msycamore

TServo2049 said:

Well, the cement must not have stayed clear for very long - the PAL 35mm telecine bootleg of Empire that VideoCollector obtained a few years back had the same kind of yellowish cement gunk on at least one splice. And that was from a first-run UK theatrical print. (-1 made mention of having to crop out glue from the grind house transfer, I assume their prints are also first-run?)

I guess it was just something not meant to be noticed and usually cropped out in projection.

Also, I have read that A roll/B roll were printed from the negative by printing the A roll (with the slugs in between coming out as black), then printing the B roll onto the same film, exposing the B-roll shots on the black sections between the A roll shots. I can't find anything about interpositives being made in pieces and glued together.

If the negative was A/B, that would mean the yellow blobs are printed in, but that doesn't make sense. For one thing, it would mean the cement was actually light bluish-gray, which seems odd. More importantly, it wouldn't explain why different sources made at different times have different marks. They wouldn't be ungluing and regluing the negative multiple times, if the splices are printed in from negative then only the shots which were replacements would have different splice marks. The more I think about it, the more confused I get...

Yeah, the splicing glue on ESB seem to be fairly consistent on all prints I've seen, including the 1997 Special Edition. From what I've seen of -1's ESB it has the same old glue seen on other prints like the JSC and GOUT.

Yes, Star Wars is A-B rolled but the way I understand it the "checkerboard technique" isn't really needed or used for 35mm, see: https://books.google.se/books?id=fR--7yVROI4C&pg=PA186&lpg=PA186&dq=invisible+splices+a-b+rolled&source=bl&ots=rogbd2dNxv&sig=ZCT6gmo38ZkbT1sVSAUPIUqJ94o&hl=sv&sa=X&ei=UXDIVPirBujMygOho4KQAw&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=invisible%20splices%20a-b%20rolled&f=false But when you look at the glue frames that cover half of the frame in certain prints of SW and ESB you begin to wonder...

TServo2049 said:

Do you think the glue is positive, or printed in? I'm not sure because of the little white fringes, that suggests it could be inverted. But then the actual cement residue would have a slight blue color, which doesn't really make sense. The stuff starts out clear, and I've read stories of old cement turning yellow or brown in the bottle, so I'd assume that like many adhesive compounds, it would likely yellow as it dries?

Good question, I have no idea. And you're right about the glue turning yellow or brown with age so it wasn't as visible at one point. That coupled with the low quality of the 35mm bootleg could be a reason for not seeing them but I don't think so in this case as the bright edges would probably be visible at some points despite its quality.

TServo2049 said:

Please re-check the ISR SWE, specifically the shot of Luke turning the lightsaber back on after putting on the helmet. Russ' capture of the '91 UK LBX VHS seems to lack them, but it's also dark, fuzzy, and compressed, so I can't tell whether the splotches are truly not there, or if it's just too obscure, like with the glue marks we thought weren't there but actually were.

Not able to post any screenshots at the moment but I skimmed through it again and yes, the splotches are definitely there. It does however contain some frames missing in the JSC. So the ISR SWE is something that can be used to patch missing frames. More glue frames. Yay! ;)

I'm also not sure which pressing it is, if I recall correctly there are three of them - Pioneer USA & Japan and Mitsubishi.

TServo2049 said:

Oh wow, a rare example where the Technidisc/GOUT source has the dirtier splice. I think that may be the biggest glob of cement I've seen thus far.

Yeah, this is also one of the rare examples the first frame of a shot is glued as well, the JSC source is always glued on the last frame of a shot and sometimes even when a jump cut appears - Ben's lightsaber ignites, Artoo's leg extend etc, there's glue indicating the end of the cut.

I now actually don't recall which 35mm print(s) I thought matched the Technidisc source, I know I've seen it somewhere. Anyway, Moth3r's 35mm bootleg doesn't appear to have any glue marks of the kind at all, only the negative splices which all of course were covered up by the projector aperture if screened correctly, and that appears to be the case with Technicolor IB prints as well.

TServo2049 said:

Do you have a full preservation of the "ISR" SWE? It seems to have been shrugged off for years, under the assumption that it's redundant/inferior to the JSC. But now that it's clear it's not a straight port of the JSC transfer, it really needs to be compared against the JSC in full.

