milo bloom

But isn't the source of those matte lines the contrast boosting or something done for home video formats? Pretty sure I've read comments from people that have seen theatrical prints of the originals that the matte lines don't show up when properly projected. I have no doubt the technology exists to make a Bluray transfer that doesn't show them.

And speaking of theatrical prints, that's whats going to be used to restore these if it ever happens. Pretty sure Robert Harris basically admitted he could get those and do the restoration with the remaining negatives when they announced those laserdisc transfer DVDs.

Jay G.

I think Robert Harris was saying that's what he could get his hands on. Lucasfilm likely has access to even better sources, like interpositives or the separation masters.

http://secrethistoryofstarwars.com/savingstarwars.html
More info:
http://savestarwars.com/filmpreservation.html


Here's info on one restoration that used the separation masters:
http://www.creativeplanetnetwork.com...bination/43980

hanshotfirst1138

Don't give them ideas.

Fuck that, if you can't do something correctly, don't do it at at all! A half-assed release isn't better than nothing, it's even worse. If Lucas hadn't released the 2006 release, while I certainly wouldn't like it, at least he would've stuck to his guns. That release almost made things worse in my eyes, those unrestored non-anamorphic versions were almost an even bigger insult, because now it's a catch-22 to say that it came out and didn't sell as well as they'd hoped. Of course Disney are in the driver's seat now, so we'll see.

I abandoned hope a long time ago.

"Entertainment" is hardly the word I'd use to describe the masochism of post-1997 Star Wars fandom.

Technically speaking, wasn't Lucas the guiding force behind all of the changes, good, bad, or indifferent? I don't know how Kershner, Kurtz, Marquand, and the many effects artists who worked on it felt about it, but as owner, he was of course the one who had final say.

In a perfect world, they'd not only do the seamless branching on that, but also include the multiple audio mixes. Granted, I'd prefer if the OOT versions got their own discs and had as much space allocated to the transfer as possible, but whatever, if I had it, I'd be happy either way, Blu-Ray has a lot of space.

Ideal, yes, but profitable for Disney in relation to the price it would cost to restore it? That is the question. Plus, weren't the versions transferred for the 2004 versions the new SEs, since the original footage still languishes unrestored?

That's fine, it's the three films released in 1977, 1980, and 1983 that are the current prime concern.

I don't know, I mean, if those were there originally, I think they should technically be preserved.

That's the idealized way to do it, present both and let the audience pick. I've always thought the way to go about it though was to release a big mega-pack and package the OOT only in that, forcing those who want it to pay the full three-digit price. I certainly wouldn't prefer that, but given how saturated the market is with Star Wars releases now, the average person probably wouldn't have much interest in the OOT. If the OOT did come outproperly, it'd pay goddamn near any price for it.

Didn't Harris actually volunteer his services and get vetoed by Lucas, who didn't want to restore the originals?

Why wouldn't Lucasfilm have the original camera negatives? At the very least, they must have something they could scan and restore.

sandman007

Is this something that most Star Wars fan know exists (honest question)?


http://gizmodo.com/long-lost-laserdi...s-s-1451058117

Supermallet

I'm confused, was this something that Lucasfilm struck for archival purposes? It couldn't have been commercially released, otherwise it would have seen the light of day long before now.

sandman007

From what I can tell, this disc was used as a demo for EditDroid, a "...LaserDisc-based system developed by Lucasfilm..."

I guess they used this for marketing purposes like "look what EditDroid can do for your LaserDiscs!" I wonder how significant are these 30 minutes of raw footage.

Alan Smithee

I saw that disc being sold on Ebay, it was listed for around $1000- didn't know anyone actually bought it. Looks like it was made for people in the industry who would be potential purchasers of the EditDroid. Maybe if I'd bought that disc I'd get some fame right now.

milo bloom

That's how I remember it. Tried to google it but it's mostly people just postulating what we're asking. If somebody were to dig into the forum archives from 2006 or so when the laserdisc transfers were revealed, we could probably be sure.

And I'd never seen that laserdisc. I wonder how many were made? Definitely something to watch for at the thrift shops now.

rocket1312

I don't think seamless branching would really be an option if the intention were to present the originals in their true, original form. There are way more changes in the SEs than I think most people realize. Granted, many of them are subtle and would probably be noticed by only the most hardcore fans, but they're there nonetheless. Seamless branching would either be way too complicated, or we would have a situation like Jay G. was mentioning, where the people producing the disc would have to make editorial decisions as to what needs to stay and what needs to go.

I've never been convinced that this argument is valid. Millions are spent every year on the restoration of films with only a fraction of the financial and cultural cache of the Star Wars franchise. Sure, this is a somewhat unique situation given that the original negatives were hacked to pieces during the original work on the SEs, but if any films have the ability to recoup the investment, it's the original trilogy. Lucasfilm is going to have to revisit the films at some point if they want usable versions for the future anyway. The masters used for the blu-rays are pretty pathetic (I'm not talking about the changes) and short sighted (1080p masters?! Really?). Why not clean up those original elements while they're at it?


