logo Sign In

mverta

User Group
Members
Join date
15-Apr-2004
Last activity
26-Sep-2020
Posts
521

Post History

Post
#540452
Topic
StarWarsLegacy.com - The Official Thread
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/540452/action/topic#540452
Time

grisan said: A restoration only makes sense... if it will be available to them and the future generations. Would you restore a painting to its former glory if it will just be hidden in a storage closet and never be shown in a museum?

 

 

The answer is: Yes, of course I would, because you never say never. You don't know what the future holds.  Perhaps Lucas will change his mind.  Perhaps after he's gone the estate will free it up.  Who knows?  But if the film isn't restored, then you've got nothing.  The assets needed to restore the film are deteriorating every day; they won't last forever.  If you have a chance to restore the film now, you take it, no matter what, because the chance won't come again.

 

That's the logistical, practical reason to do a restoration now, regardless of whether it gets distributed or not. But even that's not the best of reasons...  the best reason is for principle's sake.  You don't value that, which is why you don't have what you want.  The idea of this being about bragging rights is so infantile I almost don't want to address it, but if that's what matters to you, you can be assured your attitude is why you don't have them, either.

 

 

_Mike

Post
#540441
Topic
StarWarsLegacy.com - The Official Thread
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/540441/action/topic#540441
Time

Legacy isn't about you or me; it's not about what we have or don't have.  It's about honoring Star Wars and preserving history.  It's done for Star Wars' sake; for history's sake.  That should be a unifying cause.  But when it really comes down to it, a lot of so-called fans don't actually care about protecting Star Wars in any meaningful way.  They just want the film for themselves, and if they can't have it, they throw a tantrum.  They don't rejoice in the fact that such a beautiful piece of work is safe.  All they really want to know is what they get or don't get out of the deal. And the irony is, that is the exact attitude which keeps them from having what they want, ultimately.

 

If someone came to you with the materials to do a Star Wars restoration beyond anyone's wildest dreams, on the condition that you may never share it publicly, what would you do? And if they came to you precisely because of your commitment to keeping it private; to the film itself; to history itself; because of your trustworthiness... what would you do?  Turn down the opportunity, or worse, betray that trust and guarantee no future prospects?  Doubtful.  You'd probably do what I did, which is enjoy the rewards of honor and principle, and let the future - the completely unknown future, by the way - play out as it will.  

 

I document the process for education, entertainment, and celebration of Star Wars.  And while this concept seems foreign to some people, it can be gratifying to watch good work happen even if you have nothing directly to gain from it.  If you head over to scifi-meshes.com you will see talented 3D artists building amazingly accurate models of Star Wars ships (among other things) which nobody in the end will have any access to.  Nobody "gets" anything out of the deal, beyond enjoying the show, celebrating the craft, and learning a lot along the way.  For those for whom this concept is foreign and valueless: tough shit.  There are plenty of good restorations out there, anyway, so stop whining.

 

It's not my first rodeo.  When I was hired by Lucasfilm to do a new CG R2-D2, I went absolutely nuts with accuracy and detail - measuring, photographing, and documenting original units in the Lucasfilm Archives, and recreating every nuance possible in my CG model.  It took, ultimately, 4 years to do.  In the end, while it makes its appearance wherever it needs to, nobody "gets anything" for that, either. But I'm proud of the work, grateful to have been given the opportunity, and honored to have made any contribution to the world of Star Wars.  That has always been enough for me.

 

_Mike

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Post
#246218
Topic
.: The XØ Project - Laserdisc on Steroids :. (SEE FIRST POST FOR UPDATES) (* unfinished project *)
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/246218/action/topic#246218
Time
zombie, that sort of thinking will lead you smack dab into the legal concept of "intent". Believe me, if tons of the X0's sell, making a case for their sale and distribution - thus intent to defraud - will be just about the easiest case in the history of the universe for Lucasfilm to make, replete with paper trail, website, and long established history. Even posts on this forum about the issue prevent anyone from claiming ignorance after the fact.

Speaking of facts, here you go: Lucasfilm moves - without exception - against anyone or any organization who crosses into their ever-changing definition of how much illegal money you can make on their stuff. I've seen it happen from both sides, with props, costumes, toys... tons of stuff. They watch, and they know; that should be no surprise. If you make a big enough spectacle of yourself, they will shut you down and it will hurt. You never know where the line is; some days they feel like being more strict, other days they let it slide. I knew a guy who was casting stormtrooper armor from screen used armor, and doing just fine for himself when he was selling a couple dozen or so a year. Then he bumped it up to something like 200, and the shit hit the fan.

The X0 project is near and dear to my heart, philosophy-wise, but I wouldn't want to be them when the music stops. If you believe any differently, you're playing poster boy for selective ignorance. I mean, come ON.

