well aware that there would be those in the audience who would be shocked by the graininess at first, but I was sure that after the first minute or two they would get used to the grain and simply accept it as part of the stylistic concept, the documentary approach."

I definitely recommend the article if you guys haven't read it, cannot find it at the moment but the main parts of it can be read here: http://books.google.se/books?id=P2P7pwHeZSkC&pg=PA8&lpg=PA8&dq=THX+1138+American+Cinematographer&source=bl&ots=tIkANVWelz&sig=WXEwjpn7LkMhW2DgCYMoPUok2zs&hl=sv&sa=X&ei=gp36T7utHM7R4QTA4pCVBw&sqi=2&ved=0CFMQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=THX%201138%20American%20Cinematographer&f=false

frank678 said:

So the light blue sky was always already blown out somewhat on the technidisc master anyway - by the (contrast?) settings used by the operator? 

 

Yes, there's some clipped whites in the Technidisc master where the GOUT actually fare better but overall it's not as bad, some examples of clipped whites can be seen when the stormtroopers blow up the hatch on the blockade runner, in the attack of the sandpeople and the subsequent scenes following it with Ben, and somewhat in these Mos Eisley scenes, but part of why the sky look like it does here is because there exist almost no blue in the highlights at this point, it can be corrected:

I may have adjusted the green midtones a tad too much though but you get the idea.

thxita said:

I'm back home only on the 19th, will that slow you down msycamore?

No problem, as you have the file I'm just happy that I don't need to re-doing it from scratch.

DisgruntledFan said:

Still in orbit - we de-orbit in about a week. Need to find somewhere to upload em'. Watch your mailbox then.

 

Nice, looking forward to it. :)

SilverWook said:

You'd think there would be a documentary bit with George explaining how that little albino lizard bit him, when he tried gluing antennae and wings on it back in 1970. ;)

That would've been something. :) What surprises me the most, is the extreme re-editing that took place, I simply cannot understand the reason for it other than it was done just for the sake of re-doing it. I'm no editor, but I cannot see what the new editing accomplish other than being different. I mean he was the editor on the original film, he and assistant editor Marcia had already done a great job on it. Sigh...

I must admit I've never seen the 2004 DVD version more than once in its entirety but when I'm now going through it side-by-side with the real director's cut to make adjustments to the aspect ratio I'm amazed by the high level of differences in it, the amount of digital manipulation is insane, the Special Editions of the Star Wars trilogy don't even come close to the tinkering that's been done on this.

I'm still amused by the title "The George Lucas Director's Cut", should that title suggest someone else was the director of the film earlier but it's now George Lucas who is the director? I mean wouldn't calling it "Director's Cut" be enough. Either it is a director's cut or it's not, maybe Lucas are trying to tell us that the young director is now replaced by an older much different Lucas. The title is so stupid on so many levels I cannot find words for it. :)

Anyway, the amount of warping on the print used for the Laserdisc makes it next to impossible to overlay it and match the DVD transfer, in doing so, I resized the '04 DVD from 720x480 to 704x480 so that I could make adjustments more accurately but it will never be perfect, but it will be much more accurate than just a straight resize to 16:9.

Mallwalker was kind and uploaded Arnie.d's X9 captures of the JSC LD's to the newsgroup, he even uploaded IVTC scripts for all three.

Chewtobacca made DVD's out of Empire and Jedi but not Star Wars. The captures are out there for everyone and for anybody willing to work with them.

Yes, that's the sub file I was talking about, I'm glad you still have it. :) Silver didn't, so it would be great if you could please send it to me when you are able to, thanks.

Rogue-theX, thanks for the suggestion, will check it out.

Oh, ok. I assumed you were telling a joke as I know I did encode that sample correctly. Then it must be your setup if you weren't imagining things.

My samples run with NTSC pulldown and with a correct framerate, Asaki were just making a joke.

