negative1

wwdarth said:

Okay, Gotcha - not necessarily the GOUT soundrack, simply one that's been GOUT-synced.  Thanks for clearing that up.

i have a feeling there's going to be a lot of

updated projects that will incorporate this

release as a newer standard.

maybe the OT-OUT? (original trilogy-OUT)

or the NOUT? or the ???-OUT?

we are literally trying to replace the GOUT

with a better version that can be the basis

for more versions..

i want to do a couple of grindhouse versions afterwards,

with gaps between the reels, and the heads/tails.

maybe 1 with the raw footage, and another

with the red faded version (at least color corrected).

and who knows what else we could do.

later

-1

ok, don't get too excited..

but here's some test footage of the intro's

leading up to star wars.

these are from the red faded english print,

and show some severe anomalies with the

color shimmering.

4 tests (PLEASE DO NOT REPOST! Thanks)

===============================

http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/The-GOUT-crawl/post/585095/#TopicPost585095

of course, we have a much better print,

and with cleanup and some color correction,

that version looks fantastic!

later

-1

just to show you guys some of the weird

artifacts.

here's some unused tests from the english print

they are 1024x768 avi's without sound: (PLEASE DON'T

REPOST THESE, THANKS!)

===================================

fox intro

----------

http://www.sendspace.com/file/hxx7re

lucasfilm limited

---------------------

http://www.sendspace.com/file/emh05i

a long time ago

--------------------

http://www.sendspace.com/file/xneqoo

star wars logo

--------------------

http://www.sendspace.com/file/l2cgan

note the shimmering effect that comes and

goes with each one..

later

-1

here is an example of what we look for

when we review the reels..

(this doesn't have frame numbers in it yet).

for example, reel 1 of empire strikes back:

=============================

reel 1 notes

----------------

time (min:sec) notes description

================================================================

01:56-02:19    image pulses/out of focus/ color of stars is off? [opening shot]

02:20-02:35    image pulses/shakes [space probe]

02:53-03:01    image shakes, discoloration on right side of screen [han on tauntaun]

04:17-04:21    image pulses/out of focus/shakes [han on tauntaun enters cave]

16:45-16:55    image shakes [luke in bed]

17:40-18:05    image pulses/shakes [luke and leia]

18:30-18:35    image pulses/shakes/out of focus [c3p0]   

19:27-19:35    image pulses/shakes [leia and general] 

19:37-20:19    image pulses/shakes/out of focus [star destroyers]

20:29-21:22    image pulses/shakes/out of focus [on star destroyer]

total time , about:

========================

23+15+8+4+10+25+5+8+42+53

= 193 sec = 3min:13sec

TV's Frink said:

doubleofive said:

The rest of the shots are milling the I'm the background

I'm going to guess you typed this on a phone. :p

no, he was just too excited to type properly.

later

-1

red5-626 said:

negative1 said:

red5-626 said:

 

This is why I wish that Puggo GRANDE

had been dun in HD.

What are the odds that Puggo GRANDE

would be missing the same frames?

 

 

 

not likely at all..

i don't think it syncs with the GOUT either,

but then again, its using the mono mix.

 later -1

 Just to be clear I was thinking  the  Puggo
frames could be used to fill in the gaps.

not needed.

we can interpolate, using the frames we have.

also we have a secondary print.

unless there's something missing from reel 3,

we also have 2 1/2 reel 5's, so it will work out.

later

-1

red5-626 said:

This is why I wish that Puggo GRANDE

had been dun in HD.

What are the odds that Puggo GRANDE

would be missing the same frames?

 

 

not likely at all..

i don't think it syncs with the GOUT either,

but then again, it's using the mono mix.

 later 

-1

Brooks said:

Mavimao said:

But that seems like a lot of work. Would probably be easier just to edit the soundtracks to sync with Negative 1's project.

