msycamore

Baronlando said:

But if some of those original composite shots are just too far gone, what can you do. That one particular stock was defective, and I assume those shots are just rotting and getting worse all the time? Close Encounters had the same issue I believe, (the same defective stock from '77) not sure what the solution there was. 

Maybe they utilized the separation masters? Apparently there was 62 shots in total that was on that unstable CRI-stock in Star Wars, some of them includes the Stardestroyer capturing Leia's ship and some of the shots of X-wings flying through the Death Star trench.

There seems to be some problem with the color separation masters on Star Wars though, Tom Christopher, the Lucasfilm editor in charge of the restoration - "the preservation effort was botched, (separation masters) mostly by a failure to clean the negative before copying it, and the studio never bothered to inspect the final results. Far from constituting a single studio's sin, such neglect of corporate assets was endemic to Hollywood at the time, and remains widespread today.

As a consequence, the restoration team was forced to struggle with a negative that was not only dirty but badly worn, from making thousands of prints, and was seriously faded, even though it had been stored at prescribed temperatures and humidity in a vault 650 feet down in a salt mine near Wichita, Kan. Blue skies and rich blacks had lost their luster. Silver had almost vanished from the emulsion in certain scenes, like the prelude to Kenobi's duel to the death with Darth Vader. Flesh tones had turned pallid. Strobing effects and those red fluctuations had mysteriously appeared. Some parts, such as the Tatooine desert sequences shot in Tunisia, had never had much luster to begin with. ("Star Wars," it's useful to recall, was first considered the slapdash work of a brash young upstart.) Other pieces weren't even original negative, but intentionally degraded duplicates that Mr. Lucas had stuck in to avoid emphasizing the quality of adjacent optical effects, some of which were so crude as to be almost unacceptable.

Eventually 748 of the 2,228 shots in the movie were redone in the course of creating a new negative, from which some 2,000 new prints have been struck for the current national release. (Similar though less extensive work has been done for the two sequels, "The Empire Strikes Back" and "Return of the Jedi.")

Mike Verta have also mentioned that the separation masters are incomplete, apparently there's entire color channels missing for at least a couple of the reels.

But it can be done especially with modern tools, I think that Robert Harris have mentioned it in the past, there are lots of films that don't have original negatives that have been restored. And there also have to be existing IP's in decent shape for at least making a good looking blu-ray transfer. I have definitely limited knowledge in the field but even I understand that it's not impossible to completely restore Star Wars, Lucas just want us to think so. There's also good looking IB Technicolor prints out there. As you've said Baronlando, these kind of things are done every Tuesday. ;)

Mavimao said:

Danny Boy brings up a good question: if there is indeed a copy of a negative of the original star wars, but with recomped special effects and nothing else, would you be satisfied with this version? Or would it still not be THE original film for you?

The truth is, if the original special effects are replaced with new ones, it isn't the original film any longer, no I wouldn't be satisfied with such a version. A version like that is perhaps what most people hoped the Special Edition was going to be.

I'm not going to recapture it, because the results wouldn't be any different with the player or combfilter available to me, but like I've said before I'm going to upload a 2nd much improved version from my original capture as I know it can look so much better than what the current DVD does.

^ Yeah, the screenshots I posted in that thread is nothing definitive, it's a possibilty the Japanese LD's have better quality transfers.

Dark/Sega and V8 DVD's are two different preservations of the japanese Special Collection LD, X9 found on the newsgroup is a raw capture of the JSC LD, so that is probably what you're looking for.

Also, the X9 capture was not the source for V8 and Dark/Sega DVD's.

CatBus said:

I have the 1980 ESB stereo audio from Darth Mallwalker's Laserdisc capture, synced to the GOUT.

Nice, I am definitely interested in that, with Mallwalker's rip as the source, it wil sound great. It has not yet been determined which track of the 35mm Dolby Stereo mix of Empire is the most complete and which of them that is of better quality. I posted the frame differences between the Pioneer SWE and SC LD here: http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Pre-93-Special-LD-transfers/post/581572/#TopicPost581572

I posted some examples of the DVNR-smear in the US SE LD here: http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/DVNR-smearing-in-GOUT-not-in-the-master-Or-is-the-1995-release-a-different-master-altogether/topic/11856/page/4/

No matter how badly affected they are by DVNR-smear, the digital broadcasts are at least not as bad as the US LD set. However, some scenes are less affected by it in the LD's and vice versa, but the broadcasts are overall superior.

The TB of ANH and ESB are the best IMO, but they're missing a few frames (something all broadcasts do at different locations) so a combination of sources are needed for best results.

danny_boy said:

If the original negative had not been cleaned and restored(as you claim) then how  do you think they managed to get the picture quality to a level to be able to re-release it to cinemas in 1997?

No I didn't claim that, I clearly said that the original negative was disassembled cleaned and reassembled but just because they washed all the elements from dirt doesn't mean that all deteriorated and faded elements were magically restored. They are probably in the same condition today if not worse than when they replaced them with recomposites and CGI etc.

timdiggerm said:

msycamore said:

LexX said:

I really can't believe they would actually replace it... it wouldn't make it any better and it would create a serious backslash from the public.

