msycamore

hairy_hen said:

I agree that the second film is pushing red far too much. This needs to be dialed back significantly to look natural.

It seems there is some confusion about the various sound mixes, so I think I should clear it up. According to this post by disclord on the LaserDisc Database forum, the version of the Alien soundtrack heard on the THX laserdisc is not actually the 70mm mix that was used for the theatrical release. It is, in fact, an early test mix made for the Sensurround format, which contained more bass and surround usage than the final version. It was never released to the public in 1979, because 20th Century Fox didn't end up going with the Sensurround format for various reasons, opting to use Dolby Stereo instead as they had done for Star Wars. This mix was never publicly heard at all until it was put on laserdisc many years later.

This means that the text on the laserdisc advertising that is uses the 70mm version is actually mistaken. Technically it is correct, because the mix was indeed made for 70mm prints, but it is not "the" 70mm version—at least not the one that anyone who went to see the film actually heard. It had likely been sitting in an archive forgotten and unused, and whoever transferred it to home video probably didn't realize that they'd actually unearthed a rough mix, rather than the final version.

Note that since it is an early test version, this explains why it has differences in music and dialog editing than other mixes of the film.

The 70mm mix that actually ended up being presented to the public in 1979, then, would have been a 4.1 track with identical content to the 35mm stereo version. Such a track can be found on the official Bluray release, as 640 kbps AC3. The surrounds are mono and the amount of bass is somewhat less than in the test version, but it is more finalized in editing and content than its predecessor.

Taking this into consideration, for the sake of authenticity I would say that any project proclaiming to be Alien in 70mm should include both the laserdisc 5.1 and the Bluray 4.1 versions, and that they should be clearly labelled for what they are.

Editing to add: Furthermore, we can also infer from this that the 4.1 track on the Bluray of Aliens really is that film's 70mm mix, as well.

Interesting to hear, I was hoping something like this info would also pop up in this thread as well: http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Dolby-Digital-41-Surround-Alien-Anthology/topic/13986/ It should also be noted that the same audio mix was used on a VHS release in Sweden in the early nineties. I have now acquired a copy once again just to make sure I wasn't going senile. His post over at LDDB sounds too elaborate to not be the truth, at the same time you have to wonder why Fox even considered another format after their success with Star Wars a few years earlier. It sounds weird...

PDB said:

There was a lengthy discussion on the the Alien soundtracks here:

http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Dolby-Digital-41-Surround-Alien-Anthology/topic/13986/

Where msycamore (is he here anymore?) was nice enough to put together the differences (he is referencing Jonno's 2.0 capture):

I'm here, PDM, but not as often as I used to lately... I was referencing my own capture. I only did a quick and dirty capture of the 2.0 pcm track which Jonno beautifully synced. The way I understand it someone later did manage to make bitperfect caps of both the PCM and AC-3 track.

I love your idea of a color graded Blu. About your color grading, your screencaps which should represent the 20th anniversary DVD timing doesn't match that timing that well, I see weird hues all over the place. What's your way of trying to replicate those colors?

adywan said:

I'm pretty sure i said the UK. So what has you buying one at Walmart got anything to do with what i was saying? Just because they were still on sale in the US does not mean that they were available everywhere else in the world. I guess the UK just progressed a little quicker than the US ;) j/k

I know that for some reason European countries did adopt the 16:9 format long before North America did so it's entirely possible it was a similar scenario with CRT TV's around that time as well. I live in Sweden and I recall looking for a new CRT TV for old school gaming back then (2004 or 2005) but they weren't sold any longer so I had to look for a used one.

Originaltrilogy.com without TV's Frink would be a very boring place. :)

moviefreakedmind said:

If he didn't want anyone to see the OOT again then he wouldn't have released them in 2006, the GOUT showed that he has no desire to erase them from history anymore like he did when he created the Special Edition. Regardless of how horrendous the quality was, he still gave people an opportunity to see the unaltered versions; as long as they don't replace the Special Editions then he won't care.

There's a reason Laserman suggested that we should call the release "GOUT" around here. Had they been released from newly scanned elements, I would have agreed with your optimistic view of George Lucas.

