msycamore

^ Just a colortiming difference, here's the same shot from the Technidisc LD:

zombie84 said:

Fine, you big credit baby!

Also, this is something I am struggling with a bit. On pages like this, I think it's an instance where it could really be possible to reach people and make them realize how much the films have changed--that it's not "the same basic film." I hate when people say that, and I think it's one of the big obstacles to getting people to be less apathetic to seeing the original versions treated right. 

Agree, one of the reasons I've spent so much time in 005's thread. Most "regular people" doesn't seem to get how different these edits are compared to the originals, so this is great Zombie. :)

skyjedi2005 said:

Thanks for making this available.

Even if its quite true this is the worst of the pressings on LD for the pre THX widescreen version

You're welcome.

I would say it's only a choice between the JSC and this one, if you're not including the shrinking ratio one in various pressings. Have not seen the actual JSC LD to make a fair comparison.

skyjedi2005 said:

at least its a nice rarity and it looks like its from a different film source than the other ones. 

Most likely the same source the THX transfers are from.

skyjedi2005 said:

Analog Video Noise is something that always is anoying on laserdiscs.

An X0 player would help in this regard were the LD not plagued with problems.

I agree, most of what you're seeing on this transfer is unfortunately in the source. :( I got rid of most of the analog video noise by doing a 5-cap median in avisynth, as I understand it that is basically what the XO player does internally by averaging the result from 5 separate decoders. No other Laserdisc I have captured show this amount of chroma noise and rainbowing like this one do. Not that I doubt a better player and capturing method would get me better results.

Mavimao, if your 4:3 TV have a 16:9 option, some do, you can set your videosettings on your DVD player to 16:9 to get a slightly better image.

Here's a test sample I did before I finished this DVD with anti-aliasing applied: http://www.megaupload.com/?d=GKO0OGP0

I just wanted to show you the trouble I was faced with regarding the aliasing and why I ultimately decided to go unfiltered.

Finished DVD on top, filtered at bottom:

^notice the almost eliminated starfield compared to the unfiltered.

^the ugly jaggies are gone but so are some of the fine detail with a softer image.

Hopefully there's a way to overcome these problems if I ever do a second one. The aliasing was a problem on every widescreen Laserdisc of SW until the Special Editions were released and as we know it only gets more apparent when resizing these old letterbox transfers to 16:9.

Thanks timdiggerm and thanks to Peter for uploading those! very nice seeing how good shape that print is in. :)

Neither did I.

zombie84 said:

Burtt jamming up the workprint has nothing to do with the film. The workprint is the workprint, not the negative, it's just a copy they make for the editor to work on. It gets jammed up, thrown on the floor, gets drawn on with marker, etc.

Of course! I'm glad you're around to setting us straight. :) This tear should be on the negative not on some workprint.

none said:

Did the same thing happen in 1995?  The widescreen Faces cap, there's some sign of the errors but in the Full Screen i'm not sure.

Hard to see in just those caps if they are there on the '95 fullscreen, even though the '82 CED and LD have a different transfer from the tapes from that same year, they could still be from the same IP/film elements, as can be seen they are cropped diferently but they also have different choices in the pan & scan. The transfers on the '82 tapes look very similar to what was used for the '85 and '92 LD's but without the letters in frame, but that is some huge guesswork on my part just going by those pics. So the ones lacking the tears is so far:

• '82 VHS, Betamax
• '82 CED, LD
• '85 LD
• '86 JSC LD, '89/'92 SWE LD - the only Widescreen transfers without them
• '92 LD

If all these are from the same IP/film elements I don't know, but it seems the Widescreen transfers and '82 CED/LD are from the same source.

The Aluminum Falcon said:

msycamore said:

Never knew about the characters in the upper frame, is it letters or some sort of time code or is it static throughout the film?

It's completely static through the whole film.

Weird, like you said they were hidden by the old TV's overscan, that's why I never saw it on my old copy.

Ah the rental tape, so that what it was, thanks. It's a little weird that they actually made two different NTSC - Pan & Scan transfers for the different formats the same year. If I understand it correctly they used one for the VHS and Betamax release and another for the CED and Laserdisc. Never knew about the characters in the upper frame, is it letters or some sort of time code or is it static throughout the film?

