zombie84

I'm not entirely sure, but I think raw negative is traditionally edited into 1000 foot reels. Projection is a bit different though, release prints for features are typically 6 reels (or more, depending on length) and the standard length is 2000 feet. I'm not sure when the cigarette burns would be put in and what length the IP would be, but it wouldn't surprise me if it was the 2000' length with the burn marks for change-overs. Release prints are ultimately duped straight from it--the only reason the Internegative exists is because you can't print positive from a positive, so I would assume that the IP is basically theatre-ready. But maybe that all gets done in the internegative so that the IP is more "prestine".

Does the IP/GOUT even have cigarette burns? It would be hard to tell if the reel changes on the IP are the same as the release prints unless there is noticeable frame cutting (as the heads and tails of reels sometimes lose a frame or two to damage over the years) but we'd be talking a difference of two or three frames here--and only if they had to splice out a damaged head/tail frame.

If you have the theatrical telecine you can literally see the reel change--two series of cigarette burns and then about 10-30 missing frames at the head and tail of the changeover so there's a big jump cut, along with an audio pop. You can hear the jumps on the 70mm audio bootleg too. You could probably just look up the frame rate on GOUT in the corresponding cut. But it would make a good confirmation tool to the times you have listed above.

Baronlando said:

zombie84 said:

For one performance that late, they would lose money if they made new prints.

That was the only time they did it as a simultaneous thing in 13 places, but they continued to do it sporadically in big cities from '85 to '91-ish. I was told it was  for charity and to show off the quality of a THX presentation. It seemed possible they'd go the whole nine.

 Hmm, very true in that case.

For one performance that late, they would lose money if they made new prints.

msycamore said:

zombie84 said:

The shots would never match just by editing them together, way too soft and noisy...

No they wouldn't match easily, they also have different framing but I really think you could get some good results if you match the overall colors and contrast/sharpness of the Gout picture,

Maybe. I'm not totally convinced, but it might be one of those things you have to try and see before you know whether or not it works. You might also have to be selective to the most offending instances (4-eyed stormtrooper comes to mind).

dark_jedi said:

@zombie

"If you can't deal with that, don't publically post it." first off who the hell are you to even say that LOL

 I'm not the one bitching every time someone has a piece of well-informed and constructive criticism.

and my problem with you is this, you KEEP saying the same things over and over, and you keep complaining about an OLD version, I mean really if you want to complain about the new version, well that is a different matter, but you are not, so how do you know that all the stuff you keep bitching about isn't already addressed?

Again--I wasn't saying this set was no good because of the old version. A discussion came up which made reference to the old version, which I contributed some information on (coloring on GOUT, DC and the g-force scripts). It was also said that the new one used the yellow-shifted version,  although that wasn't what I was commenting on per se, but as far as people "in the know" are reporting it seems to be relevant anyway.

I really don't want to sit here and argue with you anymore because frankly, it is not worth it, you are very heavily biased to the editdroid set and that is fine, I am heavily biased towards this set, so grab the audio from the groups and be done with it already.

Later dude

I'm actually not heavily biased towards the ED, it's far from ideal, it just happens to be the best there is at the moment. My comments here are in the interest of helping you surpass that version. You need to stop getting your panties in a wad every time someone points out something that could stand to be improved. Our community is awesome because there are a lot of knowledgable people here and we don't let things slip by that are less than ideal. I'm not saying your efforts are mediocre, they are quite impressive. I'm just saying--I have been very respectful and have been offering constructive remarks. You seem to have a knee jerk reaction whenever I have a criticism, even if it's simply part of another conversation and I'm not meaning it in a negative light. Just relax.

Indiana Jones is owned by Paramount, no wonder. :p

My memory of TOD is the strongest since that's my favourite (yeah, sue me), and I can tell you that film looks exactly the same as the DVD, at least in general terms, so as far as I am concerned the disks look the way they are supposed to, more or less. There is probably less grain than there should be because of Lowry, but only a bit (the prints I've seen, especially the first two films, have been a bit dirty because of their age...which adds its own charm, I guess).