Like Baronlando said, it was essentially the same laserdisc we had for 13 years up to that point. No original 1977 audio, the only thing nice about it was the '77 opening crawl/flyover shot but which only managed to pour more salt in the wounds due to being taken from a better source. Lucas quote around the time of release in 2006 says it all:

"It's just the original versions, as they were. We didn't do anything to it at all. But we're not sure how many people want that... Now we'll find out whether they really wanted the original or whether they wanted the improved versions. It'll all come out in the end."

At the same time Lucasfilm was giving a PR response - the short version is in my signature.

The only thing that 2006 release showed us was that he didn't give a fuck about what customers wanted. It was a very calculated release on multiple levels. Technically they weren't even given a release, they were Bonus Features attached to a repackaging of the DVD versions of the films. Right there they basically making themselves immune to whatever critique may come up over the quality. I'm also quite certain that it was other people within the company who where fighting to include them in the first place. The very poor end result though was entirely due to him.

So, no I don't agree with your view at all. It's very possible Lucasfilms stance on this have changed now when the elephant has left the building and the company is owned by Disney. But, it still remains to be seen. (If they have the balls to do what is right or if they will wait until that stubborn billionaire is no longer with us...)

MaximRecoil, If not the horrible DVNR smear and aliasing on that master made the GOUT bad enough, it was in fact so poorly produced it even managed to have worse vertical detail than the 1993 Definitive Collection and 1995 Faces LD releases. That's quite an amazing accomplishment, don't you think? I will not bother posting any examples because I and many others have done so on so many occasions on these forums through the years, it's redundant. Harmy's brilliant examples give you the idea. Anyway, the theory was that they applied a vertical blur in an attempt to mask the aliasing to be less noticeable. As a result, you have more vertical detail in some of the letterboxed VHS tapes compared to the GOUT. In addition the GOUT disc of ESB had an ugly chroma shift half of the movie not present on the LD's. And that's only the top of the iceberg of those poor discs.

The GOUT was and is a very subpar product, no matter where you try to put it on a scale, that's the only thing that matters. It was a big fuck you to the fans. No matter if you watch that fuck you on a CRT TV or on a modern display.

Baronlando said:

It's mind boggling to think there are adults who are just not capable of looking at a forty year old movie in the context of its time, that's just embarrassing.

If there was a "post of the month," this would be it.

zombie84 said:

OKAY...

My interpretation:

2) Disney cares about the fans and Star Wars. They do. That's why they are doing the sequels right. They are making a point of hiring top talent that includes good writers (LAWRENCE KASDAN for god's sake--how old school SW can you get) and good directors who are themselves fans. They are onboard with Abrams' "practical effects" "doing it like the OT" approach. Everyone involved with the film--Hamill, Mayhew, even visitors like Kevin Smith--have gushed about how it's like making the OT all over again. Disney is smart, look at their treatment of Marvel.

Further, when Bob Igor was buying Lucasfilm he made it clear that the films were no longer George's and they needed to do with them what they felt best. Lucas obviously agreed, as he made the deal. That's why they are sort of making a point of saying "hey fans, I know the prequels and SE kind of split the fan base, we are not going to do that, we are going to win the critics back."

Disney like any other company only cares about money. That's all there is really. Yes, I'm a grumpy old cynic.  But, you cannot just push all the same buttons once again and somehow think you're gonna end up with movie magic. Oh well. At least they're trying... only about 15 years too late though...

zombie84 said:

3) George Lucas doesn't care. He has no involvement. He walked away. He sold the films. They are no longer his. There is no "never release the OOT" contract, that is an unfounded conspiracy theory. He released them in 2006, technically, and soften by 2011, saying he would like to restore them but didn't want to spend the money. He COULD HAVE--but he didn't give a shit. I'm sure by then he knew he was going to retire and sell the films the next year--as if he made that decision lickety-split--so was just like..."meh...I don't really care...money and time...this SE is my last statement on SW."

He may not care any longer, but just let us say he's still as hellbent as ever concerning this... how many studios release major catalog titles against or without the director's consent? This particular director is also a (former) Hollywood giant, former owner of the company and also happens to be Disney's second largest single shareholder, good friend of Bob Igor and Kathleen Kennedy. It's a quite unique situation I know, but all I'm trying to say is, if George still really doesn't wan't those films and his other two directorial films out there, I think it's quite safe to say that they will respect his wishes.

zombie84 said:

4) Which then brings us to....what the heck is this thing then? The lightsabers are weird. Not the 1997--I THINK? Has anyone verified this beyond a shadow of a doubt? Because what happens due to exposure variants is the the core and the glow look different from transfer to transfer, even when from the same source. Read most of this thread but maybe I missed something.