I own a DVD of it someone on this board sent me. Same source, same glue marks and same damage on reel 3. IIRC, it's a different telecine, but other than that I don't know.

hairy_hen, that's great info. With your great ear have you taken a listen to the theatrical mixes and compared with the visuals at the point where the Stardestroyer is chasing the Falcon before it goes into lightspeed. The revison made to the shot I posted examples of in this thread is extremely subtle but I'm just curious if you or anyone else for that matter thinks the audio match the visual cues better in one or the other. Perhaps impossible to tell.

Top: 35mm telecine Middle: JSC LD Bottom: SWE LD (Technidisc)

TServo2049 said:

Another question - do the printed-in white splice marks that show up on the original P&S home video transfer show up on transfers not from the same source, like the Technidisc? (Or is it too tightly cropped at the top?)

The same white negative splice marks show up in the Technidisc where it's too open in its framing.

Top: JSC Below: SWE (Technidisc)

TServo2049 said:

Another question - do the printed-in white splice marks that show up on the original P&S home video transfer show up on transfers not from the same source, like the Technidisc? (Or is it too tightly cropped at the top?) And then there are a few printed-in BLACK splice marks - on AMPS, -1 posted a shot-by-shot breakdown spreadsheet that none did of the Spanish LPP, and he put down a note that seems to indicate that the repeated frame of Vader from the lightsaber duel has the same black line running across the top of both frames as you saw on the JSC...

The white splice marks I'm pretty sure of being visible on the Technidisc source as well in a few shots. But then again I was pretty sure of the glue marks in the Technidisc matching the bootleg telecine. Will have to get back to you on that.

Will have to check out that spreadsheet...

I checked the reissue trailer and it's the same familiar glue marks in the cantina all right, maybe a coincidence but funny the year of the trailer is 1982 like the video debut and ITV broadcast from the same mystery source.

How does the splices in negative-1 prints look like? Do we have any glue frames to look at?

Guess I was wrong, Moth3r's bootleg doesn't appear to have the same glue marks that appear in the Technidisc.

EDIT: Interesting about the trailer, will have to check that out.

TServo2049 said:

(Does Moth3r's bootleg show the same glue marks that DO appear in the Technidisc?)

I'm pretty sure it does but I'll have to double-check that.

TServo2049 said:

I thought many/most of the opticals were done on CRI so that they could skip a generation of degradation?

Ah, yes you're right about the CRI of course. Thinking about this stuff can drive you mad. :)

TServo2049 said:

Was this some kind of test assembly with every finished shot, that was signed off on and the negative subsequently conformed to match with the "cleaner" cementing that we see on the 35mm bootlegs, Technidisc, GOUT, etc.? Maybe they kept it as some kind of backup?

Yeah, this to me sounds like a very logical scenario and something that I've been thinking as well.

I can also confirm that the Fox logo and Lucasfilm and ALTA card appears to be part of the same mystery source (different splice glue before the crawl). Not that surprising really but a similar point for the revised ending credits haven't been found yet.

TServo2049 said:

I notice that this version has only appeared in non-release-print contexts - home video releases, 4:3 16mm prints like the version broadcast on ITV, and curiously enough, the 1982 reissue trailer...

Does the same splicing show up in the trailer?

Chewtobacca said:

So does that mean that the JSC comes from an extremely early source that was made before the negative was damaged?  I'm still as confused as ever about this.

You're not alone. :) We don't have a definitive answer, we can only speculate, but yes that appears to be the case.

It's also worth pointing out that the opening shot of the Tantive corridor is an optical effect shot, so the workflow went: negative --> IP --> IN (cut into the negative of the rest of the movie) and then --> IP --> IN --> release print.

I double-checked the splices but this time on Moth3r's 35mm telecine bootleg, which actually is framed more or less theatrically correct in terms of vertical info (here it shows slightly too much at the bottom of the frame).

Top: 35mm telecine Middle: JSC LD Bottom: SWE LD (Technidisc)

And as you can see even the minor glue marks like this one in the JSC-print is absent in the 35mm.