The DVD might be a tiny bit red-biased in the skintones but the DVDs all look more or less like the 35mm prints. That's just a general impression, if you scrutinized side-by-side screencaps no doubt you would find differences, but in general it looks the same. The first two films have very vivid saturation and really deep blacks with a nice contrast and warm hues and that's replicated nicely on the DVDs; the third film is a bit brighter and less vivid, as is the DVD IMO.

dark_jedi said:

zombie84 said:

Wasn't the GOUT already yellow-biased? Maybe that's why I thought the cantina scene on DJ's version looked so yellow, if it's been pushed even further that way. Doesn't look right to me.

How the HELL can you nitpick something you have NOT even seen yet? I have posted no images or samples, your bitching is getting really old now, why don't you just be happy with your editdroid v3 set and be done with it, this set will SUCK for you, you DON'T want it, and you DON'T need it, damn enough already.

this will be my last post for a while, I need a damn break from this shit for a while.

 I was referring to the old one. And more specifically, to g-force, since it was his script in question (which you based your transfers on). I was just commenting that it doesn't surprise me, given the yellowness I perceived in the previous versions. Its good that you have already dealt with this according to msycamore.

I'm sorry the project is stressing you out. I am offering constructive criticism here, which ultimately is intended for the benefit of the project, everyone who does this stuff has trial and error and things they miss and varying opinions on matters. If you can't deal with that, don't publically post it. Besides which, I was commenting on a previous version that wasn't even instigated by you anyway, as I understand the yellow-bias was something from g-force.

Wasn't the GOUT already yellow-biased? Maybe that's why I thought the cantina scene on DJ's version looked so yellow, if it's been pushed even further that way. Doesn't look right to me.

The DC itself is actually red-biased. It's also less saturated than the GOUT, and has wider latitude in the contrast. The GOUT represents a good, punched up version of the DC, but IMO every time people try to push it further the results don't look natural.

Yeah, the Bloor cinema here in Toronto screens the Indy trilogy almost every year. I've seen the original Indy trilogy three times in cinemas now, which is saying a lot since I was born in 1984 and thus could never see them in their initial run. All three times have been experiences I cherish, and the audiences are full of old and young people and it's just a great time. I can't understand Lucas when it comes to Star Wars. He's gotten so wrapped up in his world that he's lost the ability to step outside of it and be a normal person.

dark_jedi said:

you guys are always free to make your own audio, it is very easy to rip it and replace with your own, I will use whatever bit rate it takes to put these on there, I want this to be my last set I ever do, because all I really care about is getting a retail Blu-ray release anyway, so I want to get this as good as I can and get as many different audio options as I can, and the video is at 6500 and that will not change.

so if you don't like what I put out, like I said above, make your own.

DJ,

I think the dilemma is that a few of the audio files derive from your raw masters, so all subsequent versions would be derived from whatever you put on here. Thus, IMO it is important to put priority on the newly available mixes here--theatrical and 1985. Unless you are willing to give out the raw files. But a lot of people probably won't even know to ask you. So, for what its worth, if you get into space issues I would sacrifice the bitrate on whatever pre-existing sources you are using so that the new mixes will be in as best quality possible, as this will probably be the source for everyone else to rip from.

Also, this is a question for the video side:

I was impressed by a screenshot posted in another thread of your latest pass, but I see that there is still niceable softening of the image. Do you know what causes this? Is it the anti-aliasing that smoothes out everything trying to get rid of the jaggies, or is it the grain removal that does it trying to scrub out the grain? Or is it both? Or are you basically just using g-force's scripts and don't know too much about the technical side of things?

The shots would never match just by editing them together, way too soft and noisy, but if someone could do what Adywan did for his "recreations" which is rotoing and compositing the X9 sections over the smears on a GOUT plate, it might work. Tall order on a technical level though. Any takers? :P

CS: Not to my knowledge. This isn't official, but my impression is that SW is not allowed to be screened unless directly authorized by LFL, and that is only granted to exceptional circumstanes (Academy, AFI, etc.). It's all very Stalinist. You have to make a request to the central committe and they review the case, send you the print or file and then you have to return it within a set period. All circulating prints were recalled (and, supposedly, destroyed) prior to the SE. Since 2004, my impression was that only the 2004 SE has been screened. I don't recall any special screenings between 1997-2003, but I could be ignorant.

