logo Sign In

zombie84

User Group
Members
Join date
21-Nov-2005
Last activity
12-Jan-2024
Posts
3,557

Post History

Post
#243330
Topic
2006 OT DVD: The Crawl on Star Wars
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/243330/action/topic#243330
Time
Although this thing now appears to be pretty top notch--whether real or re-created--i am now more curious about the fact that the EOD version is an entirely different transfer and one obviously taken from a film print. The OOT crawl clip supplied by Boba Feta looks suspiciously digital in its look and movements, even though there is the PAL speed-up. Furthermore, why is the colouring changed? The original was more of a deep yellow, as EOD shows, rather than the gold of previous home video versions (what do the PT/SE look like? I can't remember now--my memory is that they are sort of in between the gold and yellow).

The ANH-SE features a digitally re-created crawl. With the original backdrop. And perfectly matching text and movements. Perfectly integrated with the star destroyer fly-by.
So, it is definitly possible to have a perfect, re-created crawl. They have all the elements available.
If it really was the true, film-transfered original, why wouldn't they use the EOD footage? My guessing is because the difference in image characteristics made it difficult to integrate into the original footage, and that it would be easier to simply use the template created for the SE/PT and simply re-time the text movements to match what is seen on EOD. This still doesn't explain why they went with the revised gold colouring though. Obviously, its not a NEW transfer, as they would have obviously advertised making new film transfers for this release, and instead only reference scouring the LFL archives for material--in other words for the pre-transfered 1977 crawl. But this is not the pre-transfered 1977 crawl, as was displayed in EOD. This is something else, something entirely new. Perhaps a re-creation?

It looks good, but I'm still not 100% convinced yet.
Post
#243179
Topic
2006 OT DVD: The Crawl on Star Wars
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/243179/action/topic#243179
Time
Comparing screenshots provided by Boris in another thread:

OOT:
http://img92.imageshack.us/img92/4526/sw002sd0.png

EOD:
http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/9162/eodcz3.png

Now is it just me or is the angle of the crawl subtly different in the OOT version? The original crawl was filmed at a slightly different angle than the rest of the series, from the looks of things it was slightly flatter looking. The ANH version was re-filmed probably at the same time that the titles were being readied for ESB, and ROTJ then used the same template. I dunno. The two don't look like they match to me.
Post
#243097
Topic
2006 OT DVD: The Crawl on Star Wars
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/243097/action/topic#243097
Time
Originally posted by: boris
Originally posted by: zombie84
This still doesn't answer the question though: why is it different than the EOD crawl? Clearly the EOD crawl is newly struck from a film source, however the OOT crawl is very different, in terms of image quality, image characteristics and colouring.
The EOD crawl was coloured to match the 2004-crawl colouring. The EOD suffers more compression then the OUT, and the EOD crawl seems to be cropped differently (however, this could be because it's the "whole frame", and the OUT disc is cropped to the anamorphic ratio).


But the two are from completely different raw sources. The EOD one is even differently exposed, with fainter stars (is this why the star wars logo appears to receed quicker?). The OOT however uses what appears to be the very same backdrop from the 2004 DVD crawl (incidentally being the original one) which also leads me to believe that perhaps this is a re-creation--with the raw backdrop on file, the crawl could simply be digitally done, without the need for a dissolve to match the footage, as would have been required if they used the EOD file. What is the starfield like for the stardestroyer fly-by then? Is it also the same as the 2004 disk? If so, it may mean that they re-created the 1977 crawl using the same elements and technology that they used to re-create the 1981 crawl for the 2004 disk, and made a new composite using the 2004 fly-by.
Post
#243088
Topic
2006 OT DVD: The Crawl on Star Wars
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/243088/action/topic#243088
Time
The indefinite article of course indicating openness to the possibility of being wrong (i am just going from memory), as well as my proposal that it may be due to less-than-optimal exposure on the EOD telecine.

This still doesn't answer the question though: why is it different than the EOD crawl? Clearly the EOD crawl is newly struck from a film source, however the OOT crawl is very different, in terms of image quality, image characteristics and colouring. Why was the EOD crawl not used, and does this indicate that the OOT crawl may indeed still be a re-created one, albeit a perfectly-re-created one?
Post
#243079
Topic
2006 OT DVD: The Crawl on Star Wars
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/243079/action/topic#243079
Time
Originally posted by: boba feta
How's this?



http://web.mydns.net.nz/www.cvml.co.nz/bobafeta/misc/Crawl2.png

The music cues seem fine to me, but I must admit, the only time I've seen the original crawl was in 1977.