As to the damage in the opening shot of the Tantive corridor. If what I've heard is correct, even the IB-Tech prints have those artifacts and those prints didn't go through the intermediate steps of regular Eastman prints. It means that they have to be on the negative and not something that originated on either the interpositives or internegatives, IB-Tech prints was made from the color separation masters.

TServo2049 said:

I am still interested in determining whether:

1.) all the versions with the early composites have the same cement blobs as the JSC and other video transfers

2.) the presence of the blobs corresponds with the Tantive orange things NOT being there.

As I said, the few bootleg transfers that come from sources with the early composites are vertically cropped so the glue isn't shown. I'm still wondering if the "glue" source was actually a very early element, predating the orange marks being introduced (on an earlier generation?)

1.) I just checked and the 35mm bootlegs doesn't have those ugly splices. They are vertically cropped, yes, but in those instances where the glue cover a much larger part of the frame in the JSC, there's no glue to be seen in the bootlegs. So it's safe to say that no 35mm prints did have such ugly splicing. The 35mm prints I've seen matches the splices visible in the Technidisc SWE, not that surprising.

2.) It seems like they do as the ITV Broadcast print doesn't have the infamous damage either.

The IP/IN that was used for the THX LD's (GOUT) is a copy of the original negative and IP's and IN's are used in the process to make theatrical prints, so obviously it doesn't include more frames than what is normal. Hopefully it includes the fully edited film. What happens when theatrical prints are starting to lose frames at the reel changes over a theatrical run is another thing. 

That said on the first film the NTSC Bonus Feature is missing about one single frame, so at this time I think it's quite unnecessary moving the goalposts. Such an edit can also easily be done by yourself if the missing frames are restored to whatever project.

hairy_hen said:

I'm actually fairly certain the GOUT does have more frames than might normally have been seen. The reason I say this is that if you listen extremely closely, you can actually hear small jump-cuts in the soundtracks where the audio has been looped, in order to extend it in length. Such a thing would only have been done if the video ended up being slightly longer than the audio, for the sake of maintaining synch.

Without fail, edits of this type occur each time there is a reel change. Since it happens about every ten to eleven minutes, these would correspond to the shorter reel lengths of a negative or interpositive, rather than the double length of a theatrical print. These are the same spots where different video transfers go out of synch with each other.

Most of this had to have been done for the Definitive Collection laserdiscs themselves back in 1993, but the GOUT also has a few additional edits of this nature that the laserdisc tracks do not, though for what reason I'm not sure. Since there can be so much discrepancy in frame counts between versions, even ones derived from the same master, picking one convenient reference and sticking to it—namely, the NTSC version of the GOUT—is the best way to ensure that audio synch issues are eliminated. I don't especially like the idea of dropping any frames either, but in practice the differences are small enough not to be noticed when watching, and it is still more complete than a typical 35mm print (ie, the -1 version) would have been.

The audio is about the last step in the chain, IP's or IN's do not come with a soundtrack. That the audio tracks have small jump-cuts and have the audio looped at certain points to match the video master could be for many various reasons, a few audible edits might even be present on the master tapes and on the print master.

Danfun128 said:

So, out of curiosity, what release has the most intact frames? The Def Collection? Faces? Gout?

I believe it's Faces. Technidisc SWE comes close but IIRC it's missing a field at a side break.

AntcuFaalb said:

I'm sorry for sitting on the Derann scan. I'll get around to uploading it as soon as I get some free time.

Looking forward to it! No need to be sorry, I'm sure we're all waiting patiently on it. Life gets busy sometimes.

The shot where Luke sees Ben on the Death Star when they're about to escape was altered in that it added a previously unseen frame and deleted another in the process. So same lenght, just begins and ends on different frames.

Frame is not present in the original film:

2006 Bonus Feature #129257, not present in the DVD version:

A 2004 alteration btw.

TServo2049 said:

OK, so does this mean the Technidisc/GOUT IP retained its color into the 90s? How does that explain the somewhat desaturated and neutral look of the GOUT?

