zombie84

There won't be any wide-reaching resolution upgrade after HD/BD. The technology exists now--there are 4K projectors. The problem is that it outstrips the limits of what the human eye can resolve. When you are dealing with a 36" monitor (sort of the "average" size now?), there simply isn't detail that the human eye can easily measure at such low screen size. You'd have to take a magnifying glass to see the difference.

On a large screen--not a 48" screen but like a fifteen-foot-wide projection screen--you may notice an improvement, but it won't significant enough to upgrade. Only theatre owners will benefit from 4K and even now a lot just stick with HD and 2K projectors because they can't see the expense in getting 4K ones, which have existed for some time. I think eventually all theatres will have one 4K (and maybe in some decades 8K?) deluxe screen for large-format stuff like IMAX or whatever becomes it's equivalent, but I just can't see anyone putting that in their homes. It would be a waste of money.

The yellow looked a bit too garish, but putting that in white helps I think.

I think those people are largely in a minority, whether it is on a film forum or just in the general public. If you can't see the difference between a DVD and a Blu-ray you need your eyes checked. Even on a 21" monitor the difference is night and day unless you are comparing a poor example of a BD, in which case I would agree the difference is more subtle.

I think the best educational tool is actually broadcast HDTV, like sports and the like. You can switch from one channel showing it in SD to another channel showing it in HD and it's like two different shows. When my family members did that, just by chance, the true quality of HD hit them (and HDTV broadcasts usually aren't good compared to BDs).

I've included a few pics now. Makes it read a lot better I think. I'm going to say I am satisfied for now.

Fine, you big credit baby!

Also, this is something I am struggling with a bit. On pages like this, I think it's an instance where it could really be possible to reach people and make them realize how much the films have changed--that it's not "the same basic film." I hate when people say that, and I think it's one of the big obstacles to getting people to be less apathetic to seeing the original versions treated right.

But I'm not sure how to make a page like this a bit more engaging and "fun to look at", I guess. It all seems so tedious. Do I just have to add some graphics in there or should I pare down the text?

Have you seen Shatner's roast? It's pretty funny. I like this scene they did for it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pamx5XMDxeM&feature=related

Oh yeah, the audio is something I threw together. I'm mainly working on the visual stuff right now, but thanks for the info, as I had forgotten to get back to the audio corrections.

For those wondering, the SE changes page has been updated to include 005's comparison pages.

http://savestarwars.com/specialeditionchanges.html

Burtt jamming up the workprint has nothing to do with the film. The workprint is the workprint, not the negative, it's just a copy they make for the editor to work on. It gets jammed up, thrown on the floor, gets drawn on with marker, etc.

@Hairy_hen: You are very right. This is why it pays to have second and third opinions.

@baronlandocalrissian: the way you describe makes sense. Now, I feel like I am even more confused! :p

Should we start figuring out a way to tunnel under Skywalker Ranch and steal the original negatives?

I think this quote needs to be seen again:

"In this case, for all three films, we used interpositive elements that had been made directly from the camera negative. Other film transfers might be done from internegatives made from the interpositive, or from low-contrast prints, but we preferred the IP's for these transfers, because that's the earliest generation usable"

"One small difference from the original films is that in letterbox transfers we prefer to put any subtitles in the black border beneath the actual picture area. Thus we didn't use the same interpositive as the theatrical one, because that one contains subtitling already. In tracking down the elements, we found that the only ones in the vault were ones with subtitles- these clearly weren't the first generation off the camera neg because they had to have the subtitles burned in. So a massive search was undertaken and the first generation IP's were found in a special vault having only opticals in Los Angeles."

"A Mark IIIC with a 4:2:2 digital output [telecine] was used."

"[We used] a noise reduction and dirt concealment device made by Digital Vision, a company in Sweden. Their DVNR-1000 is a very powerful noise reducer for reducing film grain. Especially on the two earlier movies the film grain was very high."

So, let's take this apart based on what is said.

-Previous pre-1993 transfers did not use this "original" IP. They are theorized as using internegatives or print masters, which is probably true. There was also a new IP made for home video in 1985, I believe.