Thats exactly what I am looking for! Surprise surprise--identical to the trailer, is it not? Looks like this is a re-created one. This could arguably come down to less-than-optimal exposure on the EOD footage trailer but if i remember correctly you could clearly see it fade out and then a fraction of a pause and then the text came. This has the logo still shimmering even as the second line of text is about to come up. So we can say at least that this is not the same as the EOD crawl, which then is natural to conclude that this is not the original crawl but a re-created one. I don't really think it matters either way at this point since the crawl is a bonus anyway and this is obviously a bunk release so i don't think anyone would care if its re-created at this point.
Post
#243072
Topic
2006 OT DVD: The Crawl on Star Wars
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/243072/action/topic#243072
Time
I was the one that started that crawl thread. Basically, if you compare the timing of the Star Wars logo recession on EOD to the OOT disk, they are different--the OOT disk still has the logo slightly visible when the text first rolls up, while in the actual real crawl on EOD the logo completely dissapears and then the text comes. Some speculated that it was a mock-up or edit done for the trailer but i am more pessimistic. Can anyone confirm if it is different? Boba Feta that cap doesn't tell us much i think.
Post
#242999
Topic
my memory isn't that bad, is it? (in SW '77 - Luke misses with the grappling hook?)
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/242999/action/topic#242999
Time
It was in the novel. Thats why a few people remember seeing it. Just like they remember seeing the spaceships crash into the DS shield in ROTJ. They saw it in their minds when they were kids and twenty years later it feels as though it was seen on a screen. It never happened.

As for the S-foils, them opening was in all versions. There has only been one visual change from 1977-1996, and that is the Episode Iv crawl.
Post
#242885
Topic
Star Wars Limited Edition Screen Captures.
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/242885/action/topic#242885
Time
I'm actually quite surprised at how "laserdiskey" the image looks. There really doesn't seem to have been any advantage in using the D1 master tape--it just looks like a really good LD rip (i.e. Moth3r). And the quality of an LD-transfer to DVD is as such--roughly 5/10 or so. You can see all sorts of weird stuff going on in the edges, aliasing everywhere, and that compressed quality in really detailed images and shots where there is lots of tonality (ie carbon freezing). Colour seemed to be okay in terms of vibrancy and accuracy but reds bleed like crazy (ie R2's eye), and the general fidelity and detail shows the limitations of 1993 technology. The general softness of the LD is carried over of course, especially in effects shots, although closeups in ESB and ROTJ naturally fare slightly better. The image is generally fairly grainey, though thats due to the print used in 1993.
Even in the screenshots you can see the generally messy and poor video--blow that up to a screen-filling res and it gets fairly unenjoyable to watch, especially if you are paying $20 a pop.

The image jumping around, as someone described, is not due to poor registration on the camera gate from production (Panavision camera's are rock-solid) but due to the registration on the poor 1993 telecine, which did not hold the images 100% proper every time.

Add to this the anamorphic issue as well as the interlacing problems and the DVNR problems, both of which are not evident from the screenshots, and you have a video quality that is--at best--a 5/10, and from someone with a discriminating eye towards video i would give it a 4/10, maybe even a 3. Its just not anywhere near an acceptable modern level, but that is to be expected when the source is a 1993 laserdisk telecine. If you don't care about the video and really just want a version on dvd to replace your VHS then this should be fine for you--but if thats the case, then you should be equally excited for any of the fan-captures, like Editdroid or Moth3r, and exstatic for the X0 version, which has everything the official disk has (minus the crawl) plus frame-by-frame cleanup.
Post
#239971
Topic
Selectable crawl on new DVD? Or just the old one?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/239971/action/topic#239971
Time
WOw, Harlock, way to come through!! Of course now you will be bombarded with questions...

Firstly, what is the deal with the crawl? Does it match EOD or is it like in the trailer? Is the DVNR smearing still on the disks? How is the bitrate? Dual layered even? more screencaps?

