zombie84

Probably imdb.

Lee, I'm currently building a better "colour reference" page that will include a new pass at auto-colouring the GOUT, along with reference caps from the additional sources I mentioned. I'll hopefully have the SW section done before the weekend is over.

The sabers never illuminated anything though. They reflected light, but only to the camera. The lighting on Obi Wan's face in the cantina is just the light from the scene, it's not supposed to be from the saber--not even in the SE, as the ambient light in the PT looks very, very different and actually reflects colour onto surfaces. They just darkened down the scene so the sabre stands out more.

Yes, precisely. SW also has a rather high-key, slightly pastel-ish look to it, so you shouldn't go crazy with the contrast. If you look at some of the Technicolor photos, you get a better sense at how the contrast should look. There should be nice blacks and a sense of pop to the image, but it shouldn't be ridiculous or anything. Ultimately the GOUT has limits with how far you can increase the contrast before you start crushing the black detail too much.

Also, as for Empire colour references, aside from a saturated GOUT, you can compare two other relatively useful sources for colour:

-Puggo 8mm (this print in particular has terrific colour...possibly an LPP print)

-Theatrical bootleg telecine

The theatrical bootleg telecine has a really big pink shift in the highlights for most of it, but shows off a lot of the saturation. In general, it is consistent with a saturated GOUT, and is more for confidence than anything, but it might also be useful for knowing if you've gone too far or not enough.

Also, this is something that I posted in my thread on the colouring, but I recommend a bit of a contrast bump to the image. The GOUT is relatively flat, I don't know if the G-Force gamma change solves it completely, but the DVD itself definitely could use a bit of a kick here.

This could be very interesting. Also, the wording in your post is a bit unclear--are you de-greening Owen's shirt in that shot? Because I think even on the IB print there is a bit of green going on there. It might actually be the way the print/timing ended up making it look. Actually, most original 35mm/70mm sources exhibit a green tint throughout the film. One thing to be a bit careful of is making things look ideal, because the authentic colouring might not have been as nice/"correct" as we would like.

For the Binary sunset, you will of course have to eyeball it. But sources to base the judgement off:

-Puggo 16mm (the print is massively desaturated keep in mind)

-Theatrical telecine bootleg (moth3r)

-Technicolor screening photo

-Capnap (16mm?) telecine bootleg

-Derann 8mm screencap (on my 8mm page)

These all show various levels of consistency in the colours, it's usually the brightness levels that vary around.

The GOUT is the master created in 1993 for the DC, but I believe the same master was used again for the 1995 faces.

I don't own any PAL releases, this is just from the screens posted by others. Maybe it's a ROTJ only thing, I thought I remembered screens from ANH as well, but maybe in that case I am remembering how Moth3r's ANH PAL has better verticle resolution than the GOUT.

Fink, you've finally found a creative outlet for your humourous urges! :D

Seriously, though this is fantastic. Love the clips.

Also, with regards to Obi Wan falling, don't change it. There is a sort of philosophy that early Simpsons writers went by, that Family Guy later copied first--if something is funny, repeat it until it's no longer funny, and then keep repeating it and it becomes funny again, only moreso. An example is Sideshow Bob stepping on the rakes and grumbling. Funny the first two or three times, then after the fourth it becomes played and you want it to stop, but then after the seventh it becomes so ridiculous that it's funnier than ever, and by the ninth time in a row it happens it's utterly genious. Family Guy did this less successfully (like when Peter stubs his shin and goes "sshhh...ahhhh!!" a million times), but I thought the Obi Wan clip was good and also parodies how ridiculous it is that in the actual film he really does fall an unrealistic amount of height. I thought maybe you would have one of him jumping up and up and up to get back to Maul! :p

Anyway, good stuff!

There is no non-GOUT original crawl, except the virtual Editdroid one that pales in comparison. But it would be pretty easy to simply leave the hue adjust code out for the first minute or whatever, rather than working with different video files.

I mentioned this in the other thread, but its probably the limited scope release of the second 400' Ken Films digest. Cool nonetheless though.

Your Technicolor version is looking pretty fantastic. What/how did you use to correct it and when is it coming out?