-These are not the theatrical IPs. The theatrical IPs have the English subs burned in.

-All the IPs/prints they could find in the vault had the subs burned in.

-The blank IPs used for the transfer were found in a vault used for storing optical elements in L.A.

So, there are a number of deductions and questions one can extract here. First is this:

-Is this IP actually a different lineage than the "theatrical IP" with subs? If it isn't that means the process of printing Star Wars went like this:

negative>IP (blank)>IN (blank)>IP (subs)>IN (subs)>release print (subs)

That's an awful lot of generational copying! This seems pointless. A more logical way to do it would be this.

negative> IP (blank)

negative> IP (subs)>IN (subs)>release print (subs)

In other words, make two branches. One is intended for theatrical release, with subs. The other is just a straight backup of the negative, blank. You can use it for video, or just as a backup. Maybe this is what foreign prints were made from, using the highly convoluted first process I listed. Maybe this is why foreign prints tend to look a bit rougher, because of the extra two generations? (or is that my imagination/poor storage?)

-It is noted that these IPs were excessively grainy. Is this just a lot of dirt because they were essentially lost in some warehouse in L.A. for a decade and a half?

-If these had been basically lost until they dug them up in 1993--then what the hell were the previous videos being made from? Because they are "blank" as well. One answer may be that they were the INs/print masters derived from this blank IP. All the vault IPs were subbed. But he doesn't say anything about the INs or low-con masters. Maybe they found blank prints that were internegatives or low-contrast print masters, but they were looking for the IP these were made from but couldn't find them, then finally discovered them in a separate warehouse.

-This doesn't answer the question of why they are so grainy. I don't believe it's just dirt, although they are definitely dirty too. Even the guy says grain was a problem, not dirt.

-If the earlier home video transfers used later-generation material derived from this (e.g. the IN and the low-con print derived from that IN)...then why does some of them, notably the 1982 transfer, not have that negative tear (the reason we got on this). If this 1993 transfer is from an original IP made before all the others, why does it have the tear while the 1982 one doesn't, even though that tear was there at some point in 1977? The fact that the 1982 print doesn't have the tear should indicate that that particular print is in fact the earliest one made, as it predates the tear. That print is also blank. So, that would mean that there actually is another blank IP from an earlier time (which also looks less grainy, from the captures).

Based on that, none of this really adds up does it? I do have one theory, which is perhaps unlikely. That theory is that the 1982 blank print is actually the original IP. So where did the blank IP they used come from? No idea. But maybe it was not actually original but was created at a later date from a later IP, which means it actually is the same as a positive release print: original lost IP>IN (used for previous videos)>IP used in 1993.

This would better explain it's grain. But if that's the case...what happened to the original IP? If the only blank material in the vault is INs and print masters, what happened to the IP those were made of? And how convenient that they just happen to find a blank IP hidden at another location (thus giving their story credibility...there was no blank IPs in the vault because it had been stored at the optical warehouse). The only way this would make sense is if that original IP had been junked due to over-use. But if all previous videos were made from the INs etc, that means it was never used. So the only other answer is that it just disappeared. This seems a bit too convenient.

Hell, maybe it's just a case of the films being grainier than anyone realized. This stuff can drive someone mad.

Another worthwhile though is that he says all the "elements" in the vault had subs. By elements does he just mean IPs? If so, why say elements? This seems to imply that every copy of the film in their vault had subs. So again: where did the previous videos get their stuff from? Did these guys just not look in the right place? Wasn't there a record of where the print was for the video release made by the same company only a few years earlier? If they just weren't looking in the right place that would lend credence to the pre-1993-IP=clean-version, 1993-IP=grainy-version theory. But it's hard to believe they didn't have access to the previous film materials. But it kind of seems like he is saying that.

I would say Star Wars and Empire are. I never like answering that question because I like a lot of movies, but as a default I say the original two Star Wars films. It's probably true, as I watch them every few weeks/months for my entire life and obsess over them to the point of writing a textbook on their origins, so it would be hard to argue otherwise. I don't know of any film I've watched even half as much as ANH. I'm sure I have literally seen it hundreds of times by now, and I'm still not bored.

