surroundsound99

Bravo for taking on this topic!

I’d be very interested to know the aspect ratios of all these versions.

Also I think you might be missing the 2006 “GOUT” version?

And it would very interesting to know the format of each and every release. For example, StarWars.com says the OT was release no less that five times on videocassette:

https://www.starwars.com/news/collectibles-from-the-outer-rim-star-wars-vhs-releases

Finally if we’re categorizing format, the 2019 release should say 4K or 4K Ultra Blu-ray, instead of just Blu-ray. And if you want to be nitpicky, wasn’t the streaming version released in 2019 and the disc released in 2020?

I wonder if you’re thinking of a trailer for the movie? Sometimes they put things in trailers but not the movie. For example when a Tie Fighter rises up to confront Jyn and has her in its sights as she’s on the parapet outside of a tower on Scarif.

Or maybe you’re thinking of the fact that it takes Luke a (seemingly) long time to uncoil the rope?

Are any specific scenes you can point out that would be make an easy comparison?

Darth Robin said:

The OT seems to have gotten a slightly wider aspect ratio with the D+ version.

Looking at these screenshots it seems to be a case of cropping. The D+ version has less picture at the top and bottom: http://www.framecompare.com/image-compare/screenshotcomparison/DYLPLNNX

On this one there seems to be more picture on the sides though:
http://www.framecompare.com/image-compare/screenshotcomparison/J1B2FNNU

Intressting.

Yes, interesting! Thanks for these!

Williarob said:

In 1971, the industry standard size of the aperture gate was changed from 2.35:1 to 2.39:1, slightly reducing the height. The reason for this was to hide those ugly laboratory splices:

which are very distracting when almost every single shot change gives you a white flash of glue at the top and bottom.

So, while on the film, the image is printed at 2.35:1 (after being unsqueezed), it would have been projected at 2.39:1.

However, with 4KXX we made every effort to clean these up, and the same is probably true of the official Blurays (Either that or they just cropped them out).

Sometimes they’re just too big for that aperture plate to hide:

But at 24 fps you barely notice these big blobs of glue.

I’m sorry I didn’t see your post until now, was busy with Covid. Thank you for these screen shots! Very neat to get a behind-the-scenes look at your work!

Williarob said:

In 1971, the industry standard size of the aperture gate was changed from 2.35:1 to 2.39:1, slightly reducing the height. The reason for this was to hide those ugly laboratory splices:

which are very distracting when almost every single shot change gives you a white flash of glue at the top and bottom.

So, while on the film, the image is printed at 2.35:1 (after being unsqueezed), it would have been projected at 2.39:1.

However, with 4KXX we made every effort to clean these up, and the same is probably true of the official Blurays (Either that or they just cropped them out).

Sometimes they’re just too big for that aperture plate to hide:

But at 24 fps you barely notice these big blobs of glue.

I’m sorry I didn’t see your post until now, was busy with Covid.

Thank you for these screen shots! Very neat to get a behind-the-scenes look at your work!

I had a couple of ideas.

“Curators at the National Film Registry picked the 1977 version of Star Wars to preserve for history’s sake, but they still don’t have a copy in the registry. When they asked for a copy, Lucas refused, saying that he would no longer authorize the release of the original version. The Library of Congress does have a 35mm print of Star Wars, one that was filed in 1978 as part of the movie’s copyright deposit, but the registry, where films are meant to be preserved for history, is still without one.” https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/08/the-star-wars-george-lucas-doesnt-want-you-to-see/379184/

Since George won’t release an original 1977, and Disney hasn’t yet either, this 1978 print seems to be about closest we can currently get to an authoritative copy. I may write to the LOC and ask them what the aspect ratio is. Why not? I won’t cross my fingers for a response, but at least I can try.

The other idea I had was to search for copies of trade magazines from that era. Maybe some of those magazines published a “technical readout” of the films? I will get my library card renewed and see! Keep you posted.

Dek Rollins said:

I just want to say that I thought you were just asking about historical accuracy of the aspect ratios. Just because it was projected with a 2.39 gate in 1977 doesn’t mean 2.35 would look incorrect. As was already mentioned it’s just semantics and the difference is negligible. As far as displaying a 2.39 image on a digital projector, I’ve been curious if cutting a matte out to stick over the projector lens would work. I don’t have a projector so I’ve never tried it.