_Mike
Post
#245190
Topic
StarWarsLegacy.com - The Official Thread
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/245190/action/topic#245190
Time
In some ways, I'd say it does resemble an atrocious DI, "brute-force" CC, but in reality, it's actually pretty localized. There's no question that someone just cranked the saturation up on a ton of stuff - things like R2-D2's blues, most likely trying to get his completely different ANH-paint formula to match the brighter tones of later films. But also, there are shitloads of super-saturated reds in the film. Lots of lobster people, and lipstick wearing men. And then there are all the glows that were eaten off by Lowry's algorithm. That's a well-known drawback to his methods, by the way, versus doing it frame-by-frame by hand. His algorithms tend to eat the glints out of people's eyes and glow and haze and a bunch of stuff.

In any case, the way I've been getting back to the colors is through a LOT of rotoing, or clever use of remapping colorspace to get finer control. It changes from scene to scene. For example, I might take a scene and remap the colorspace from RGB to HLS so I can bump the saturation without adding artifacts, or compensate for created artifacts. That is, I can extract just the saturation information (or saturation for a specific range of color), and perhaps blur it a touch before (sometimes after) a levels adjustment. Or another thing I've done, when I've had to roll a color temperature around, which undoubtedly creates new artifacts, is isolate those artifacts either by color or finding them in an isolated channel in a different colorspace, and re-applying the source compression to just that channel, recovering a "non-distorted" version of the new color.

Lots of tricks like that, plus some custom software tools keep me artifact-free, while having near-DI control. And like I said, a LOT of roto work. As for the shadow detail, sometimes it's actually in there, and if you pull it out, you have to deal with all the resultant noise you generate, but you totally can. In other cases, I will use bits and pieces from other transfers, to enhance another plate. For example, I might isolate a range of colors from a 2004 scene, and apply them in a sort of transfer to an earlier transfer. But again, you have to do a lot of colorspace remapping to isolate aspects of the image, and then reapply. But you have almost limitless control.

_Mike
Post
#245164
Topic
First Impressions of the OOT ...
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/245164/action/topic#245164
Time
Basically. But if you'll notice, the term "we" is changing to represent a smaller and smaller group of people. There's lots of people convincing themselves - or no longer needing a lot of convincing - that the quality of this last release isn't subpar, or if it is, they're happy with it. Lucasfilm is playing the long game; a waiting game; and it's working. After all this time, and all the petitions, and a billion posts and letters, and calls, and articles, and reviews and interviews, they put out a release that's worse than most B-Movies, and blatantly lie about why. ...just wearing us down.

And again, when I say, "us" I mean, me, you, and the core group of people who truly have a passion for historical preservation, who came to this site long before it morphed into freakin' TFN junior.

_Mike
Post
#245044
Topic
First Impressions of the OOT ...
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/245044/action/topic#245044
Time
Originally posted by: Scruffy
But could you be tempted to use a patching utility to put out binary blobs we could use to "fix" the defective official DVDs? Or would that be tantamount to releasing the whole thing?


...sounds like a semantics thing, there, Scruffy, since I've had to make numerous adjustments to every single frame of Star Wars, so any "fixes" would actually be the entire film, anyway.

_Mike

Post
#244689
Topic
The Other side of the 30th Anniversary
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/244689/action/topic#244689
Time
PM, dog. PM...

But to answer your question (sortof): you never have to, or should, apologize for what you like. And you don't have to explain yourself either. If you like a movie, that's truly a win-win. But outside of all of our individual likes and dislikes, there really are quantifiable ways to measure ability.

I just recently saw some YouTube clips of the guy who won Season 4 of Last Comic Standing, Josh Blue. He's got cerebal palsy. He's funny; you like watching him, and you want to root for him. But you can easily pick apart his "ability" and say he doesn't have particularly good timing, which is probably true, and that his jokes really aren't as strong as most pro comedians, and that's probably true, too. But so what? You laugh your ass off and you like him. So the sum is greater than the parts. But if all comics were Josh Blue, comedy would be taking a hit. Movies are the same way... there's nothing wrong with having virtually no story and all CG, and if you like it, that's awesome - especially 'cause you just dumped $10 on a ticket. But when most movies offer that stuff up instead of truly compelling stories and the execution of other craft, "moviemaking" takes a similar hit. Which is why you've got the studios talking about 3D, now. All of this, by the way, is part of a long-established Hollywood cycle. Back in the.. 40's I think... people stopped going to movies as much, and the studios had the same idea - gimmicks. That's where we got Cinemascope widescreen and surround sound from! Same situation today - they're trying to stop the bleeding with gimmicks instead of fixing the root of the problem. But it's okay, Hollywood is just in need of another enema and rebirth. We've been here before.