The Aluminum Falcon said:

In any case, for some reason, to my eyes, the Rental VHS looks cleaner than the laserdisc (which looks to be overcropped and oversaturated). Look at the detail on R2 in the second shot, the VHS seems to be clearer. Interesting...

That's because it is a blended frame.

none said:

msycamore wrote: What Burtt says in that book is probably what we're seeing in this scene but have anyone checked the actual scene he describes "right when the stormtroopers come bursting through the door" for some jumpy spot?

Yeah looked at two versions and not noticing anything out of the ordinary.  Same slight jittering, which is all over the home video releases.  But after the Stormtroopers come in is another slight rip or mark. (thru the helmet)

Burtt may explain the scene, in this manner, as that's how most people would remember it.  If you said Tantive to most people it wouldn't register, but the first sight of the Stormtroopers is something most people would recall.  But yes he could just have said first appearance of 3po and R2.  Not sure, but from the story, there was a whole bunch of film lying on the floor.

A second thought, how did they achieve the initial shaky camera effect.  As it doesn't change (at all?) between releases going with the idea that it was done on set, just hit the camera guy.  But is there a chance the effect was done in post? 

Thanks for checking, you never know with old Benjamin. I wonder why they register as orange, I noticed that you have more of them when I worked on the Technidisc, for example see 2nd close up of Luke in the sunset. I would be very surprised if the shaky camera effect wasn't done on set, cheap and effective.

none said:

So the 82 CED, 86 LDJapan and 82UKTV are all possible candidates for Not having the orange errors?  Seems as if the other 82's Starkiller's LD and Library versions also appear orange error free.  If we concur, i'll create a new category color code for these.

If I understand it correctly, the '82 CED and  '82 LD uses the same transfer so the tear-free ones would be so far:

• '82 VHS, Betamax
• '82 CED, LD
• '86 JSC LD, '89/'92 SWE LD

Don't know about the various early PAL videos.

none said: 

Haven't seen that Widescreen Review article, will see if maybe through multiple pages the full article could be found.

on the webpage, anyone having issues with the format, is this a good presentation method?  tried to get the OrangeA/B images centered upon themselves, but then it screwed up another aspect, they wouldn't show full size, they'd get cropped by the frame.  Seeing if there's a different way of create the same effect. 

Thanks. You're the web-master. ;) I think the comparison page is great and very easy to follow, good job! :)

cboy007 said:

So, this was done with a standalone DVD recorder? Can newer models convert letterbox to anamorphic?

Yes, it was captured on a standalone DVD recorder.

cboy007 said:

Can newer models convert letterbox to anamorphic?

I am really enjoying this transfer msycamore. Thanks for making it available.

Not sure what you mean, but I resized this transfer to 16:9 in Avisynth.

I'm glad you like it and you're welcome. :)

none said:

^^ i'm curious what the subtitle is in the icon.

 "You're who?"

Thanks for all the feedback guys.

It surely would be nice to cap it on a high end player, maybe use mine and Mallwalker's copy for even better results. But I'm not sure if I would go through the trouble and send my copy to someone who suddenly turns up on these boards and saying that he owns a XO-player and then disappear. ;)

LexX said:

This does look funky. :) Colors look nice. So what's the verdict? Is this closer how SW should look like colorwise? It's interesting that this seems to be only(?) release with colors like this.

If you mean compared to GOUT, sometimes it is closer, sometimes it is not. There is a green/yellow tint on it, and I would say that the original film was more saturated in certain parts, contrast and colors are also less consistent compared to GOUT, it also have the Jawa canyon in bright day-light but with a little color correction you could make something nice with this LD. 

Why not check it out, there aren't that many DVNR-free transfers of Star Wars out there. Just lower your expectations, as it is only a LD-transfer. But for now, that is the resolution we're stuck in.

doubleofive said:

DVDActive has an example of new Beru dialog ("tell Uncle" is now "tell your Uncle"). Is that from the mono mix?

 No, it's "tell Uncle" in the mono mix.

None, what is this "1982 Library Starkiller Preservation"? never heard of it before, the framing/cropping is quite different from the '82 LD.

Moth3r said:

Screenshots now up here.

The first thing I noticed was the contrast (white level); the DVD recorder seems to have captured this very low and I'd recommend upping the white level if you go for a second attempt.