Didn't these just surface on the internet like two weeks ago? This guy probably just printed them on to photo-paper.

 It looks like he is implying that the sub-title burn-ins were printed into the internegative. But he says other videos used the internegatives, and those were blank with electronic subtitles. Same with if they used the archival low-con prints.

So, number one where were they getting their prints, and number two if they were all blank too, then just when did the theatrical subtitles get printed in? In the release print printing stage at the very end?

I don't really know what is normal regarding subtitle printing processes so I can't say if this is usual or makes sense.

Also, it makes sense now knowing the 1993 print was different from the previous ones, and the ones made for the 1985 home video IP. I had no idea. It was a source that was brand new to home video! That's why it is so grainy compared to other ones. It wasn't the same print. It wasn't just that the transfer made the grain more apparent, these were just grainier prints that had never been used before.

But what totally contradicts this is that these are supposedly the original IPs! The earliest generation source possible. So that doesn't make sense. How could the earlier generation be grainier than later? But he even remarks at how grainy the prints are, almost like it was surprising. They had to use heavy DVNR machines as he said. So, why is the grain only a problem when they go back to the earliest generation source? It should be the least grainy of them all.

My theory is that maybe that print isn't what they thought it was.

Damn, I forgot about that whole credit thing. Someone needs to make a map of all this, or perhaps some sort of family tree, showing how the copies of the film reproduced and where each transfer came from.

Something like this:

Negative

|                                             |                                                           |

771A (1st IP)                         772A (Second IP Credit Variant 1)     772B (Second IP Credit Variant 2)

|                                                                                                          |            

771B (May 1977 Archival print)                                                        Puggo 16mm

|

1982 Video, 1986 JSC

msycamore said:

Maybe it appeared on re-release prints pre-ANH splice in, we don't know if the sources we have are from the first run, even though they are the original '77 film versions.

This is a good point, but even if it is true it doesn't explain how the 1982 and 1989 transfers have them, because those surely were not done in early/mid-1977 before the tear happened.

One possibility is that those video transfers were based off some sort of early IP. Then a second IP was made in later 1977 because the original one had worn out. This seems a little too convenient and if it were so those transfers would look awful due to wear and tear (the reason the original IP was retired), and it also would make little sense to use an old, battered IP (if they didn't simply junk it when they retired it...which I suspect they did) when there was a healthy, newer one at their disposal.

The final possibility I can see is that those transfers are based off of a 1977 archival print made before the release, as often is done, before the tear occurred.

I have a hard time swallowing this at first because it seems pretty convenient that every single 1977 source managed to record the tear. But it could be true. We know they had to make at least a second IP, and if it were to be done at any time it would have been mid to late 1977 when the film was at it's peak of popularity and print-circulation. If the bootlegs were recorded in September or so, it could have been for a late batch of prints that were struck from a second IP made from a now-battered original negative that now had the tear. Meanwhile, the 1982 video used a print master made in 1977 when the film was first finalized and thus before the tear was present.

It might be useful to catalogue the transfers that lack the tear. So far it looks like we have

-1982 original home video transfer

-1989 JSC

The GOUT seems to lack it, but this is probably just due to DVNR. Is it possible the aforementioned two transfers had some sort of filter too? This seems very far-fetched, especially because I don't think there really was such technology in 1982, and the JSC looks like it is the least-filtered of any video release ever. I'm struggling to come up with situations whereby the tear was there in 1977 but not on two unique transfers at both ends of the 1980s. Are both those two transfers from two distinctly different prints? This might be a good starting point. Would it also be possible to get screengrabs? I don't have either at my disposal.

msycamore said:

You have images of it here: http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Smear-free-93/post/480671/#TopicPost480671

It's still a little mystery how the source which the '82 videorelease and JSC was taken from not have them.