I am interested in the historical accuracy of the aspect ratios. There is conflicting information online and I think its a shame that there is no one, authoritative webpage or document or otherwise that says, yes, in 1977, in 1980, and in 1983, they were projected at this ratio.

But at the same time, I am interested in duplicating the original aspect ratio at home, the best I can. So I do have dual motivations.

The difference is negligible as you say, if you think, “Well, I’m only losing more than an inch on the left, and more that an inch on the right,” but that is about 3/5 or 2/3 of a square foot, for over 2 hours of time. That’s alot of combined image to lose, for a long period of time. Multiply 3/5 or 2/3 of a foot by the sheer number of frames (thousands), and that’s a lot of total square footage to lose.

But as I said, to me it’s just KNOWING that it matches, or that it doesn’t.

A matte would work I suppose. You’d just have to make sure it’s perfectly level when you affix it to the projector, or hang it down in front of the lens. This would be hiding the images I want to see though!

riftamos said:

Gotcha - that sounds like it will be a slick set-up. If I’m understanding you correctly, you’ll keep the old screen, but it will be just behind the new one and you can raise up the larger screen if you wanted to use the 92" for different sized content? If you can get everything lined up correctly that would be pretty awesome to be able to go for an ultra wide image on some films, but drop back to a full frame 16x9 when you needed it with just a couple remote clicks

NX7 is a heck of a machine.

Of course, the only problem is - you can never have a large enough screen…

Thanks for the compliment on the NX7, yes its awesome and I am lucky. I had to wait until I was 51 years old to afford it, and 30 years of being in the home theater hobby, but it was worth the wait.

Yes, the screen can never be big enough. I was explaining to my in-laws that IMAX screens are sometimes 50 feet tall and they didn’t quite believe me!

Yes, I will be keeping the 92" wall mounted 16x9 screen and getting a wider, scope, drop-down screen, so two screens all together.

CHEWBAKAspelledwrong said:

ChainsawAsh said:

4K80 doesn’t exist yet.

And you do realize that the difference between 2.35:1 and 2.39:1 is basically unnoticeable, right?

…there’s no point trying to match the theatrical aspect ratio precisely. I say the same thing when people complain about 1.85:1 movies being released on Blu in 1.78:1…

It’s mostly just about KNOWING that I tried to get it as close as I could. For example, my projecter has a 4 pixel roll-off around each edge. So I can’t do anything about that (other than get an actual film projector!)

If SW was indeed 2.39, which IMDB says so, then I want to KNOW that I found a 1977 2.39 recording, and that I’m projecting it on a native 2.39 screen. If SW was indeed 2.35, then I want to find a 1977 2.35 recording and project it on a 2.35 native screen. Yes, it will bother me if I’m projecting a 2.35 image on a 2.39 screen because it’s about KNOWING that it doesn’t match. But also as I explained earlier, you do lose about 2/3 of a square foot and remember… you’d be losing this image for an entire 2 hours plus. That’s alot of combined content to lose. But really it’s just about making it match and knowing that it matches the original SW, to the best of my ability, no black bars no matter how small, no overspray, no masking, just want it to match.

ZigZig said:

Just for kidding… if you want a perfectly exact experience, don’t use the official blu-rays: they are encoded at 23.976 fps, not 24 fps… Otherwise you’ll loose about 1 frame every 6 minutes (that makes an entire second on the whole movie… the same kind of inaccuracy as 2.35:1 vs 2.39:1)

I guess you have no other choice than buying a 35mm projector and the original 35mm reels if your goal is to perfectly match the theatrical experience 😃

JEDIT: AFAIK, the original Star Wars (1977) was supposed to be seen at 2.3942856:1. But the SE has another ratio (2.3913042:1).
When digital intermediates were made at 2K in 1997 (and reused for each version since 1997), they were supposely done at 2048x858 pixels at 2K (or 4096x1716 pixels at 4K) according to the DCI specification for the Scope picture container. That ratio is 2.38694639:1…
So for the same movie, you’ll get 3 different ratios. Good luck with that 😃

And don’t forget that the SMPTE standards changed the lens aperture ratio in June 1976: it is pretty obvious that most theaters didn’t get this change in 1977 when SW was shown (see http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/apertures.htm).