Yes, I also noticed that when comparing with the actual LD after I was done, I've read about certain DVD recorders having that problem, or the other way around with to high white level.

The main reason for me wanting to do a second attempt at some point is the ugly chroma noise and aliasing. If I did, I would also restore the original opening and do some color correction, tweak the colors/contrast in certain scenes. So it wouldn't be a straight preservation of this LD that way.

What Burtt says in that book is probably what we're seeing in this scene but have anyone checked the actual scene he describes "right when the stormtroopers come bursting through the door" for some jumpy spot?

Continuing the discussion from the other thread, http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Complete-Comparison-of-Special-Edition-Visual-Changes/topic/11927/page/33/ it would be nice to see the complete article from the September 1993 issue of Widescreen Review, I had it in PDF format at one time but have since lost it. It doesn't seem like you can download the back issues on their site any longer either. I just copied and pasted that one from a post made in hometheaterforum at the time the dreaded GOUT was about to be released.

^Cool.

Spended some time yesterday on the shot with the rat and SEN getting scared to eliminate the dirt, it's tedious and slow work and my old computer isn't really suitable for this, I will see if I can sucessfully accomplish this on a short sequence before deciding if it's worth it or not, if not and I leave the dirt in, it will at least be less noticable with the UK transfers better framing in these parts.

Nice cover, ROFLRICK. :)

DonnieDarko said:

I think this will be my preferred way of watching the original, I LOVE the color on the Tatooine sunset, it's exactly how I remember it as a kid.

Thank you very much :)

You're welcome. :)

I am actually a little surprised that people do seem to enjoy this crude old transfer, I may revisit this LD for a second attempt at a later time as there are things I would like to improve.

zombie84 said:

 It looks like he is implying that the sub-title burn-ins were printed into the internegative. But he says other videos used the internegatives, and those were blank with electronic subtitles. Same with if they used the archival low-con prints.

So, number one where were they getting their prints, and number two if they were all blank too, then just when did the theatrical subtitles get printed in? In the release print printing stage at the very end?

I don't really know what is normal regarding subtitle printing processes so I can't say if this is usual or makes sense. 

Hmm, have no idea either but maybe they were printed in at that late stage when doing the release prints to being able to produce versions for foreign markets etc. I always thought the foreign subs were done as early as when making the opening crawl, it would seem convenient doing foreign opening crawls and alien subs at the same stage. I don't know, never seen how the alien subs look in other languages, they were perhaps not even done by ILM or in US.

zombie84 said:

Also, it makes sense now knowing the 1993 print was different from the previous ones, and the ones made for the 1985 home video IP. I had no idea. It was a source that was brand new to home video! That's why it is so grainy compared to other ones. It wasn't the same print. It wasn't just that the transfer made the grain more apparent, these were just grainier prints that had never been used before.

But what totally contradicts this is that these are supposedly the original IPs! The earliest generation source possible. So that doesn't make sense. How could the earlier generation be grainier than later? But he even remarks at how grainy the prints are, almost like it was surprising. They had to use heavy DVNR machines as he said. So, why is the grain only a problem when they go back to the earliest generation source? It should be the least grainy of them all.

My theory is that maybe that print isn't what they thought it was.

Yeah, something doesn't seem right about it, dirty and rough if treated bad is one thing but how the hell could those transfers be so grainy if they were sourced from first generation IP's, doesn't make any sense. Going by the '93 Technidisc LD I recently captured which most likely is from the same IP as the GOUT, but didn't go through the THX mastering and DVNR process, you can see why they tried out the then quite new DVNR process as it was in pretty bad shape in some parts, extreme amount of dirt in some areas, real grain level is hard to spot though due to the soft picture of a LD cap compared to an professional encode from the master we have on the DVD. But I would say it was more rough than what was used for the "tear-free" video releases and those didn't use a pretty source either with its ugly splices and glue all over the place. I guess we will never found out about the real answer.

I find it very interesting though, all this because of none's find of the re-framing. ;)

hairy_hen said:

The blue saber fix in the training on the falcon scene has some black flicker towards the hilt in several shots.