Actually, the PAL GOUT has a tiny bit of extra (verticle?) detail. I thought it was just the exact same as the NTSC for years, but there is a difference apparent in some shots, though it is almost imperceptible.

With regards to the title crawl colour shift, I can only guess that this is because the GOUT is so red-shifted G-force green-shifted it to get back to more natural colours. Unfortunately, the opening crawl and fly-by is a new(ish) transfer and not part of the 1993 master, so it has no red-shift in need of correction, therefore it simply gets an extra green boost. If you really wanted to correct this, you could simply turn off the hue adjust for that one extended shot and it should look normal again. But it's not a huge deal to leave it in.

Video Collector said:

none said:

ESB_TP Notes

On first listen thought ESB_TP sounded sped up, but then I start getting confused about the capture system. 

This is just regular PAL speedup. In the Telecine process, the original 24 frames are captured, but on playback it is shown at 25 fps. PAL does not introduce any extra frames at all, just runs them 4% faster. The pitch change of the audio is imperceptible to most people without a side-by side comparison. Drives some people up the wall, I know. The PAL speed up is proof-positive that this was not camcorded off a projection.

 You are right, but PAL speedup has nothing to do with whether it was camcorded or not. Since this was a British print, the person doing the camcording would not have been using an NTSC camera but a local PAL one. (although just because a tape is PAL doesn't mean the source was PAL anyway, but it would make little sense for a Brit to be doing this with a foreign camera).

But because of the excellent registration, uniform exposure, colour information, detail level, etc., this is undoubtedly a telecine, and as it is a british print it was probably done locally, transfered to the PAL format. Given the quality of this, I wouldn't be surprised if it also got copied to NTSC for overseas use.

I think the english version was used for the single.

Personally, I really don't like Lapti Nek and never have. The directing and action in the scene is boring, the puppets are awful and the music sucks. Its still a muppet musical, the SE just exaggerats it. Jedi Rocks isn't very good, but if I had to choose I would probably go with the SE version, I find the parodic silliness more effective than the lameness of the original. The only thing I don't like about it is that that level of CG (noteably the close up of Sy Snootles) is not consistent with the rest of the film, so the sequence seems "dropped in". 

Ken Films did a second release after the success of the original 200ft release, which they also put out in scope, so probably it's that.

My thoughts are that it will be the exact same thing, visually (minus the CG TPM Yoda, which was already done as a ROTS test, and the new TPM timing because that film needed to be newly transfered). I could be wrong.

Then I guess that would mean that the shot lengths were just longer. Even the soundtrack is the same and everything.

Having finally listened to the file, it does sound like that scene is the same as the 35mm version on first impression. Someone will have to do a closer comparison.

So is it the same length just with different editing for the first 2/3? Or is the audio for that scene on the 70mm shorter than the normal version?

So, this is something I always wondered, is Luke in the bacta tank missing the first shot (or whatever the missing shot is) like it is always reported? You should be able to tell by listening.

You can get a dual layered DVD burner for US$50, and they start cheaper than that. I've frequently seen them priced at $39, but you might be able to find one cheaper than that. It's not a bad investment.

Listening to the audio, you should be able to pick out exactly the length of the cuts to those few shots too. Neat.

One of the few fixes that the X0 Project produced was a landspeeder shot, I don't know if they ever released that (Zion said he would), but that could be another source.

Also, I'm not totally convinced that the 2004 DVD cannot be used for donor parts. You would have to filter it to match--softening and probably some light grain--but I don't think it would be so jarring if you just need a shot or two. Of course, if you are starting with the 1997 SE then this becomes unnecessary. Are there screens of the 97SE V2? I don't believe I am familiar with it and I'm curious what the detail level is.

I really like what Ady did there; looks fairly similar to my own second test on that page. It's amazing how much nicer the GOUT looks when you just restore the colours. It's like how when sick people lose all the colour in their skin and look grey, once you see them healthy again you realise how bad they looked.

For what it is worth, I would recommend a light contrast bump in addition to the colour restoration. The GOUT is a bit flat, probably due to the age of the tape and the fact that this was intended for 1990s television. If they were to transfer the print today the contrast would look different. Nothing too serious, because SW has a high-key pastel look, but just a few points of increased contrast I feel it gives the image a little something.