You just described the results of the alterations that's been done so far. ;)

Hardly. Most people don't care.

Yeah, you're right of course, the general public doesn't care or doesn't even know about any controversy, but as much backlash you can expect things like this get in "movie land."

LexX said:

They tried that TESB CGI Yoda thing when they were doing the prequels as a test to get it look right, maybe that's just blown up in the media? There were some rough clips of that on some of the extras.

Maybe you're right. It's possible I guess, but if such tests were made in the early 2000 and are to be seen on some of the prequel DVD's, it just seems weird to me if Bill Hunt mentioned it first when he reviewed the blu-ray, didn't those prequel discs come out even before the 2004 DVD set? Whatever, I actually don't find it hard to believe, after what was done in '97 nothing will ever surprise me.

LexX said:

I really can't believe they would actually replace it... it wouldn't make it any better and it would create a serious backslash from the public.

You just described the results of the alterations that's been done so far. ;)

SilverWook said:

I'd like to think George respects Frank Oz too much to do that to Original Puppet Yoda (tm).

This is what Bill Hunt had to say in his blu-ray review: 

"For those of you who hate the past changes (and the new BD changes), believe me I get it. Let me just say, it could be a LOT worse. Sources well-positioned to know have told me that Lucas actually seriously considered replacing the puppet Yoda from The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi with the all-digital version, and even had tests conducted to see how it would look. Fortunately, cooler heads prevailed. (For the record, I'm told that the digital Yoda just didn't look right or mesh well with the real, physical, practical Dagobah sets. Shocking, I know.) In any case, the films are what they are - changes and all - and now they're finally available on Blu-ray."

I'm afraid Lucas doesn't respect anyone's workmanship on these classic films these days. Frank Oz's voice performance maybe. This set was also released very close to Kershner's death, when a few years have passed it may be easier to go ahead with more alterations. I would like a commentary track where Lucas explains in detail why he changed certain things, what about Lukes' scream in the '97 SE that was lifted from the Emperor in Jedi, talk about creativity. ;)

danny_boy said:

Ahhh---- and this is the catch----what is/was the original or former condition of Star Wars(as seen by audiences between 1977 to 85)?

I saw the film myself twice theatrically(1981 and 1983) but I will not dare to hazard a guess in 2012 as to whether  what I saw 30 years ago was grainy or clean or had punchy colours or was pink shifted or had dirt and scratches or was free from such blemishes.

So you have now shifted gears from "the film was restored in '95" to "some prints were grainy, dirty and beaten up and faded when seen by audiences back in the '70's and the '80's." So, what does all of this have to do with George Lucas refusal to let it be restored and preserved? Or do you still count the Special Edition as a restoration of the original film? The National Film Registry certainly didn't... it's now 15 years later and still no plans to restore it, just bad excuses whenever it is brought up. Film enthusiasts and fans have since lost their patience.

George Lucas - "the filmmaker who care deeply about his fans" did however say that he was sorry that fans had fell in love with a half finished film in 2004. How noble of him...

bkev said:

Filtering out the rainbowing was definitely a good choice; it's one of my bigger problems with the Technidisc.

Yeah, I agree, it's very ugly but I ultimately decided to left it in, as the side effects of such filtering are often worse than the original problem. It's no match to get rid of, but what you often end up with is smearing, ghosting, objects that should have colors gets desaturated - seen on lights and lasers etc. I have not yet found a good derainbowing filter that not introduce artifacts of some sort. Fast moving scenes are the toughest.

Thanks, updated.

Great job Red5! Will update the numbers, thank you for helping out! :)

Well said, if you ask Lucas himself the original Star Wars belongs in a locked cellar or in the trash, the film haven't even been seen in its true light by audiences in that form without its bagage since '79. Imagine if another classic had been treated in the same way as Star Wars... Casablanca, Citizen kane, The Godfather to name a few. It doesn't really help that the American Film Institute have ranked it as the 13th most important American film ever made when the most commonly viewed image of it is: "It's a kids movie". I sometimes wonder how people/media would react if The Wizard of Oz were updated every five years and the original were only available as VHS quality bonus material. The situation is disgusting, these films were created to be seen and they have been locked away far too long.

I agree with you TServo, but I'm not entirely sure about all this, the difference in audio is just a theory of mine. The reissue is probably the exact same transfer with a few issues fixed or introduced?

I think Mallwalker was about to rip the '92 reissue of Empire a while back. He might chime in on this soon, he knows far more than me about the different Star Wars LD's.

TServo2049 said:

The '92 reissue of 1130-84 would have been the 1985 remix in digital, with the tractor beam line...right?

schorman13 said:

I don't know about the 1992 version. I've never heard of a digital CAV version of the Pan & Scan LD.

Both the '85 CAV standard play LD editions of Star Wars and Empire were reissued in '92, not to be confused with the CLV editions released that same year. So maybe you own the reissue schorman? or maybe Belbucus did. I don't know, I don't own any of them. They are supposed to be identical on the jackets as I understand it, so you need to check mint marks etc. I know Empire were treated with an additional digital track on the '92 repressing but I'm not sure about Star Wars.