I noticed this black flickering near the bottom of the blade during the Falcon training scene a few years ago while watching the 2004 dvd.  If you look at the same scene in the GOUT, you'll see that the original effects did not have this error; it's a screwup caused by glitchy digital re-composites.  Accordingly, I think it would be a good idea to fix it for the new version. 

That flickering (which is caused by the rotating stick sometimes gets visible) does appear in the original, it's just not as clear and ugly as it is in the re-composited scenes in the SE. It may also be blurred in the GOUT by the DVNR, but it is there in the original films if you check other earlier transfers.

hairy_hen said: 

By the way, I'm considering making a new version of the 70mm mix, so assuming that it turns out to be a worthwhile improvement, it would be cool to have it included on the next release.  ;)

!! :) :)

zombie84 said:

One possibility is that those video transfers were based off some sort of early IP. Then a second IP was made in later 1977 because the original one had worn out. This seems a little too convenient and if it were so those transfers would look awful due to wear and tear (the reason the original IP was retired), and it also would make little sense to use an old, battered IP (if they didn't simply junk it when they retired it...which I suspect they did) when there was a healthy, newer one at their disposal.

The final possibility I can see is that those transfers are based off of a 1977 archival print made before the release, as often is done, before the tear occurred.

I have a hard time swallowing this at first because it seems pretty convenient that every single 1977 source managed to record the tear. But it could be true. We know they had to make at least a second IP, and if it were to be done at any time it would have been mid to late 1977 when the film was at it's peak of popularity and print-circulation. If the bootlegs were recorded in September or so, it could have been for a late batch of prints that were struck from a second IP made from a now-battered original negative that now had the tear. Meanwhile, the 1982 video used a print master made in 1977 when the film was first finalized and thus before the tear was present.

Wouldn't an archival print have the alien subtitles in place? They seems to have been done electronically for the three video releases- US '82 LD, JSC '86 LD (japanese, not in frame) and SWE '89 (english, not in frame). It would also be interesting to know if the tears are on the '82 VHS and Betamax transfers PAL and NTSC, they may be from the same source but I remember that they had different framings compared to the LD in some scenes, probably just a different choice in the pan & scan - process.

Anyway, this info from THX Technical Supervisor Dave Schnuelle regarding the process of making the Definitive Collection Laserdiscs In the September 1993 issue of Widescreen Review...

"In this case, for all three films, we used interpositive elements that had been made directly from the camera negative. Other film transfers might be done from internegatives made from the interpositive, or from low-contrast prints, but we preferred the IP's for these transfers, because that's the earliest generation usable"

"One small difference from the original films is that in letterbox transfers we prefer to put any subtitles in the black border beneath the actual picture area. Thus we didn't use the same interpositive as the theatrical one, because that one contains subtitling already. In tracking down the elements, we found that the only ones in the vault were ones with subtitles- these clearly weren't the first generation off the camera neg because they had to have the subtitles burned in. So a massive search was undertaken and the first generation IP's were found in a special vault having only opticals in Los Angeles."

"A Mark IIIC with a 4:2:2 digital output [telecine] was used."

"[We used] a noise reduction and dirt concealment device made by Digital Vision, a company in Sweden. Their DVNR-1000 is a very powerful noise reducer for reducing film grain. Especially on the two earlier movies the film grain was very high."

...make it seem like there only existed first generation IP's without subtitles in a special vault in LA, but everything seems to indicate that this release (DC/Faces/GOUT) wasn't made from the same IP the earlier tear-free ones, which lacked theatrical subs as well. ??? Confused.

That family tree is not a bad idea, I also forgot about that credit difference at first.

For what it's worth here are those frames from the '82 LD transfer.

'82 LD

We also have the different end credits in our '77 sources which makes the chance of it appearing on re-release prints (if that is such a difference)even more tiny.

The JSC LD was released in '86 or '87 I think but the US equivalent was released in '89 but that transfer seems to be sourced from the same IP/elements that the first home video release in '82, same dirt spots, glue marks missing frames etc. those are the only transfers I know of that doesn't have the tears, you can see them in the THX/GOUT transfer if you look close, the aggressive DVNR hide it. Give me a few moments, and I'll post some screenshots from the '82 video.

Maybe it appeared on re-release prints pre-ANH splice in, we don't know if the sources we have are from the first run, even though they are the original '77 film versions.