 

As long as -1 tells you where the reels they're assembling begin and end it should be pretty straightforward to sync them I would imagine.

have you seen this?

i did the frame data for the GOUT:

=======================

http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/frame-data-star-wars-GOUT-NTSC-widescreen-V10-now-complete/topic/9567/#TopicPost324797

ok for example GOUT:

------------------------------

End Time Frame begin Frame End Last type Description

===============================================
00:00:04.505 0 108 P Blank
00:00:11.470 109 275 B fox intro
00:00:11.720 276 281 B Blank
00:00:19.561 282 469 B lucasfilm limited
00:00:21.897 470 525 B Blank
00:00:27.361 526 656 b a long time ago
00:00:29.321 657 703 p Blank
00:00:37.120 704 890 P star wars
00:01:50.736 891 2655 b star wars crawl

and here's our Reel 1 test version:

-----------------------------------------------

End Time Frame begin Frame End Last type Description

===============================================
00:00:03.875 0 93 P Blank
00:00:10.833 94 259 B fox intro
00:00:11.250 260 271 B Blank
00:00:19.166 272 457 B lucasfilm limited
00:00:21.333 458 512 B Blank
00:00:26.791 513 642 b a long time ago
00:00:28.750 643 690 p Blank
00:00:36.458 691 875 P star wars

you get the idea..

very subtle differences,

but it mostly matches..

of course, i could be off on some of my frame counts..

some of the blanks are judgement calls..

later

-1

red5-626 said:

I remember I had a editing class that used. Final cut pro.

There was some way that you could edit using a low quality

video so that you would not have to wait for ever rendering on

every change. Than when you edit was dun you could put in the

hi quality video and it would automatically edit it to what you had set.

Considering what you said about reel changes.

It may be a good idea to synch each reel separately

 

no need to.

we just drop all the files into one timeline,

and work with the whole thing that way.

here's shots of the edits being done in ESB.
================================

but of course, we do low resolution renders and

watch those to see our progress.. going to be

checking out reel 4 shortly!

later
-1

Joel said:

Yes, assuming the number of frames is the same as GOUT (dubious?), there's still 24P vs 23.976 to contend with.

due to splices in the film,

like the original crawl. the opening sequence,

and the han shoots greedo scene.

there are some subtle frame differences...

i have them as separate complete reels,

some with headers, and tails that need to be trimmed.

so i don't have them as one complete final movie with

the final frame count. i'm sure it will be pretty close,

but it won't be exactly the same as the GOUT, and

those frame differences will cause drift in the audio.

i should know, i've tried it already for some parts,

as a temporary placeholder!

later

-1

jero32 said:

Man I'm getting excited reading about all these technical things. Any chance we could get some more preview shots? (moving ones)
Or do we have to be more patient :)?

we posted a lot of test footage,

and previews on the blog.. so i won't be

reposting those..

i have some test footage that we're not using,

but to give you an idea of the issues with it.

i'll see what i can do.

no point in posting scenes at this point, because

it needs to be viewed in the complete context (ie. when

it's done) to be effective. and we don't need bits and

pieces leaking out... makings of, and trailers are fine.

but no finished footage.

later

-1

Brooks said:

Laserschwert said:

Of course storing them as RAWs is a waste of space, as there are enough file formats with lossless compression out there, like PNG or TIF, that also support more than 8bit color per channel.

RAW files allow for much more adjustment than other formats (at least they do with my personal photos in photoshop's raw editor) because they're the files without any interpretations  of levels or exposure, iso etc put on them by the camera.  Can the point and shoot you guys are using shoot in RAW  I'm just curious, it's not really necessary, you guys are getting great results as is.

I've never captured a motion picture of course but as for the workflow I'd imagine that you'd get better looking results batch editing in photoshop (you could create an action with all the adjustments for each scene).  It might just be because I have more experience with photoshop that I think that though.