As I understand it, the original pressing of Star Wars was done by Pioneer USA and the repressing was done by Pioneer Japan. The original pressing of Empire were pressed by Pioneer USA and the reissue by Mitsubishi.

EDIT: I will also add that the running time on the jacket are supposed to be incorrect on both pressings of these editions, some might be confused by that thinking they have the time-compressed versions.

You_Too said:

I opened the blu-ray in avspmod using a script and there it's smooth. So it's MPC's fault.

I see, glad you found the culprit. I usually use VLC but I will check how reds look on my player when I am able to and report back.

Edit: I checked a few films in MPC and I cannot see this problem with reds, I don't own the blu-ray but I checked the '04 DVD and the blockiness isn't there so I have no idea what's causing it with your player.

You_Too said:

Maybe it's media player classic's fault then. I see it in most Star Wars movies for some reason. Here's a closeup from the 2011 blu-ray, of the lasers firing between the star destroyer and Tantive:

Weird, have to check if my media player behave in the same way. Does the same thing happen on all your video files?

g-force said:

msycamore, are you absolutely sure that only the scenes you point out are affected, and not the whole film? Do you have any good examples that have just as much red and blue info that show that the chroma channels line up perfectly without shifting the chroma?

Well, I actually thought I had done a meticulous job checking this but Red5 have since helped pointing out that the frames 96325 - 96446 wasn't affected and that 163146 - 165306 were, so I guess nothing is definitive as of yet. It was some time since I went through this myself but I remembered seeing those two additional issues I posted on the stardestroyer and the medical frigate and look what came up as a suggestion, an additional fix for the blue chroma information as well. I guess more people need to check things out to be sure, but I suspect Red5 already did though, as what he spotted wasn't something you normally do casually. But the whole film is definitely not affected.

You_Too said:

@Moth3r: Actually, the blockiness of strong reds is there in a lot of versions of the movies. Even the 2011 blu-rays. Since it's there in the source, I think it's better to post a screenshot which is directly comparable to the source to see the difference.

Not sure what blockiness of reds you describe seeing in other versions? I doubt any official video release have chroma sampling errors, but I guess you never know with Lucasfilm these days. Anyway, what Moth3r meant is the pixelated reds, easily seen on the stardestroyer's engine glows on your pic and Red 5's earlier pics in the thread. That's not in the source, you sometimes see this kind of errors on video material that has gone through some bad colorspace conversions.

Red5 said:

Here's a smoother sample, with the script that shifts the blue more on the right side than on the left side (top sample), which is slightly better for this particular scene than the chromashift(c=2) (bottom sample), but perhaps not really worth the extra hassle.

Hard to decide what looks best on that comparison but I actually lean towards your old sample, maybe I'm crazy. Both are great improvements.

This is what I described earlier.

See the red around the edges atop the frigate in the upper left corner. Am unable to check if there's a fix for this at the moment, but it's definitely a video artifact and not something special effects related.

Edit: I take that back, it could be special effects related.

Darth Mallwalker said:

I've gotten roughly half way through the movie. So far, it's not very interesting



Pay no attention to the typo in D16 ;)

Did you ever finish this?

Here's my documentation (fields not included):

• Special Collection - mid-reel: -5/-2 = 7
• SWE (Pioneer USA) - mid-reel: -1/-2 = 3
• Special Collection - reel 1/2: -2/-4 = 6
• SWE (Pioneer USA) - reel 1/2: -1/-6 = 7
• Special Collection - mid-reel: -1/-2 = 3
• SWE (Pioneer USA) - mid-reel: -0/-7 = 7
• Special Collection - reel 2/3: -10/-9 = 19
• SWE (Pioneer USA) - reel 2/3: -0/-19 = 19
• Special Collection - mid-reel: -4/-1 = 5
• SWE (Pioneer USA) - mid-reel: -1/-7 = 8
• Special Collection - reel 3/4: -6/-9 = 15
• SWE (Pioneer USA) - reel 3/4: -0/-17 = 17
•     
• Special Collection - mid-reel: -7/-26 = 33
• SWE (Pioneer USA) - mid-reel: -1/-29 = 30
• Special Collection - reel 4/5: -0/-3 = 3
• SWE (Pioneer USA) - reel 4/5: -0/-3 = 3
• Special Collection - mid-reel: -2/-4 = 6
• SWE (Pioneer USA) - mid-reel: -6/-2 = 8
• Special Collection - reel 5/6: -2/-4 = 6
• SWE (Pioneer USA) - reel 5/6: -0/-3 = 3
• Special Collection - mid-reel: -7/-4 = 11
• SWE (Pioneer USA) - mid-reel: -1/-12 = 13

Total frames missing:

Special Collection: 114

SWE (Pioneer USA): 118

Yeah, I noticed that, it's seen on You_Too's screenshot as well.

Red5 said:

I would suggest these slight changes to your frame numbers.  

(90888 - 96650) changed to:

90888 - 96324
96447 - 96650

(96325 - 96446 is then untouched)

 

And (163146 - 165249) changed to:

163146 - 165306

 

Good eye! I updated the first post with your great observations. Thank you! :)