Some interesting articles here:
https://wolfcrow.com/is-scope-2-4-2-39-or-2-35-to-1/
https://www.widescreen.org/aspect_ratios.shtml
https://www.widescreen.org/examples.shtml
https://www.panamorph.com/which-home-theater-screen-aspect-ratio-is-best-2-401-2-351-or-169/
http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/apertures.htm)

Thank you! I will have to sit down and absorb all this great information! Yes a film projector would be the ideal thing, but try explaining that to my wife 😃

ChainsawAsh said:

You’re buying a projector screen to perfectly fit one movie…? That seems kind of absurd to me, sorry.

Also, not every release of the same movie will have the exact same dimensions due to the nature of how it was scanned and restored. So, for example, the new 4K box set coming out in a few months might be slightly wider than the 2011 Blu-Ray, which might be slightly wider than Despecialized, which might be slightly wider than 4K77… etc. etc.

Not to mention when you pop in another “scope” movie, it won’t be exactly the same dimensions either.

And what about 1.78:1 content? 1.85:1? 2.00:1? 2.76:1? Good old fashioned 1.33:1?

LOL! Yes, I am buying a screen to FIT one movie, but I will not be PLAYING just one movie, I’ll be playing all of the hundreds of movies I have on disc. My JVC NX7 projector can pre-programmed for different aspect ratios that it can make on the fly with the push of a few buttons on the remote. So if the original SW is 2.39, and I get a 2.39 screen, and most of the discs I have are 2.35 and other ratios, when I get done watching SW at 2.39, it’s no trouble to adjust the JVC to 2.35 or anything else I can pre-program and the projector will zoom in and out accordingly. Then, when I’m done watching the other movies and it’s time to go back to watching the original SW again at 2.39 for example, just press a few buttons on the remote and it’s all good.

Jonno said:

If you’re installing a ‘drop down’ screen, couldn’t it be dropped down to different degrees to accommodate different ratios anyway?

Or if you’re really serious about doing this right, have a fixed 2.40:1 screen and put in a motorised curtain track to add/subtract masking like real theatres used to do.

I’m looking at a Seymour screen and they said it can only be programmed at the factory to drop down to a fixed point. It can’t be adjusted at will, unfortunately, but thanks for the thought.

There are, as you suggested, motorized systems from Stewart, Screen Innovations and maybe others, but they are VERY expensive. Seymour does have a masking system which is less expensive. Thanks for your help!

riftamos said:

riftamos said:

I have a 100 inch projection set-up that I use regularly. I can tell you from experience that it is not worth the trouble of constantly adjusting the screen to fit content perfectly.

I recommend matching the screen size to the maximum aspect of your projector and leaving it at that - I’d say get a 16:9 screen @ 1.1 gain, set the projector to fill the entire screen and never touch it again.

My specific point being that the “annoying black bars” are not going to make a fundamental difference when you watch the movie. If you’re in a home theater, its going to be dark and you are going to be focused on the displayed image - there’d be no difference if you matched the screen size exactly to the image - the image is still the exact same size - therefore you’re either projecting the black bars onto the portion of the screen that’s not in use, or projecting them onto the wall (or black curtain!?) above and below the screen - in the end there is literally no reason to try to fit “flush” with your screen - you gain absolutely nothing. Again, ironically, if you’re going to make the image fit perfectly - you’ll need to put up black curtain above and below the screen - so what exactly was the point?

I just wanted to add something - I didn’t want to come across as rude with my previous post. If making it fit perfectly is really something you’re serious about a projection screen might not be what you want.