My original assumption was that either the source element wasn't fully timed, or that it was done in telecine to compensate for fade. The 1983 Spanish-dubbed LPP print and the 1989 French widescreen laserdisc seem to come from a source that had the same variations as the GOUT, and both have certain scenes with pinkish or bluish casts (the French LD is worse, I had assumed it had been due to another 6 years of fading on the source element).

The 70mm cells show the gold cast on Tatooine, the green-blue tinge to the Death Star interiors, and so forth - quite close to the IB Technicolor (including another IB print which made its way into the hands of a British film-cutter, who has been selling it piece by piece on eBay UK). And as I said, the blowup that was chopped up to make the cells was printed on 1995 stock.

So was the GOUT neutralized in telecine even though it came from a fully timed IP? The Technidisc does seem to have more of the original color timing in evidence, but even that isn't perfect. I don't know what to believe anymore...

I choose to reply to your question in the Legacy thread here instead... For all we know the Technidisc/THX LD (GOUT) - source could've been a beat up internegative instead of an interpositive (despite the mention of an IP in that article). I have a hunch that could be the case. It would also explain the rough state of it.

The IP talked about that they found could have been for the subtitleless Greedo sequence.

TServo2049 said:

I was bringing this up in the Legacy thread, but it got kind of off-topic so I'm moving it here.

Has anybody seen a Derann or Cineavision Super 8 print, and can recall if either had the glue at every cut like the JSC, and/or if they are missing the orange marks in the Tantive corridor? I am still interested in determining whether:

1.) all the versions with the early composites have the same cement blobs as the JSC and other video transfers

2.) the presence of the blobs corresponds with the Tantive orange things NOT being there.

As I said, the few bootleg transfers that come from sources with the early composites are vertically cropped so the glue isn't shown. I'm still wondering if the "glue" source was actually a very early element, predating the orange marks being introduced (on an earlier generation?)

I believe the Derann prints are cropped at the bottom of the frame, so the splicing will probably only be visible on a few select frames where the marks cover a big chunk of the frame. I have personally only seen a few short segments from one. They probably match the JSC in terms of compositing though.

AntcuFaalb said:

The JSC is so much sharper than the Technidisc SWE, as expected. It's crazy.

My SWE capture is quite a poor one though, but yes, the difference is night and day.

Anyway, if an official restoration is under way or planned and they are going back to the negative, new digital recompositing are to be expected, so what you're doing Mike is very important for the film no matter what.

TServo2049 said:

The irony of all this is that complete versions of the original 1977 film presumably still exist in Lucasfilm's possession. Maybe not ones in good enough quality to intercut with the original negative, but this claim that NO elements exist is BS.

It may be dirty and damaged from years of use, but the early interpositive that was used for the Japanese Special Collection laserdisc and other 80s home video transfers (the one with the big film cement blobs at almost every shot change) must still exist. From what I can tell, it still existed, with virtually intact color, in 1995. I am positing this because the collectible 70mm film cells seem to have come from that source. I finally found one on eBay that is the last frame of a shot, and the seller put in an enlarged scan of it. There is clearly a cement blob there - can someone check it against the JSC?

Splice glue match Technidisc/THX LD's source.

JSC:

Technidisc SWE:

Even the 1997 Special Edition "restoration" used an interpositive in order to restore certain scenes back then.

doubleofive said:

Comment on the Blu-ray fixes pointed out there's an extra lightsaber glow above Luke in the GOUT. This is a 1997 change.

Similar lightsaber FX-artifacting can be seen in TESB at the end of reel 5. (In the shot where Vader is forced off the ledge in the carbon freeze chamber.)

One close-up shot of Vader in the first film during the duel contains a repeated frame when we cut to him in the original film. When they went back to the negative to replace the original lightsaber effects for the dreaded 2004 DVD version they also took the opportunity to restore the missing footage. As this is one single frame we're talking about, I guess there is a possibility that the frame could have been "restored" by digital manipulation if the footage was gone for some reason.

2006 Bonus Feature (#127754 & 127755)

The corresponding frames in the DVD version... Top: Not in the original film Below: Used twice

Not necessarily related but a black line at the top of both frames can be seen in the JSC LD transfer which is much more open in its framing compared to the bonus feature.

