Star Wars: The Complete Saga (1977-2005)

[captveg]

Originally Posted by Bobbyjoe766

When the 40th anniversary passes by and still nothing,then what?

Then we wait until Episode IX's release in 2019 as the next New Hope.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Nicolawicz

Keep in mind that in a lot of cases they had to degrade the image to make it look real (the shots came out too sharp from the optical printer), though.

'twas ever thus with VFX, so many people clamour for 4K rez stuff these days but it can look too sharp and clean so a little bit of dirtying down does no-one any harm. I'm confident they'll still be able to retain the essence and intent of whatever shot, like on Blade Runner where they went back to the large-format 65mm comps for the VFX - though I'm not sure that actual 8/35 comps exist for Star Wars. Did the optical printer deliver an 8/35 dupe neg which then had to be blown down separately for 4/35 anamorphic?

(If so then that might explain why the now badly faded CRI stock was used for some of the VFX, as instead of having to take the composited 8/35 dupe neg, reduce it to 4/35 positive (inc anamorphic squeeze) and then run off a dupe neg to slug into the conformed 35mm neg cut, they must have used the CRI when they were pressed for time to bypass the positive step, going from 8/35 neg to 4/35 neg in one generation.)

[Nicolawicz]

Actually, I'm not sure if they did it in Star Wars. This is from The Making of The Empire Strikes Back:

"We were able to design a printer for doing bluescreen work and it has the finest possible optics that could be achieved within the time frame," Edlund says. "We designed what is actually a four-headed, optical beam-splitter printer. It takes two pairs of VistaVision projectors, each pair with a relay lens that is distortion-free between it and an anamorph that then takes the VistaVision image and reduces it to a two-to-one anamorphic ratio suitable to intercut with the film, which we shot in Panavision. This lens has exceeded our expectations. In about 30 to 40 percent of the shots, we have actually had to degrade the image in order to make it look real."

[iamsometal]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I do think it'll be the original. It might even be "the original rebuilt using current technology to recomp the VFX and stabilize mattes and whatnot". Purists will sniff and turn their noses up, but **** 'em: if it's the original cut of Star Wars looking as good as it can possibly look then thank you sir may I have another?

This this this this this this this.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Nicolawicz

Actually, I'm not sure if they did it in Star Wars. This is from The Making of The Empire Strikes Back:

"We were able to design a printer for doing bluescreen work and it has the finest possible optics that could be achieved within the time frame," Edlund says. "We designed what is actually a four-headed, optical beam-splitter printer. It takes two pairs of VistaVision projectors, each pair with a relay lens that is distortion-free between it and an anamorph that then takes the VistaVision image and reduces it to a two-to-one anamorphic ratio suitable to intercut with the film, which we shot in Panavision. This lens has exceeded our expectations. In about 30 to 40 percent of the shots, we have actually had to degrade the image in order to make it look real."

They definitely used VistaVision on Star Wars and built an optical printer for that purpose, using old VistaVision movements to create a jury-rigged printer called the 'Dykstraflex' (after its creator), if memory serves. They then built a betterer one for Empire.

I just wonder if the built-in reduction to 35mm anamorphic noted in that quote from Dick Edlund (which is what I was questioning in my previous post) also applied to Star Wars, because that would mean no native 8/35 comps that they could go back to for scanning. So if they wanted to get the large format VFX at a higher resolution then they'd have to recomposite it all from scratch. Hell, perhaps that's why this restoration really has taken so long...

[bobbyh64]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I do think it'll be the original. It might even be "the original rebuilt using current technology to recomp the VFX and stabilize mattes and whatnot". Purists will sniff and turn their noses up, but **** 'em: if it's the original cut of Star Wars looking as good as it can possibly look then thank you sir may I have another?

What does it mean to recomp VFX? Does that mean replacing them with CGI effects?

[bobbyh64]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Well, considering that the vast majority of UHD Blu-ray releases are 2K upscales I don't think that's a problem any more. And FYI Phantom Menace exists in its finished form as a 2K master even though it was shot on film, so that would have to be upscaled too (re-rendering the VFX is not an option because ILM can no longer read the project files, and redoing the VFX from scratch would mean a bill of tens of millions of dollars).

Why can't ILM read the project files?

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by bobbyh64

What does it mean to recomp VFX? Does that mean replacing them with CGI effects?

Short for "re-composite", as in scan the original background plates and VFX elements (ships, death stars, 'splosions etc) and relayer them onto each other digitally, rather than the old optical process which consisted of running several different strips of film with all these different elements through a series of projectors, beam-splitters and lenses (as described in Nicolawicz's post above) to combine them onto one piece of film.

So the effects elements themselves are the same, they've just been assembled digitally rather than optically which reduces the artefacts of the latter process like visible black outlines around objects, a lack of opacity meaning that you can see 'through' the effect, visible garbage mattes (little clear 'boxes' around effects) and so on.