I'm sorry I keep pestering you guys with all these questions, I just think the process is so interesting!  :)

yes, it can do RAW files,

but as mentioned, when you use compression,

and we have to scale the images, the difference is negligible.

there's really no use in messing with too many

programs, when this one can import the images

and do the fixes there.. this along with avid, and

premiere is pretty much all that is needed.

later

-1

Laserschwert said:

I guess with all the audio projects going on here, it's not really that problematic to NOT have sound coming with the files.

you have to be careful,

even trying to synch it with the GOUT audio

will not work correctly. it's close at times,

but it's not exact.

you will have to stretch, trim, or alter either

the frames or the actual audio to match up

with it....

our reference audio will be the 35mm

theatrical stereo, and a mono reconstruction,

along with the original spanish 35mm audio,

and probably a 70mm recreation too.

those will all be synched correctly and then

can be ripped or manipulated afterwards.

later

-1

we have a mix of files.. some RAW, some not. we won't know until

the end when we decide what to do with them, and organize them.

as far as the sound. yes,  it is captured separately.

and it would be very hard to synchronize anyways,

due to frame accuracy needed to combine them.

ultimately, you have to process the frames first,

convert to video, then do color corrections on scenes etc.

or do it to individual frames -> combine to scenes,

then assemble the video track, and synch to the audio.

we're not going to release the premiere, avid, or other

workfiles though. (you would have to have the exact same setup,

and pro software anyways, so that would be difficult).

also those are the property of the restorers, and we are

documenting the changes made, the fixes, and what processes

we used, so there will be some transparency on the final

product. and you won't have to guess what is being altered.

there's a lot of subtle digital manipulation going on,

stabilization, warping fixed, and many other impercetible

fixes that you will never even notice. but it's good to know

what they are. i don't think we're going to document all

the dust,dirt and scratches though. unless they are major

ones. of course the ones that are in the source film will

remain there.

later

-1

1990osu said:

Let's see what 1970s George Lucas has to say about grain....

 

Lucas in American Cinematographer, October 1971:

"I was well aware that there would be those in the audience who would be shocked by the graininess at first, but I was sure that after the first minute or two they would get used to the grain and simply accept it as part of the stylistic concept, the documentary approach."

very interesting quote!

and a very good post for hitting the 1000th post!

thanks for all the comments and discussion going on.

later

-1

TV's Frink said:

Bingowings said:

A wizard did them.

That would be so wizard.

not really

later

-1

pittrek said:

negative1 said:

Brooks said:

negative1 said:

 

we'll release the raw files too, but they will be huge!

later

-1

No size is too large for something that important!

 

the size is Terabytes, you'll have to

supply your own hard drives. that's the plan.

 

later

-1

I currently own 8 external 1TB drives. Is it enough or do I need to buy more ? :-)

our estimate was 6-10T, not including the english red print,

but including ESB. basically just the raw frames, no video or

audio included. it would be better to have larger drives, because

the shipping would be a lot i would think. i'm still not sure how

this will work, until we actually get to that point. it'll be awhile

after the release though.

later

-1

Brooks said:

negative1 said:

 

we'll release the raw files too, but they will be huge!

later

-1

No size is too large for something that important!

the size is Terabytes, you'll have to

supply your own hard drives. that's the plan.

later

-1

Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:

To clarify, when the film came out, it wasn't scratched up... the scratches came over the years.  There would have been some film grain, though, and that is one thing that many viewers appreciate seeing again.

This 35mm transfer has the potential of looking fantastic, even compared to the blu ray, and certainly compared to the DVD, because the detail (including the grain) is so well preserved.  It also will accurately preserve an important window into film history.

You are right that some people may subsequently use it for repairing the blu ray. I'm just guessing that is about the last thing on -1's mind.

yup, hadn't really thought about it much.

busy making sure the process goes through

for each reel, and then we can assess what

needs to be completed.

later

-1

ww12345 said:

A number of shots are "grainy" as you put it, due mainly to the shooting technique. Some of the FX shots in Mos Eisley are many, many times removed from the original negative due to the compositing, while others such as the desert scenes were shot "soft," so it appears less clear. The shots that should stand out are the corridor scenes and the Death Star battle.