I’d suggest picking out a place on the wall where you want to project, outlining a large 16:9 dimension rectangle and painting the wall behind it to be slightly off-white - I’d recommend aiming for the same shade as a 1.1 gain screen to give you the best contrast. I’d then suggest rigging up two poles and/or wall mounts with a simple pulley system on each attached the walls at the borders. Use a 1/2 inch wooden rod strung between and attached to the pulleys (onto the cables themselves) - one at the top of your screen and another at the bottom. Get some black fabric that is thick and you cannot see through, wrap it over and around the rod and attach it back to itself - roll the excess around a second rod placed - to create a spool - then attach the spool rod to the wheel of the pulley itself

Set up you projector to fit the painted area and then pop on your favorite movie - winch the pulley up and the two black cloths will start to head towards and meet in the middle, find the perfect dimension to have a perfect screen size and use a clothes pin to hold the pulley cable in place during the film. Get a couple of yards of decent bright red or burgundy cloth and cover your poles and/or pulley mounts hanging down to the floor just like the curtain at the theater.

This would also work with a permanently mounted screen or a retractable screen as well.

Just my $.02 on how you can make a pretty easy at home Matte system and actually be just like the theater while saving you the trouble of constantly moving the screen and having to adjust the vertical axis on the projector to accommodate - this way your projector is always pointing at the same place

Yes, great suggestions, thank you! No I didn’t take anything the wrong way, no problem. I should have mentioned that I already have a wall-mounted 92" 16x9 Stewart screen. So on that screen I will play 16x9 and 1.85 content and adjust the 1.85 to fill the screen. On the new scope screen I want, I’ll play 2.35, 2.37, 2.39 and 2.40 and adjust accordingly. Making the adjustments aren’t that difficult because my JVC NX7 can be pre-programmed to make adjustments on the fly. As for the black bars, for whatever reason (gain, pre-hung ceiling with white tiles) I see the bars and so do our guests… and frankly I am TIRED of answering the question “Why do they cut off the picture on the top and the bottom!?” As you know, they are NOT cutting off anything, they are GIVING us more image on the sides! So, that’s another reason I want to eliminate the black bars, to stop the stupid questions and maybe show them once and for all why the black bars exist. Finally, the main reason I want another screen is because I can’t get a screen bigger than what I have because I can’t push my speakers any more to the right (stairway), or to the left (electrical panel closet). The only way to get a bigger screen is to drop it down in front of the existing speakers, with acoustically-transparent (AT) screen material of course. Actually the height of the new drop-down scope screen will only be a few inches taller than the existing 16x9 screen, but it will be much wider to the left and to the right.

ZigZig said:

ChainsawAsh said:

And you do realize that the difference between 2.35:1 and 2.39:1 is basically unnoticeable, right?

I didn’t dare say it …

LOL. In most cases you’re right. For the average 16x9 TV in the average living room, the difference in the letterbox bars between 2.35 and 2.39 is unnoticeable as you said. But I am buying a drop-down projection screen in the neighborhood of 110 to 120 inches wide. I need to know if I’m buying a 2.35, 2.37, 2.39 or a 2.40 screen size ahead of time. Ultimately I want my screen to match the EXACT same size as the original 1977 movie so that I don’t miss any of the image. Consider this. On a 110 inch wide screen, according to my math, projecting a 2.4 image on a 2.35 screen, and then focusing the image out to eliminate the annoying letterbox bars on top and bottom, means the image is oversprayed on the sides by over an inch on each side. Sounds like not much, but if each side is over 45 inches high, that’s a total loss of over 90 square inches or 0.625 square feet of image. So in the case of projection systems, if we’re going to go to all the effort of recapturing the CONTENT of the original movie (Han shoots first, the wolfman, etc.), then it only makes sense to try to recapture all of the IMAGE as well. So that’s why I’m trying to find out the aspect ratios of the original movies BEFORE I buy the big drop-down screen, so that I don’t miss anything!

Asking for your help! Would the owners of these versions tell me what aspect ratios they are, and what versions? Thanks!

4K77
4K80
4K83
Silver Screen Edition
Harmy’s Despecialized

Dek Rollins said:

The Silver Screen Edition should not be used as an end all reference. When making that preservation, anything was up to their choice. I don’t know off hand what aspect ratio they used for it, but I would bet on 2.35 since most home video releases use that as the standard for scope movies. But if you’re a stickler for details, 2.39 I think is correct.

Thanks Dek!