I mentioned back on page 3 that the compositing in that short video sample is without a doubt not the original compositing. I have since checked both IB-Tech and Kodak print scans and I think others have also reconfirmed. The lightsaber compositing in the Ben vs. Vader duel was left untouched in the '97SE release.

Also, you really need to update your page on the "'SW-restoration," additional info has surfaced over the years since you compiled that piece.

Darth Id said:

I'm probably the only one on this board who will be miffed if the otherwise perfect ultra-HD, exquisitely color-timed, glorious release of the OT doesn't have a restored original mono track.

All three theatrical audio mixes from '77 is part of the original Star Wars and are all wonderful iconic audio mixes, so if it ever was excluded of a potential video rerelease I highly doubt you would be alone in your disappoinment.

Darth Id said:

Not because I prefer it in Star Wars--I've never heard it in SW! But because I seriously think stereo is still just a goofy gimmick, and that sound directionality in movies is always distracting, as opposed to immersive.

Well, at this point in time mono are more gimmick than stereo. There are fantastic audio mixes in mono just as there are fantastic audio mixes in stereo and surround. But the subject at hand was never a question about different audio formats, but what the opinion was on one of the differences in the mixes of SW.

Ebaillargeon82 said:

Which version of the voice do you prefer, and why?

Definitely the one in the Dolby mix. Why? Well, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. The realistic soundfield created for the Dolby Stereo in the the Death Star assault as a whole was mostly trashed in the Mono. Gone was all those wonderful signal distortions in communication that were very reminiscent of those heard in THX 1138.

darklordoftech said:

msycamore said:

It should be noted that the before and after sample with the droids in the desert seems to be the old 2004 Lowry fiasco. It's old.

What before and after sample? I didn't see anything that shows the droids in the desert.

 Posted earlier in the thread: http://vimeo.com/86986263

NeverarGreat said:

I am sure that this is a different scan than the Blu-ray, because if you look at my comparisons the new version has a different warping pattern than the Blu-ray:

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/83700/picture:1

My conclusions:

This is a new 4K scan of the original negatives and elements, with an improved dirt and scratches detection and elimination algorithm (they boast on their website that manual cleanup is not done on the films they process). It has new colortiming, similar but not always identical to the '97 version of the film (see the running stormtroopers and the green C-3PO). There is no evidence for or against '97 SE changes, but as this is not a simple scan of the '97 interpositive, such changes seem unlikely to be included. The evidence leans in favor of an OUT release which has yet to be announced by Disney.

Sounds like a possible scenario, and very much a Disney like approach - release the classic original films but with new digital compositing.

It should be noted that the before and after sample with the droids in the desert seems to be the old 2004 Lowry fiasco. It's old.

But the short segments in the other demo reel looks fantastic in terms of color and appears to be from a different transfer, still the ugly digital lightsaber compositing introduced in 2004 is present.

m_s0 said:

msycamore said:

Yeah, maybe they should release a "do it yourself kit" so that everyone can finally watch their tailor made version of the film.

That's something best left to the fans. They're already doing it.

I was being ironic.

ComputerGeek said:

If this release does happen, I don't mind if they keep some of the enhanced visuals (Cloud City, new shots in the Battle of Yavin, etc) but remove the story-related changes (Jabba in the original movie, Greedo shooting first, Hayden Christensen in ROTJ).

just a note, if Jedi Rocks isn't removed, the entire thing would almost not be worth buying...

Yeah, maybe they should release a "do it yourself kit" so that everyone can finally watch their tailor made version of the film.

Cobra Kai said:

Don't worry. We'll get a theatrical restoration soon.  Disney has "top men" working on it now.

AntcuFaalb said:

msycamore said:

AntcuFaalb said:

No replies yet; crossing my fingers that it's not the SE.

The compositing in the lightsaber duel from those frames 005 posted is the '04 FX - work, no question about it.

The top of the three? It seems to match GOUT better than the DVD/BD.