_Mike
Post
#244685
Topic
First Impressions of the OOT ...
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/244685/action/topic#244685
Time
Originally posted by: Mike O: Do you think that we'll ever see a proper release?


We certainly could, that's for sure. Personally, I believe that would only happen post-George's death. I began work on the Legacy Edition only after people who would know, suggested as much. Basically, there are people I trust - you would, too - who told me "forget it" and told me why. And I was thoroughly convinced. And don't think I'm not tempted every day to put Legacy out, which with a couple of good torrent seeds, would put right a shitload of wrongs. You would also see a legal smackdown ensue of galactic proportions. But regardless, I just can't bring myself to do it. Just not how I roll.

_Mike
Post
#244678
Topic
First Impressions of the OOT ...
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/244678/action/topic#244678
Time
Originally posted by: Mike O
Is it just me, or is mverta really intimidating?


It's just you There are a few of us - with access, confidences, materials, and lifelong love for the preservation of Star Wars - who can't come right out and say how we know what we know about all sorts of things related to these movies and the various releases, for all sorts of painfully obvious reasons. Especially if, like me, you actually work on Lucasfilm Star Wars projects. Major pissing-in-the-pool action there. But occasionally, a few of us try and drop some subtle truths into the sea of speculation that exists in places like this. The result, increasingly, is that we get slammed, and the truth gets buried. Which is so depressing I almost can't deal. It's irony writ large, watching the community cannibalize itself. But that's life. In this particular discussion, I've taken my dog out of the race, but I tried. If you're serious about the truth, and the preservation/restoration of Star Wars, I've shown you something very important. Hope springs eternal, though... I'll probably try again sometime.

_Mike
Post
#243757
Topic
First Impressions of the OOT ...
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/243757/action/topic#243757
Time
Case closed! I'm such a fool.

However, for the record, the images were NOT recomposited in the computer, eliminating the grain from optical effects. Lowry's method uses an algorithm to remove grain from the entire image as a flat element. The lack of grain in the optical effects is just from de-graining processing. Oh! How it would be cool to recomposite, digitally, all the elements as you suggest! We could finally kill all those garbage mattes and roto lines, which are still wall-to-wall in the 2004 and 2006 DVD's!

Anyway, I surrender.

_Mike
Post
#243754
Topic
First Impressions of the OOT ...
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/243754/action/topic#243754
Time
Well Arnie, we're not really debating whether film stock has grain - it all does, and certainly you can tell generational differences between stocks from the 70's 80's and 90's. This was really a focused discussion centering around a tremendous amount of grain visible in the OUT DVD's. Some people feel it's natural, while I believe that at least some of it has been increased, deliberately, for any of a million reasons. In the end, it's a difficult case to prove to non-pros, I think. My discussions with fellow post guys has been a lot of, "yep, looks like it to me." But every one of us does grain matching for a living. On the other side, there really are a bunch of totally "non-conspiracy" reasons why it could be grainier, even without enhancement. Which led me to a secondary point, which was, "how bad does it suck that my pre-93 LD transfer looks better than yesterdays DVD?" Somewhat fortunately, nobody wants to jump in on that sinking ship of subjectivity, and for that I'm grateful. But in the end, the opening crawl has been re-created and presented as authentic. My feeling is that if they'll lie about that, why not lie about something else? Especially in light of what I certainly regard as decent evidence.

_Mike
Post
#243750
Topic
First Impressions of the OOT ...
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/243750/action/topic#243750
Time
Vigo -

I don't have more solid proof than the images themselves. I agree not all shots are equally grainy. I also have nothing more than my professional expertise to draw conclusions from, and my eye has spotted things in the transfer I recognize as digital post work. This is what I do. It's what Lucasfilm hires me to do for them, from time to time. You can no more make a blanket statement saying such alterations weren't made, then anyone can say they were. I didn't say they were, difinitively, I said I thought so, and still do. I have my experience to draw on; nothing more, and of course, you can completely invalidate my expertise to make your point if you want. Speculations and theories are how things start; then you go off in search of proof to refute or support the theory. This is what I've done. In this case, that proof must largely come from informed supposition and analysis, by expert eyes. I've done that, too... In any case, I hope you never get the proof you're looking for, which I think you're saying would have to come from Lucas himself. Or somebody from Lucasfilm coming right out and saying, "yes, we want to have permanently satisfied the demand for an OT while not infringing upon the sales of the remastered versions, so we made sure they looked like shit." The chances of which, I daresay, are slim.

In any case, just chalk me up as a nutjob who has a whole lot of nothing to say, and bask in the self satisfaction of your rapier perception. Then at least I will have the satisfaction of having entertained you, if I can't inform you. Six of one, really...