Originally Posted by bobbyh64

Why can't ILM read the project files?

They simply don't have compatible software any more. This they found out when doing the 3D conversion for Phantom Menace.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by bobbyh64

If you've experienced super blue Hoth for 36 years, that would mean Hoth was always super blue, since Empire is 36 years old.

Well I didn't go see it in the theater when I was 0 years old, so I've only ever seen it on TV. Growing up that meant CRT super cool TVs and today it means blue Special Edition master. It is what it is.

There are lots of movies I had to get used to being less blue when I finally got a TV with more accurate color temp.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Nicolawicz

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...ostcount=56295

As I said - the film stills in the magazine (not publicity shots) were even bluer.

Not to mention it's not supposed to have that yellow soupy noise either. A scan from an old film print on a PC monitor is not like how it's supposed to look new and projected.

Originally Posted by Galactus123

That image doesn't mean anything. It matters how it looks like in the movie.

It reflects how the movie is supposed to look.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

I can post lots of sources showing how much more white Hoth originally looked throughout the scenes.

Stuff from 1980? Shots from the film? What's stopping you?

[bobbyh64]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

'twas ever thus with VFX, so many people clamour for 4K rez stuff these days but it can look too sharp and clean so a little bit of dirtying down does no-one any harm. I'm confident they'll still be able to retain the essence and intent of whatever shot, like on Blade Runner where they went back to the large-format 65mm comps for the VFX - though I'm not sure that actual 8/35 comps exist for Star Wars. Did the optical printer deliver an 8/35 dupe neg which then had to be blown down separately for 4/35 anamorphic?

(If so then that might explain why the now badly faded CRI stock was used for some of the VFX, as instead of having to take the composited 8/35 dupe neg, reduce it to 4/35 positive (inc anamorphic squeeze) and then run off a dupe neg to slug into the conformed 35mm neg cut, they must have used the CRI when they were pressed for time to bypass the positive step, going from 8/35 neg to 4/35 neg in one generation.)

I thumbs upped this post even though I can hardly understand it. Any good resources for learning about this subject?

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Stuff from 1980? Shots from the film? What's stopping you?

Harmy's the best source. It's comical how you've been defending these crap transfers for years now, but THX ruuullles, right?

What will you say when the restored versions are released without the blue Hoth?

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

Harmy's the best source. It's comical how you've been defending these crap transfers for years now, but THX ruuullles, right?

Yeeeah. A fan bootleg is the definitive version for you.

In any case I just watched them over the weekend after watching ROGUE ONE and they look fine. Could they look better? Absolutely. Do they look like "crap"? Absolutely not.

What will you say when the restored versions are released without the blue Hoth?

And if they do?

[Martoto]

Still haven't downloaded one of those bootlegs. Every sample I've seen that's supposed to show me what I'm missing has only prompted me to say "Isn't outer space supposed to look black, instead of a very dark brown."

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Martoto

Still haven't downloaded one of those bootlegs. Every sample I've seen that's supposed to show me what I'm missing has only prompted me to say "Isn't outer space supposed to look black, instead of a very dark brown."

You could do worse than Harmy's "Despecialized" versions rather than the ones that are actually sourced from old prints, as he uses the Blu-rays as the "base" version and then edits in the original stuff where appropriate. That said, I've got a couple of his versions versions of ANH and the 2.1 revision is indeed a bit brown! The film cadence is all messed up on that one too, so I watch an earlier "build" of his project which has more obvious inserts for the original stuff (sometimes using upscaled elements from the non-anamorphic DVDs).

[imsounoriginal]

More than happy to stick with the LE DVDs til something better (and official) becomes available. The "when will they be released?" guessing game is just exhausting at this point.

[Geoff D]

It's not exhausting. 40th anniversary is where it's at, and has been ever since Disney took over and nothing major really happened for the 35th anniversary in 2012 (bcause LFL/Disney were too busy with the buyout, clearing the decks of the EU, setting up the new movies etc etc.

If my crystal ball is working then we'll get a very limited theatrical run in May/June next year with perhaps a home video debut in autumn the fall to drum up the hype for Ep VIII. If my crystal ball is not working then I'm taking it back for a refund.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Yeeeah. A fan bootleg is the definitive version for you.

In any case I just watched them over the weekend after watching ROGUE ONE and they look fine. Could they look better? Absolutely. Do they look like "crap"? Absolutely not.



And if they do?

Hahahaha.

Harmy's versions far closer mirror the originals compared to the rushed, sloppy, antiquated masters stamped with a worthless THX label.

Yes, they look like crap in the context of remasters from the similar era.

If they are going to release these approximating the original color timing, there really should be no blue because there is no evidence it existed. However, we'll have to see what they actually intend on releasing.

[ChipmunksDad]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

redoing the VFX from scratch would mean a bill of tens of millions of dollars).

Which would take about 30 second to recoup if they put them back out in theaters.