Yep, the top one. I guess that's probably how the work in 2004 looked like before the colorists turned it into a candy colored mess. There might have been a new transfer done since then, and that's maybe what we are looking at here, but that's definitely not the original compositing. See Ben's saber for just one example.

You can also see a different appearance of their work in the 2004 DVD chapter menus.

AntcuFaalb said:

No replies yet; crossing my fingers that it's not the SE.

The compositing in the lightsaber duel from those frames 005 posted is the '04 FX - work, no question about it.

poita said:

BTW, was the Audio on the 16mm the mono mix?

My 16mm print is mono, but it is just the stereo mixed down to mono, not the theatrical mono mix.

The 16mm print used for Grande had also the theatrical Dolby Strereo mix in mono.

The real theatrical mono mix heard on Grande was actually taken from a Swedish 16mm print.

It's also the unrefined opening day print version of the film you see on Grande before the mono mix was shipped. See here: http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Print-variations-in-77-Star-Wars/topic/14705/

Thanks for those scans, SilverWook. Great stuff!

"See-through car" - that is one ugly hippie car.  :)

Tobar said:

It's excessive cropping of the image and a loss of image information.

It's the opposite. If the rounded corners of the 35mm frames are visible, the frames aren't cropped enough if original theatrical aspect ratio and presentation is the goal.

doubleofive said:

I was going to say, I don't think I've found anything at any point, I just catalog them. ;-)

Ha ha, my playful remark wasn't a jab against your work at all. It's sad if that's the way you interpreted it.

I cannot understand why you get these frame mismatches, the complete crawl and flyover shot should be 2834 frames in lenght in all three versions. If I align my video sources of 1981 and 1997 versions against the NTSC 2006 DVD - Star Wars logo appears on frame 689 and the shot ends on frame 3522.

Harmy said:

@towne32: Yeah, a few of those zoomed in shots were already done this way in v1.0 but it wasn't until after the release of v1.0, that 005 noticed many many more shots were actually zoomed in and added them to his gallery and those are the shots I just did but yeah, the video I posted also contains those I'd already done before.

Man, that's historical revisionism! ;)

towne32, see here : http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Complete-Comparison-of-Special-Edition-Visual-Changes/post/523550/#TopicPost523550

hairy_hen said:

Assuming I'm understanding what you're saying correctly, Mike, it appears that all the elements of the 1981 version were reused for the SE (aside from the starfield background), including the timing of the laser blasts and explosions relative to the beginning, and also the total number of frames in the shot. Both the 1981 and 1997 versions appear to be missing one frame compared to the original (the 'STAR WARS' title card must come in a frame late, and both the Technicolor print and the Bluray are missing an additional frame at the end of the shot, accounting for the total 2 frame discrepancy).

That's not the case though, the elements of the 1977 version were reused for the 1981 version except the starfield but the 1997 version does have different elements in it but reused the 1977 starfield. One example is different laser impacts.

Something is definitely not right here as all three versions should definitely match framewise. I'm surprised Harmy says the BD is missing a frame in this shot, the 2004 DVD didn't. Do we have a 4th version of this shot on our hands or is it just Lucasfilm seal of quality?

Mike O said:

msycamore said:

Mike O said:

And that link where Drew talks about Lucas watching the OOT and sinking in his chair the way we do when we watch the SE is particularly heartbreaking.

But c'mon, why do you even watch the SE?

I don't watch the SE. I haven't watched anything Star Wars in many years, and until such time as the OOT comes out remastered in 4K (Which will likely happen around the time Richard Dawkins converts to Christianity), I have no intention of doing so. And I have not bought a single goddam thing related to Star Wars since at least the 2005, and I have no intention of doing so again.

OK, I only got that perception from your, "... the way we do when we watch the SE...". 

It has become quite clear that this original audio extinction which began in the DVD-age is definitely here to stay. Fucking sad but then again, the stupid masses don't really know the difference or care anyway. As long as there's any audio heard on all speakers on their new audio systems everything is all right. 

An original monaural mix redone in 5.1 or 7.1 is pretty much the equivalent to coloring black & white films so why don't go all the way when they are at it? I think the studios should go all out and really reinvent every classic movie out there. Oh damn, I forgot there are boundless of sequels and remakes being worked on at the moment.

ROTJ

TV's Frink said:

Is this the right thread to ask adywan for a sandwich? ;-)

No, this is the thread of "TeamBlue."