Each scan is around the 20TB mark in its raw state. That is correct, at the moment I don’t have nough drives to keep backups of some of them.
The black vertical lines should pretty much disappear with the wetgate.
There’s a guy selling a 35MM print on 35mmforum:
**Song of the South reel 4-IB tech. This seems long for a single reel of this film- may be part of reel 5 as well.
Against my better financial and mental judgement, I purchased this reel and am organising for it to be scanned.
Some preliminary images:
http://imgur.com/a/pvHHT
That frame isn’t on the IB print either, it finishes quite a few frames earlier.
That sequence is the very end of Reel5 at the reel change, so it will be longer or shorter depending on the print, especially if the print was plattered at some point.
Darth Mallwalker said:
yotsuya said:
And I can so understand chasing frames. I have found that the US ANH GOUT dvd is missing at least 3 frames that I have in other versions. One from the UK ANH GOUT and two from an LD preservation I found before the OT came out on DVD.
Please do tell more.
Perhaps it would be appropriate in one of those threadsThe first two are on one of the LD’s right at the start of the clip of the falcon in hyperspace. Those frames aren’t in the GOUT, EU broadcast, DVD, or BR. the other one is the final frame of when we see the green R2 unit lowered into the X-wing. The man’s hands curl. I was thinking it was my rip, but it is not in the VOB file on the DVD. It is in the PAL GOUT, EU Broadcast, DVD, and BR. The uncorrected (but resized) frame:
I like to blame my computer or the software I use for some things like this, but I checked and to the best of my knowledge this from is not on the US DVD.
Cleaning out my PMs now. New forum software is nice, no need for glasses 😛
Just for fun, here are two images from one of the Tech IB prints.
I am going to be offline for a couple of days now. Need to rest.
I don't think the Super8 is from the 70mm.
And in other news, I was cleaning out my spam folder, and there was a 'group card' in there. After sandboxing then opening it (I am a cautious and cynical man), I spent the next few minutes quietly reading it, every word.
A heartfelt thanks to everyone, it had me choked up like an Imperial Officer giving Vader bad news.
Seriously, it is very much appreciated.
g-force said:
poita said:
Actually, I have scanned so far..
Star Wars: Multiple Technicolor IB prints, Eastman, a smelly VS print, and an incomplete LPP, 16mm on poly and acetate, Super8 on acetate. Another two IB prints awaiting scanning.
Empire: Eastman, Fuji, 16mm on acetate, a faded reel of dailies, Super8 mute print on poly
Jedi: LPP x 2, 16mm on acetate, and I have another two prints waiting in the wings for my financial situation to improve.
And I would gladly give them all a backup home for you!
-G
Excellent, you will need 380TB of HDDs, approximately.
Check your PMs.
Oh, and if anyone is wondering what the hell a LUT is, this is a good introduction:
http://www.redsharknews.com/post/item/2966-the-beginners-guide-to-luts
towne32 said:
CatBus said:
Ah, OK. I probably caught some snippet regarding Empire or some other film where Technicolor isn't an option, and assumed he was working with other 35mm sources here too. Good to know.
Technicolor is indeed not an option for ESB or RoTJ as far as I know. But RoTJ has LPPs. As you'll see a few pages back, ESB is faded but looks to be quite recoverable. So you're right that he's working with other 35mm sources.
Random question, since I don't assume anyone will be coming across this print any time soon, but: How much fading would a 70mm ESB print be expected to have?
I have seen a 70mm ESB and have a few minutes of ESB on 70mm, it is extremely pink.
Feallan said:
CatBus said:
poita said:
CatBus said:
poita said:
No real corrections done.
Jesus.
Well, a 5 second colour balance and a crop and resize.
Okay, cause I'm assuming we're dealing with pink vinegar reels or some such thing, right? It sounded for a second like you found a source that looked that good out of the (airtight, argon-filled) box.
Pretty sure poita only deals with Technicolor Star Wars prints, so no color fade.
Actually, I have scanned so far..
Star Wars: Multiple Technicolor IB prints, Eastman, a smelly VS print, and an incomplete LPP, 16mm on poly and acetate, Super8 on acetate. Another two IB prints awaiting scanning.
Empire: Eastman, Fuji, 16mm on acetate, a faded reel of dailies, Super8 mute print on poly
Jedi: LPP x 2, 16mm on acetate, and I have another two prints waiting in the wings for my financial situation to improve.
You can do a free course for Resolve until the 26th.
https://www.udemy.com/video-editing-using-davinci-resolve-for-beginners/?couponCode=blackmagicforum
The colourspace of the input video could cause issues.
CatBus said:
poita said:
No real corrections done.
Jesus.
Well, a 5 second colour balance and a crop and resize.