I was going to say, maybe it means that the negative tear was ripped after the 82 and JSC transfers were made, but then Puggo's transfer has it.

http://savestarwars.com/vlcsnap-2011-09-22-19h42m45s234.png

Yup, I just checked it and that shot is the one with the huge gash right through R2D2, it looks like the tear was held back together with glue. That's why it is so DVNR'd to death for the 1993 master, to hide it, you can't even see it on the GOUT. No doubt this would have been replaced for the 1997 with a replica from an alternate source, and this is assuredly the reason for the framing difference, although the precise reason might never be known (e.g., whether the alternate source itself had a shifted framing, whether they had to shift the framing for some other technical reason like edge damage, or whether they just decided to shift it for aesthetic reasons).

What's weird is that they could shift it one way or the other in both the 1977 negative and the 1997 negative. There isn't any more top/bottom room (the 2004 release does have a hair's height of opening up vertically, but it's like that throughout, it's just a normal thing that happens from transfer to transfer), so that means the shot hasn't been blown up uniformly. It doesn't make sense why there would be so much extra horizontal space in both 1977 and 1997 versions. Was the 1977 negative actually a dupe blow-up to get tighter framing and the 1997 version went back to the wider original camera negative? If so, and they tried to match the tighter cropping, then why abandon this match by shifting the image horizontally? Aesthetics? It does look better centred. I dunno, it's weird, but it has to do with the torn original negative, I know that.

I may have an answer.

Wasn't that the one shot with that really big negative tear on it? If so, they would have replaced it with a duplicate material, maybe the IP, which might have had slightly tighter framing just from being copied.

@walking_carpet:

Yeah, as far as I can tell Lucas and Scorsese are mainly like friends-of-friends. They didn't go to school together or anything since they were at opposite ends of the country, but they both got famous and started making films at the same time, they crossed paths with some frequency, and they had a lot of mutual friends, namely Coppola and Brian DePalma, so they would always be at the same parties and ceremonies. And, of course, Marcia was Scorsese's editor for most of the 70s, which probably cemented any kind of bond more than anything, even if it brought some level of unspoken tension.

But it's more a professional relationship than a personal friendship. Most people Lucas is linked to are like this, Coppola being the one exception. Even with Spielberg, they were never super close, they just work together. It's not like Spielberg ever visits the Ranch just for a beer with Lucas so they can shoot the shit, it's always for a rough-cut-screening or a script meeting or something. I think rather it's just a case of having a circle of trusted colleagues and when you start getting older you start appreciating these people who have been with you in life through all the years and ups and downs, so even though Lucas and Scorsese were never friends and had totally different lifestyles, there is a certain bond there if anything through sheer time. But yeah, I wouldn't say they are particularly close, they just run in the same social circle and have been around each other a long time.

I would care if they were unavailable, as they would be very noteworthy historic curiosities. I would want the altered scenes available as extras at least, but if you are going to do that then you might as well branch them back in; after all, if it was good enough to release in theatres, it should be good enough to let people see on video. People here go nuts over any sort of "alternative cut" of the films, this would be a holy grail of sorts if it had never been released, and I think most people would agree that at least some of the alterations were welcome and enjoyable.

I don't know what we would do about preserving it if were never released on video though--a theatre cam bootleg? I don't think there ever was one. Probably we'd just go by stills and highly detailed accounts of the film, probably confirmed by 35mm collectors. Probably eventually someone would throw up a 35mm print and film the screen and then leak the footage on Youtube so you have a crude representation of the changed scenes. I don't think there would be a huge fervour over it all like with the OOT though, it would like the way the deleted scenes or Holiday Special was treated, e.g. highly sought after and enough to make you buy a new boxset but not any sort of requirement.

One person "remembers" that scene based on decades-olds memories conflating deleted-scene-pics, parts from the comic or novel, or just plum made up (I mean, Lando had to go out there and get Luke, so it's natural to imagine how that would have gone).

Then, based on the suggestion from that one guy, it triggers or creates the same phenomena in others.

It actually happens all the time.

Notice it's "when I saw it in the theater" (thirty-one years ago!) or "on TV when I was five or six". Or they had it on tape but haven't seen the tape in twenty years. Always, without fail. It's always some vague half-remembered thing from early childhood or from so long ago that most of the people reading the posts weren't even alive yet. This is no coincidence.