_Mike

Post
#243739
Topic
First Impressions of the OOT ...
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/243739/action/topic#243739
Time
Originally posted by: vbangle
Mike- On a single frame, is the film grain supposed to be completely uniform across the entire frame? Again I know little about all of this,
but the frame you posted showing the excess film grain looks suspect to me because its so uniform...almost like a brush or effect one would use in Photoshop...

Your thoughts?


Uniform? I suppose you're referring here to the presence of it on the frame, not its actual "look". If that's the case, then yes, it's basically uniform.

Film grain is actually the mass of silver halide crystals suspended in the gelatin layer of the film stock's emulsion, which are light-sensitive and ultimately lead to the capture of the latent image. The size and distribution of these "grains" of silver halide crystals differs with stock, and is largely part of what determines how "grainy" the stock is. But the distribution across the entire emulsion is basically uniform. So while the size and pattern of the grain may change, it's always there across the entire frame.

_Mike
Post
#243735
Topic
First Impressions of the OOT ...
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/243735/action/topic#243735
Time
Vigo -

I appreciate your interest in lumping all "conspiracy theorists" together so you can ridicule them more easily, but the truth is some of us may in fact have some expertise to bring to bear on these issues. If you'd asked that theoretical question about having all scenes grained or not, I would've answered, "I don't know," because I don't. I can only speculate - albeit intelligently - about the reasons why LFL would be interested in devaluing the product. It is a fact that they are doing so, by the way, not conjecture. But one doesn't disprove - or prove for that matter - the other. The images are degraded. That is a fact. Whether intentional or not, is another issue. Personally, I believe the DVD's are intentionally presented as inferior, because Lucasfilm told me they were, and have been proving it on their site, and I can see it . Plus, I can compare to earlier transfers which are largely superior. Plus, I've seen high res clean source material, and been told it doesn't exist. My initial post stated I believe grain has been added - that I would bet money on it. I didn't say I was 1000% sure; I couldn't be. But my position stands, and I'd still bet money on it. I've tried to illustrate a bit, and explain a bit more; sadly having to trump my credentials out along the way somewhat, but I suppose that's to be expected...

In any case, the degradation of the imagery isn't an opinion, it's a quantifiable fact. How much of a grand conspiracy that represents depends on how much that sort of thing appeals to you, I guess. But I'm from the school of thought that says if the government killed Kennedy to turn on the war machine, it's not so much a conspiracy as a business plan. Different strokes, I guess. Anyway, the 2006 DVD's suck, and could've been a billion times better with almost zero effort, so perhaps you should turn your ire where it belongs. Hint: it isn't on me. And if you enjoy your substandard release, then that's awesome; you got what you deserved.

_Mike
Post
#243683
Topic
First Impressions of the OOT ...
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/243683/action/topic#243683
Time
zombie, you'd have a stronger case if the overall image was significantly softer. That is, if the grain wasn't being revealed because of loss-of-detail, then the image itself should suffer more loss-of-detail. But there is only a slight softening of the image overall in the pre-93 disc; not enough to hide all that grain, especially in the shadow areas. Remember, grain doesn't simply appear as pixel-size (or-subpixel) "dots" but often at large enough sizes to introduce actual tone and luminance variations on the image. If you take a grain pass in post, and "blur" it to any degree, you don't see the tiny flickering, but you can easily spot the residual luminance and tonal impact on the imagery. That is, it leaves a distinctive trace of itself on the image, outside of the "shimmering" pixels. Even if the pre-93 LD had suffered pixel-size loss-of-detail obfiscating the grain, these shifts would still be present in the imagery, and here there is no evidence of it. You would find it most likely in the gradient areas around the smoke, which are rendered in the pre-93 image with extremely natural gradients, absent typical filmgrain impact, above and beyond what is naturally present in the stock. In fact, in this regard, the "grain" on the 2006 DVD would more likely be regarded as dirt, since if it were grain, these impacts would be impossible to smooth out without utterly blurring the image.

But again, this particular shot I think may have been sourced from a different print. There are hundreds of other shots with equal grain discrepancy, however, none of which exhibit a strong enough loss-of-detail quotient to explain the lack of grain. And again, no matter how you cut it, my pre-93 laserdisc imagery is cleaner than the 2006 DVD, albeit a touch softer in many, but not all scenes. Watching them A/B on every calibrated monitor and consumer TV here leaves an unquestionable impression that the pre-93 laserdisc is the superior, "cleaned up" one... It doesn't even "feel" softer, while watching it, and probably for good reason - even in this frame-by-frame scrutinization, the sharpness difference is quite subtle. Is that progress? 1% sharper, 20% dirtier? You guys are an easy crowd, I guess.

_Mike