DoomBot, if you export the LUT using resolve lite (it is free) does the resultant LUT then load into AE?
yotsuya said:
And just a small little rant... these films were made at academy standard 24 fps. I can understand working with PAL 25 fps or NTSC 30 fps, but it really messes with trying to line up different versions when you use a non-standard frame rate. I've found some strange ones. And when you render from one to the other, it can add or subtract frames. I was really pleased to find the JSC collection at 30i fps, which was easy to re-render as 24 fps. And PAL 25fps is a piece of cake to convert to 24 fps. But some are impossible because the actual scenes don't line up due to extra or missing frames. 24 fps is ether true 24 fps (for cinema) or 23.976 fps (for home video).
Convert everything to image sequences (.DPX, TIFF etc.) before you begin, then there are no frame rate issues to begin with.
Various versions are missing frames, particularly around reel changes.
yotsuya said:
Oh, as I posted before, TESB, ROTJ, ATOC, and ROTS are my primary color references to go by for ANH. I think the GOUT is pretty close, but I still need to bring the DVD/BR back to where the GOUT is and for that I need a lot of practice and reference. Such as the end of ROTS and the work room in AOTC, sets recreated from ANH.
The sad thing is that Jabba in ANH and Yoda in TPM were both added to badly colored digital masters. So do I just leave them and let their color change or do I rotoscope them (a lot of work) and tweak their color separately? I eventually want to change Jabba to be more red and green than yellow and olive, so I'm already working on that, but that leave the question of Yoda. I guess I'll have to see what my color correction does to him.
In resolve, simply pull a matte for Jabba using the HLS tools and tracker and you can colour him separately. I took a quick look at that scene and you can separate him out in just a few seconds.
yotsuya said:
Regardless of who did it, it is messed up and I've seen other things worked on by Lowry that share the same skewed color pallet.
But Lowry was right about one thing, the Tunesia scenes do have a lot of extra dirt. The Legacy restoration has found the same indications on the technicolor print - filled with mysterious yellow dots - that there is something up. I think many people underestimate just how insidious sand can be in the desert. It gets everywhere. And some of it is super fine.I guess we'd better blame Lucasfilm for the piss poor job of scanning and color correcting. I have no issue with grain cleanup and reduction. I like clean images unless the grain was an artistic choice by the production team. And from what I've seen of the restorations being done by our own OriginalTrilogy.com members, 1080p is higher resolution than anyone outside of Hollywood has been able to see movies in. 4k starts to reveal things that the audience was never intended to see that shouldn't be left. Or 8k for 70 mm. I think they are great resolutions for scanning and preserving, but not for viewing. I already see too many flaws in Star Wars at 1080p.
The yellow dots have nothing to do with dirt as such, they are common in aging, particularly in comps. We see it all the time in restorations of many, many films unfortunately.
Also remember the home releases and even the broadcasts of the SE are quite different to the theatrical prints.
As in we have had at least 5 of the 5TB drives fail.
Oh and for all the rest of the world that is just entering into the day where our collective future suddenly becomes the past, think for a few minutes that for any kid going into a cinema today to watch a special showing of the Back to the Future Trilogy, the world of 1985 is as far in the ancient past as 1955 was when BttF first came out.
That makes me feel old.
(So does the horrible fact that The Little Mermaid release date was closer to the Moon Landing than to today...)
Thanks. Grabbing it now!
I am going to be resting up for the next few days, but here is a frame from yet another print. It has a different grain structure and contrast to the others.
No real corrections done.
1080P (roughly... right-click and 'view image' for full size)
Half resolution (3011x1289) 16bit file here:
CatBus said:
chyron8472 said:
Re: blobs and matte boxes--Harmy, I thought you said that the contrast in the original theatres should have been properly adjusted so that they wouldn't have been visible to the audience, and consequently, having them appear would not fit to the actual intent of the project.
Some matte boxes are more visible than others, depending on the brightness of the background (there's one against a Star Destroyer in ESB that's pretty front-and-center). It's a matter of degree--most of the matte boxes may have been barely visible in the theatres if you looked for them, rather than jumping out at you like they do on the home video releases. Having them be as obvious as the home video releases would certainly not fit the intent of the project, but so would erasing them altogether. But there's a few pretty obvious ones that were likely always pretty obvious.
Having watched it on film again recently, the matte boxes are all pretty visible in a cinema if you look for them.
On home video, they will be more visible on some TVs than others, as many people don't calibrate their TVs.
I can understand removing them altogether for a reworking using the original material, to get something to watch when you just want to sit back and enjoy the SW universe. A preservation would leave them in, as it gives important information about how the effects were done, the state of film-making effects in the 70s and 80s, etc. but for something I'd want to just sit down and enjoy the story, I'm happy enough for them to become invisible.
Excellent, as the LUT wouldn't load into Nucoda either without processing it through Resolve first.
SilverWook said:
http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/New-plot-spoiler-policy-please-read/forum/2/topic/16764/
Good to know!
Especially as I get to see it a full day and a half before you poor US citizens... I promise I won't go on a spoiler-splash while you are all waiting in line ;^)