Regarding the slightly distorted AR with a vertically stretched image as a result, I was able to locate at which points this occur...

the first time this happen is here:

^ first frame of that shot

and it ends on this frame:

Next occurrence of a stretched image is here:

^ first frame of Han after Greedo's line "I've been looking forward to this for a long time."

and it ends here:

Those who have done IVTC on various transfers of SW, might notice that some of these points corresponds with reel changes, the short duration of an correct AR in the Greedo confrontation is a little odd, but I guess it perhaps could be related to the subtitle-free source they used. Anyway, just thought I would share my findings as those who own this LD might find it helpful if you're ever doing your own transfer of it sometime.

Oh, I forgot to mention it, it's the subtitles I did for the '78 restored english version of the film, I think I may have posted them but if you guys don't have it it's not the end of the world, it would just save me a lot of time if I decided to include them. I had not yet synced them to the film though.

Gaffer Tape said:

I can't tell you how much it pissed me (and the rest of the theatre) off when I went to see Yellow Submarine, and they just cut the projection off during the final song.

That's really bad, never experienced such a thing. I thought there was only tv-stations that was able to get away with such things, you should've demanded to get your money back, but who does have the patience to go through the trouble. I guess filmmakers have at least done their attempts to get more of the audience to not rush out as soon as the credits starts to roll by including bloopers and secret endings etc. but it's mostly done on stupid comedies. That kind of thing doesn't exactly fit more serious films either.

And I agree, don't you ever feel guilty 1990osu, for sitting and taking in what you've just paid to see, and like you said, listen to the score, end credits suites are beautiful sometimes, I also find it kinda interesting sometimes with what industry people that was involved.

Don't thank me yet... and just keep your expectations low as it's still just a LD transfer, but your encouragement is appreciated. :)

DisgruntledFan said:

I got a few 35mm film cels from a THX 1138 trailer recently and I've scanned them at decent resolution. I'd be happy to upload them somewhere if anyone was interested. PM me.

Did you get my PM? I would love to see your scans.

Also, SilverWook or thxita, did you ever save my srt file of the english subtitle stream I posted way back, if so and if you still got it I'm interested to get it as I lost it in my HD crash.

negative1 said:

i think i skipped that frame.. will have to go back to the

source frames. these are downsized of course.

later

-1

Yeah, my comment were more of a way to get you to post it. ;) As you already know, similar artifacts were on a couple of frames in the binary sunset and when I IVTC'd the LD I recall seeing it on other optical effects shots as well, being white, it's probably on the negative. When going through the film when doing IVTC you sometimes notice objects you're not supposed to be seeing when watching the film like normal people, like pen markings on FX shots and other anomalies.

skyjedi2005 said:

Harmy said:

I see your point none but if we start demanding the "original" version of the end credits, while the other one was also made in 77 and is pretty much the same and definitely doesn't effectively change the film in any way, we would be totally playing into the cards of those who claim we are lunatics.

I actually believe that if there were two different versions during the original theatrical run, the most true original is the one that was most widely seen.

So would that be the 77 version and its release in foreign markets, or the 1981 version released many more times than the original before the 1997 changes were made.

There existed two versions of the end credits on the original film, see here: http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Credits-Leaders-Thread-was-Star-Wars-Pre-Re-release-Credit-Change-June-77/topic/12960/

If the revised credits first appeared on prints for foreign markets or on prints for the wide US release in the summer of '77 is hard to tell. If there would some day against all odds be a proper video release, it wouldn't kill me if not both credits were included, but it could easily be done as an nice extra like how it has been done on Apocalypse Now for example. I'm one of those crazy persons who consider the end credits to be a part of the film, and that's how I must be seen by others as I realize I'm in minority everytime I go to the cinema as me and the one I go with are usually left alone in the theater when the credits roll.

skyjedi2005 said:

They are identical except for the roll up being different and the starfield replacement as far as i know, i don't count minor fixes/changes to the credits as a change in the films story or soundtrack.

The 81 version is for all intents and purposes the same film, unless you are a greater nitpicker than me.

Then consider me a greater nitpicker than you. ;) The opening crawl and subsequent flyover shot in Star Wars is one of the most iconic moments in cinema history, when it was updated 4 years later, not only were the film given a new crawl and title change and an updated flyover sequence, John Williams score didn't longer match the reveal of the planet, and that always bothered me. It was Star Wars that took the world by storm not Episode IV - A New Hope.