Trooperman said:

I'm in my 20s.  I may be crazy, but I'm certainly not old!  I was, however, born early enough to where I was watching the original versions growing up as opposed to the 97 SE.  "Old and crazy" to preserve this?  Where do you come up with that? 

This isn't Xanadu or The Incredible Melting Man or some trash.  This is STAR WARS- one of the most popular movies of all time.  And I cannot wait for this to come out.

to be fair... this thread did have a 'crazy' thought in it..

but that was referring to the process.

also, i've been called crazy by a lot of people here,

(if you read the middle of this thread around page 20),

and pretty much every girl i've met thinks i'm crazy,

along with my brother and family members..

i'm kinda old too, so i can see where the 'crazy old fool',

tag comes with the territory... although i'm not like ben kenobi

yet! ha ha

later

-1

SilverWook said:

Would that site with all the 70mm frame scans be a good resource?

http://www.jedi1.net

 

been there, seen that!

it's too inconsistent to be useful though..

jero32 said:

Anyway regardless of what everyone will do to the footage when it is released. Is there any sort of ETA or are you guys not willing to say because you'd feel "commited" to such a date?

it's done, when its done.

we're hoping later this year if all goes as planned.

ESB is about 80% done, but that will be next year perhaps.

ROTJ is 0% but who knows?

1990osu said:

 

I want to see this as untouched as possible.  The more grain the better!

we'll release the raw files too, but they will be huge!

later

-1

thank goodness there wasn't one!

i wouldn't pay one cent for a crowd funded version..

it should be free with no charge if you own it already

in some format..

nobody should be capitalizing on someone's else

legitimate property.

later

-1

Chicken Boo said:

With regards to color correction, would it be a good idea to talk with Harmy, as he had several samples from a tech IB print?

he knows!

he's not directly involved. but we're all working

towards the same goals.

later

-1

Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:

jero32 said:

The reason I brought up the backup/archiving thing was that whilst I feel that this will be great for having a digital version of the movie to compare changes etc to. It's not neccesairly the best version to watch in terms of quality. (on acount of the 32mm film simply being somewhat dirty. It stil looks very good though.)

This is what I originally thought when I started doing my 16mm transfers, but was surprised to discover that many people enjoy, even prefer watching them to the DVDs/BDs.  There is some inherent appeal to an authentic film look, and not everyone likes the ultra-scrubbed waxy sterile modern look, especially when watching an older film.

This.

the 16mm transfer is by far my favorite version!

i wish you guys could see more of the tests and full

reels we have now, but of course it's better to wait for the full thing.

everytime i get a reel from the excellent lpp print, i have to watch

it with my jaw dropping, not because of how cool it looks, but to relive

that feeling of seeing it as close to the original. and knowing it will

be complete again.

even the red faded reel 5 test looked amazing when

i saw the first few seconds of it transferred! it really feels

you are going back in time, and experiencing it for the first

time again! of course i've only watched this movie in the theaters

twice since it came out. and only a handful of times on dvd, and

laserdisc... (i've watched the special editions a lot more, so i'm

more used to them).

watching the bluray version is actually pretty cool, when you

notice a lot of the detail in some of the shots.. i guess the colors

are distracting to a lot of people (not to mention the additional

changes)... but since i'm not that great at noticing the color

changes, it doesn't bother me that much. i can live with most

of the cgi additions also.

that's why we are using a professional color corrector to regrade the

film.. his decisions, and one other person (mr brown), and myself all

contribute on what we think... too dark, too light, etc.. but in the end,

it should be a lot closer to the original presentation, which is what we

are trying to capture.

i think you can tell, most people will prefer to experience this as

a whole project. but don't let it deter you from starting up a 

splinter related project. i'm sure there will be many offshoots,

as people will want to adjust some of the shots to their own

preference.

later

-1