Of course, there are illegal and semi-legal prints that get screened, on a semi-private basis. Dale Pollock has a 70mm print of Star Wars, which I think he screens for students at USC once a year. Probably he was given the print when writing Skywalking (as there was no SW home video in the 1980-82 period in which he wrote it), and just kept it all these years.

Well, for the Academy screening it is possible that they made a special print for that occassion--or better yet, just showed the 1997 SE print. But it may very well have been a digital projection, as it was at Celebration and other events. A community park screening wouldn't have a print though, it's likely that they don't even have the ability or resources to have a 35mm system set up there in the first place.

Toy Story 3 was theatrically released in 35mm.

The 2004 SE never was. It's been shown at various events, but always from a digital projection. Because it was 100% digitally made and intended for a video market.

^^

Agreed. 192 is unacceptable, IMO, I don't even put MP3s on my iPod at that bitrate. There should be enough space to start at 224 and see how much higher you can push it, especially for the PCM tracks, with 320 being an ideal figure.

These days, for these sort of community events showing older movies, they just project a video (literally, a DVD). Doesn't necessarily mean that's what this is, but it's possible too.

If its a print it will be the 1997 version.

Mielr said:

zombie84 said:
A lot of people seem to like dark_Jedi's burns of the g-force script, though I have very serious reservations about them for their detail and grain removal and would not recommend them for this reason.

I think if you watched them in their entirety you would be pleasantly surprised. AFAIK G-force was very cautious/conservative with any grain removal (even on the older scripts).

 I did. The older versions (of dark_jedi's burns) look horrendous in terms of smoothing and softening; he was extremely aggressive in terms of grain removal. However, his latest version seems to have corrected all the mistakes of the previous release, based on the one cap I have seen. It's a lot to go on just one cap, but it looks like the de-grain/detailing issue has been re-done so as to be very mild. With the great audio options he is working on it looks to be the best version in the making, but we'll have to see when it finally gets out.

dark_jedi said:

V3

Now that looks like a film! I'm glad to see there are major changes being made in the grain removal scripting. The newer Editdroid has a tad better fine detail, but only when you subject the caps under a microscope; the slightly less grain and anti-aliasing is a worthwhile tradeoff. It will be interesting to see this in motion. :)

A lot of people seem to like dark_Jedi's burns of the g-force script, though I have very serious reservations about them for their detail and grain removal and would not recommend them for this reason.

My own vote goes for Editdroid's 2010 pass at Star Wars. "LFL Pwnage" is a good alternative, even if it is DVD-5.

For ESB you have Adywan's theatrical re-construction. It's technically not 100% accurate but I doubt you will notice, and it's quite beautiful.

ChainsawAsh said:

On a quick skim-through, it seems to be perfect in some places, and close-but-not-quite-there in others.

Have you been syncing to the video, or to the GOUT audio?  I feel it'd be easier to sync to the audio instead of the video, myself - you can tell when audio's out of phase by listening to both simultaneously much more easily than guessing if the audio is drifting or not from watching it with the video.

 If you can get waveforms of both, you could probably match them up. Obviously the levels will be different (the original theatrical audio I'm sure is quieter because of the volume competition of the 90s) but the sound itself should be the same so that you could match up the waveforms visually.

Can you just sync it the way editors do when there is no slate clap or time-code-slate? You basically just find something in the scene that substitutes for a slate clap. So if something gets banged, something drops, something explodes, any sort of clear picture-sound correspondance that you can pin down to a frame or two. It'd be a lot of work, but if you basically do a check like this every five or ten minutes it could be a way to make sure nothing is out of sync.

A lot of people simply don't know audio, at least not well enough to fix an advanced problem. Video, yeah, everyone knows video, finding audio experts is a tough thing from my experience so I wouldn't take it too personally.