-1, you missed this horizontal white line across the frame. ;)

It might be a common problem on old transfers, I encountered the same issue on my Technidisc pressing of SW, on that one, only some reels were affected, I think they just didn't scan the prints correctly sometimes, the widescreen format on video was also still relatively new back in the early '90's.

I guess most people don't even noticed or cared but I tend to spot these sort of anomalies and it irritates me. ;) Speaking about that, I wonder if Coily may perhaps be on the negative.

I have now finally seen this one, this is a really cool find. You wonder how many different bootlegs there were circulating of these films. Back in the day you were king on the block if you had a copy like this of Star Wars before its first video release and when home video was still an exclusive thing. Looking forward to see what your Panasonic AG-1980 can squeeze out of it, that screenshot of Han is quite a vast improvement. Thanks again for sharing!

^ Quite similar to the US one-sheet.

I'm actually working on the video again, despite my previous claim that I was done with it. I've learned some new things regarding nominal analogue blanking: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominal_analogue_blanking

and how this affect how transfers appear on screengrabs etc, you may recall that I was correcting the aspect ratio due to it being slightly vertically stretched, but DVD transfers such as the 2004 one don't take nominal analogue blanking into account, the LD transfer do, so a circle shouldn't appear as a perfect circle on screengrabs like they do on the official DVD. The LD transfer is vertically stretched though, I just redoing my calculations slightly so that it will appear correct on playback. Damn these things are confusing sometimes...

Don't be afraid of the grain, the extra layers of grain on optical effect sequences is how films from this era looked, people who are used to watching films on blu-ray tends to forget this sometimes.

Yes, this sequence was digitally redone for the SE, along with newly added traffic and a camera tilt. (they also erased the wires/cables above the left stormtrooper's head)

Baronlando said:

Let's face it, LFL is a business and only some trilogies can justify the tremendous expense and effort involved for their company.

"To See Them is to Disbelieve Them!" :) I hope there won't be a Special Edition where someone steps on Chesty Morgan's chest in a similar way to how Han did it on Jabba's tail.

hairy_hen said:

After working on this almost nonstop for the past few days, I'm just about done with the main channel editing.  For the most part it sounds about as good as I could ever hope to make it, and I'm really pleased with how it has turned out.

I was going to upload the stereo track and call it finished, but upon further listening tests I began to detect a few subtle errors that had previously escaped my notice.  So it's not quite ready for posting yet, but it will be once I've got those sorted out.  Unfortunately I'm not entirely sure what the trouble is—I can hear that something is mismatched without quite being able to identify exactly what is causing it, or knowing what to do about it.  Some of the things I tried actually made it worse, so if I can't fix it, I guess I'll have to decide how much aural imperfection I'm willing to tolerate.

These are only small errors I'm talking about, quite possibly things that no one will ever notice if they didn't hear the more audible changes that occasionally appeared in the previous version.  If I'm stuck with them, it's certainly not a big deal; I'd just rather know that they're beyond my ability to deal with before putting it out there.

Great news h_h!!

Disturbing to not know what it is and what's causing it. Hope you're able to identify the problem.

hairy_hen said:

Recently I've become concerned about the issue of phase shift and how that can negatively affect sound quality. It's a complex subject that I don't understand very well at all, but I've been trying to learn more in order to be able to avoid or counteract it. For example, I hadn't realized until now that using a low pass filter causes a phase shift in the extracted low frequencies, which is exactly the kind of thing that could cause unintended cancellation or smearing when combined sounds that are no longer aligned. See here for more information.

Interesting, I guess that's why you had some phasing issue in your Empire edit before?

A little odd that the '85 mix runs a little bit longer than the '93 mix in that part you described even if we're talking milliseconds here, I guess the '77 stereo match the '93 mix in duration there? Haven't listened to Schorman's digital stereo yet, but if it proves to have better fidelity than the analog track maybe things like the explosion before Threepio gets in the escape pod could be of good use, as you mentioned it sounds a little more powerful in the '77 track.

Great to hear that you're pursuing your interest in sound design and audio editing, the industry will need ears like yours!