From the low-res caps posted (better quality ones would be helpful) it just looks like a really good LD fan-transfer. The XO release seems to match it in terms of quality and detail, and the fact that release is being carefully hand-colour-corrected and restored puts it waaaay ahead this release from what i can tell so far.
Post
#239598
Topic
So, this is how the DVDs are going to look...
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/239598/action/topic#239598
Time
Originally posted by: boris
Originally posted by: Vigo
You have already been corrected many times in the 35mm thread, by people who actually work in the industry
Believe it or not, not everyone in the film industry agrees on it. What I said (which is the resolution of 35MM is roughly equal to HD, and 16MM to SD) is generally accepted mainstream in the film industry.

I would love to know who these people are. Because as a member of the Cinematographers Guild (IATSE Local 667), I don't think anyone in their right mind who works in my department would make this claim. The issue is that HD is an acceptable replacement for 35mm to audience members even though it is much lower in resolution, similar to the way 16mm could be an acceptable replacement for 35mm to audience members even though it is much lower in resolution--NOT that HD rivals or surpases 35mm, which it very clearly does not.

It's still considered industry standard to release non-anamorphic sourced material as non-anamorphic (many DVD's with extras feature a mix of anamorphic and non-anamorphic features). It's annoying, but it's standard.

Its actually not nowadays, because so many people watch special features on widescreen tvs. You still see non-anamorphic special features, but most of them--including trailers--and especially on big studio releases, are anamorphic enhanced.

Originally posted by: boris
Originally posted by: Vigo
The only parts replaced were the ones which used new CGI footage. The original negatives, while faded and dirty, still retained all of their picture information. Again, you are spreading bullshit here. Even if they had to replace parts of the negative with other film stock, it would still be superior to HD and of course vastly superior to 720x480.....
Oooh, now who doesn't know what they're talking about? They did permanently remove parts of the master reel which were not special edition hangs. The film would be superior to SD, but not to HD. It'll be embarrassing if I can prove this to you once all SW films are released in HD.


I'm not even sure what you are saying here. Anything shot on 35mm will be superior to HD. And not just by a little bit--by a huge margin. Why do you think 90% of the worlds movies are still shot on 35mm film??? Cinematographers arent idiots.
Post
#239497
Topic
Making our own 35mm preservation--my crazy proposal
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/239497/action/topic#239497
Time
Filming it of a screen is not at all the same as a telecine. The differences in exposure is enough to throw it away, plus colour issues, noise, any kind of distortion, as well as frame sync. Also individual camera models have their own issues--the Sony Z1 has some very bad colour rendering issues and especially noise and problems with black levels. Its also HDV and not true HD if i am not mistaken.
Post
#236112
Topic
A Question to the Older Members
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/236112/action/topic#236112
Time
I always remembered them from the home video versions of the 80's and early 90's. These releases had the brightness of the image turned up to accomodate daytime viewing, and likely my television was a bit bright as well. The DVD release IMO represents the best release ever in terms of garbage mattes since it is very unnaturally dark and thus hides the mattes very well (though this is not intentional). Gaffer i suspect your television is not completely caliberated correctly.
Post
#235357
Topic
George Lucas and Ed Wood OR The Alignment of the Stars
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/235357/action/topic#235357
Time
I will say that Lucas never was a good director, but he was a brilliant conceptualist. THX 1138 shows remarkable visions and concept, and its strength lays in the way in which it is assembled in its esoteric and indirect manner. Graffiti on the other hand was simply a good idea to begin with, especially the rough and dirty way that Lucas photographed it; he also never directed actors and instead hired an acting coach on set while Lucas dealt with camera matters--the cast was simply talented. Star Wars of course was brilliant for its concept, and like on Graffiti Lucas was blessed with being surrounded by an immensely talent crew and a remarkable cast.

In all three cases Lucas was granted impeccable timing. THX was not financially successful but the very fact that it was made is an incredible feat in itself that only could have occured at that time, during the crisis of 1969-1971, and Graffiti of course spearheaded the "personal" films of the American New Wave and also happened to cash in on the growing "nostalgia" wave of films, among them Two-Lane Blacktop produced by Gary Kurtz the year before. Star Wars of course is probably the best timed release in history, giving the public exactly what they wanted and needed.