ChainsawAsh said:

surroundsound99 said:

Just found this quote from George: “…The other movie, it’s on VHS, if anybody wants it.” By “other”, he means the original, but what version of the videotape did he mean? https://ew.com/article/2016/02/16/star-wars-restore-1977/

Literally any VHS of the movies released before 1997.

Thanks for the input. I found this actually on StarWars.com suggesting that each subsequent videotape release made alterations: “Each VHS release had something that the previous did not, be it improved audio, a different aspect ratio…” https://www.starwars.com/news/collectibles-from-the-outer-rim-star-wars-vhs-releases

I just found out about the Silver Screen Edition(s) done by Team Negative One which seems to me to be the most authoritative way to determine original aspect ratio, a single reel! No offense to the other hard-working fan projects but it seems they piece their works together whereas a single reel… wow… how much more authentic can you get than that?!

Just found this quote from George: “…The other movie, it’s on VHS, if anybody wants it.” By “other”, he means the original, but what version of the videotape did he mean? https://ew.com/article/2016/02/16/star-wars-restore-1977/

Is this author referring to the Despecialized Editions, or is he referring to something else?

“But if you want to see high-quality versions of the original Star Wars trilogy as it appeared to audiences in the late 1970s and early 1980s, with some visual effects mistakes from the old versions fixed without anything else being changed, then they are out there.” https://www.starwarsnewsnet.com/2019/03/disney-acquired-fox-star-wars-meaning.html

And to what is this author referring to?

“Unaltered versions of the original trilogy are available — but, because they’re out of production, they’re not available through official channels.” https://www.inverse.com/article/3942-why-finding-the-original-1977-star-wars-verges-on-the-impossible

riftamos said:

surroundsound99 said:

riftamos said:

The rear of the “Faces” LDs state “Shown in the Original Aspect ratio 2.39”

Interesting! Thank you. I don’t have the LDs or the videotapes, I only have the 2004 DVDs and the 2011 Blu-rays.

My mistake - the back of the Episode IV laserdisc actually states “theatrical aspect ratio 2.35:1”

Thanks for catching that!

Jonno said:

Just as a heads up, that release might not be what you’re looking for if you’re in pursuit of an authentic theatrical experience.

All current indications seem to be that the discs will only feature the current 4K special editions of the OT (as seen on Disney+), which will look very nice but will also be quite some distance from the 77/80/83 releases, editorially speaking.

Yeah, you’re right! But I’m going to buy it anyways 😃

SKYWALKER SAGA 4K BOXED SET IS COMING!! Per Blu-ray.com it might be just a Best Buy exclusive but I’m not sure:

https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Star-Wars-The-Skywalker-Saga-4K-Blu-ray/259357/

https://www.bestbuy.com/site/star-wars-9-movie-collection-digital-copy-4k-ultra-hd-blu-ray-blu-ray-only--best-buy/6393929.p?skuId=6393929&irclickid=0XUW4s2d-xyOULX0MdV3iVCmUknRkO3ih3rKRU0&irgwc=1&ref=198&loc=0XUW4s2d-xyOULX0MdV3iVCmUknRkO3ih3rKRU0&acampID=615614&mpid=1808408

And right now it’s says it’s coming in 2.39:1, and of interest to this discussion, “Original aspect ratio: 2.39:1”. We’ll see how it actually comes. It looks like that webpage is a work in progress but supposedly we’ll find out on March 31st!

riftamos said:

Check out my thread on the LD “Faces” upscale to 1080p60, I’m working on a current project for the original trilogy and just finished a V1.0 draft of '77

Will do, thank you!

Jonno said:

I guess the real question is which cinema you went to for that first viewing? Did you go to a big screen, which might have been showing a 70mm print with 6-track stereo, or a smaller theatre showing regular 35mm (with Dolby Stereo if you were lucky)?

I went to a small theater in a small town. I seem to remember it was a “normal” sized screen, so based on what you said it was probably “regular 35mm” showing. Funny you ask about Dolby, I remember seeing speakers on the side walls and even at the age of 8 I could tell the sound was out of balance and should have been better! From there came my lifelong desire to hear SW the way George intended it.