I noticed that your comparison lack the tweaked ignition of Ben's lighsaber (they tried to make it a bit more smooth by making him ignite it a few frames prior to the original films jump cut).

mverta said:

YAY, who doesn't love videos?

End Credits Restoration

Thanks for posting. So it wasn't a color channel misalignment after all, interesting. Is that how they treated the A long time ago - card as well?

You say the blue shadow is consistent across every frame in the entire sequence, does that include the credits before the dissolve with the star background? I'm only asking because of the separate elements and the early revision done during '77.

althor1138 said:

The R7G chops everything off above 255.  Side 1&2 of SW-JSC have some sort of weird mastering problem on my pressing where the black level starts at 16 even though it has the full range of a Japanese disc.  This means that there is white information all the way up to 260-265.  On the HF9G I could just extend the luma white point in virtualdub and recover everything.  On the R7G I have to turn on d-ext and bring most of it back down under 255 so it doesn't get chopped off by the player.  I guess there might be a tiny bit that gets clipped off but it is only in a couple of scenes on the tantive and maybe 1 or 2 elsewhere I think.  I've been able to write a script that masks that information and copies it from the HF9G to the R7G but honestly I can't see a difference at all other than I have set the white levels higher on the R7G capture. I've only ever seen this on swjsc side 1 & 2 so I don't think this will ever be an issue on any other disc.

Thanks for explaining. I think I just were tricked by the different levels of your captures. I've done a more serious comparison of the two averaged versions with tweaked levels and I'm surprised by the difference in fine detail. Dot crawl is also minimized. Your HF9G capture actually looks fuzzy now in comparison to your new R7G capture, and I thought that one was one of the best LD-captures I've ever seen. Awesome work Althor!

althor1138 said:

Well now if we can only confirm that the one for sale on tradera is a technidisc maybe I can get ahold of it.  He wants a high price for it but I guess I'd bite the bullet since it's local and unopened.

As it's unopened I don't recall exactly what to look for on the sleeve (Darth Mallwalker is the expert) but it looks to me like it's either a Pioneer USA or a Technidisc one. I'm only basing this on the "made in U.S.A". on the back. Apparently there was fox video sleeves without CBS on some Pioneer pressings as well IIRC. Maybe D_M or Antcufaalb can provide more info.

The R7G looks like a winner. Checked out the first part of SWJSC-5xRAW, unfortunately it seem to me it's captured with the white level set a little high, haven't studied it too well yet but in certain parts the whites looked clipped to me?

Sad to hear the player is malfunctioning. I think you're doing the right choice of trying to fix it yourself. There used to be a few good service places in Stockholm and Göteborg I think but I'm not sure they exists any longer.

danny_boy said:

CatBus said:

Seems incredibly unlikely, and IMO easily explained by fast-fading film stock.

Certainly Technicolor showings were not retimed--they just took the existing Technicolor reels and spliced in the new crawl/flyover using the cheaper filmstock.

 Yes the  fast fading film stock hypothesis would explain the difference.

But what about Artoo in the canyon?

I was under the impression(please correct me if I am wrong) that the 1977 prints had a dusk look for that scene.

In the 82' VHS it looks like daytime.

In subsequent releases on home video (at least from the mid 90's onwards)  it looks like dusk again.

Would colour fading(from 1977 to 1981) explain the dusk to dawn look.

Or

In 1981--- to meet the demand for prints in some areas they created new interpositives/internegatives to produce release prints  that used the original negative's  colour palette without(or very little)  any alteration- as opposed to 1977 where the original negatives were colour stamped differently  to produce more vibrant release prints. 

The release(not the teaser) trailer from 1977(also on the 2004 bonus DVD) is quite  vibrant.

It may explain why that Artoo shot in particular looks like a daytime scene in the 1982 VHS(and I assume the 1981 35mm release print)

It's a typical case of a scene shot day for night that was misrepresented on video, seen all the time during the early years of home video. The transitional shot from sandcrawler - stormtroopers - sandcrawler was another example messed up sometimes.

If for some reason those shots were timed differently (brighter) at some point, I guess it would have been the "'77 opening day prints" which contained a few subtle differences compared to the later revised ones.