As far as that laserdisc mentioned above goes, that was a demo disc used to show off Lucasfilm's Editdroid editing software. It was not commercially available. It supposedly includes about 25-30 minutes of rough footage of the Yoda scene in RotJ. There are some deleted scenes and alternate takes. The disc is already in the hands of some fans and I'm pretty sure efforts are underway to capture and share the footage.

Josh Z

I see your Schwartz is as big as mine. Now let's see how well you handle it.

hanshotfirst1138

It would depend on how interested they are in preserving the various version, Lucas has had so goddamn many, I guess it would be at their discretion to determine how they'd do it. I hope they'd go your way if they were going to do though, you certainly won't hear me disagreeing with that.

I think it's a variety of factors. First of all, there's the ridiculous oversaturation of the market. Lucas has released the Star Wars movies on various home video formats so many times, that if a new one came out proclaiming "But these have the originals!" I question how much interest the average consumer or the kid buying would have. It's clear from the many revisions its gone through since 1997 that most people don't much care and are willing to buy it either way, judging by the way the BR release broke records.

Given how obsessive Lucas has always been about doing everything digitally, why on earth did they only do a 1080p scan? That doesn't make much sense at all.

Do you know why they're the same size Josh? Because I am your father's brother's nephew's cousin's former roommate!

Anyway, on a tangential note, wasn't there a quite a bit of controversy about the mastering and coloring of the Blu-Ray release of Raiders?

Jay G.

Well, they did that with the LE DVDs, and those apparently sold well. And the original versions would be a much bigger selling point than the new commentary track the recent Blu-ray/DVD combo trilogy packs added as a new feature.

Also, when Disney regains distribution rights to the majority of the films in 2020, they'll want to do their own release, so it'd make sense for them to add on new features to help sell it to old fans.

Typically, including alternate cuts on a release isn't about so much appealing to the average consumer, who, as you point out, is likely going to buy it anyway, but to the dedicated fans. I mean, the Blade Runner release with 5 versions of the film isn't the one casual or average consumer is going to care about, they'll grab the 1 or 2-disc version, but it does appeal to the more hardcore fans. And that demographic may be numerous enough to make including such alternate cuts profitable.

The theory is that since Lucas was shooting Eps 2 and 3 on 1080p cameras, he felt 1080p was "good enough" for the entire saga.

Josh Z

Yes, the Blu-ray release of Raiders is very yellow now.

RocShemp

Interesting. I remember Spielberg announcing that the opening sequence was going to be brightened up (and, truth be told, I'd rather he had left it well enough alone) but I didn't realize changes were done to the rest of the film.

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/18041

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/18040

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/18094

hanshotfirst1138

In spite of Lucasfilm's "bonus material" BS, I have to at least partially assume that test the waters for an audience for the OOT in some fashion was at least part of the impetuous for releasing those things at all. I have no idea how well they sold or what the sales figures are, I wonder if it was enough to convince of the profitability of the OOT?

Yeah, but I don't want to wait that long !

That demographic obviously must profit studios somewhat given the many double dip releases which come out, especially for various cult titles, but Star Wars is in a bit of a weird position. Yes, it does have an obsessive cult fanbase, but it's also arguably the biggest franchise in the entire world, and I'd hazard a guess that most of the fanbase (Parent who buy stuff for their kids.) probably don't much care either way. Plus, the market has been so oversaturated with releases of the Star Wars movies that I wonder how many except the hardcore fans would care. But hey, I'm just shooting in the dark, I have no idea.

Maybe at the time, but to do a 1080p master sounds pretty shortsighted. Aren't most 35mm restorations done by mastering them into 4K? Hell, I even remember that when the Bond movies got released onto regular SD DVD, they mastered them that way. For a guy as obsessive as Lucas is about digital, that was damn stupid.

That is exceedingly peculiar, especially since the DVD release didn't have it. What the hell? I wonder what the impetus was, has there been any official word or anything? Was this the version used for the IMAX rerelease that my dumb ass didn't go and see?

That is damned odd, and very noticeable. I have the Blu-Ray of Jaws, and it's a real stunner, and I heard that ET and Close Encounters looked great too, I wonder what the deal is?

Josh Z

4k is now becoming the standard, but 2k was more common until recently. Still, better than 1080p.

Not all of the Bond movies were remastered in 4k. Only the seven Connerys, On Her Majesty's Secret Service, Live and Let Die, The Spy Who Loved Me and Moonraker were. The others were based on old video transfers, with some additional digital tinkering to try and clean them up a little.

Re: Raiders recoloring.

It's just another case of filmmaker revisionism. And yes, the IMAX theatrical release was sourced from the same master as the Blu-ray.

hanshotfirst1138

I've heard that 2K isn't a huge step up from 1080p, but in either case, Lucas should've at least mastered it that high. This whole thing is a mess.

VHS transfers, you mean? I knew that at least some 4K restoration was done only because of the special features on the discs themselves.

I thought that Spielberg was finally done with the revisionism judging by the release of the theatrical cut of E.T. and the at-long-last release of all three versions of CE3K. Apparently not just yet.

BuckNaked2k

You said a mouthful there.

Jay G.

1080p has a resolution of 1920x1080, while 2K has a resolution of 2048x1080, so 2K has an extra 128 pixels of horizontal resolution, an extra 7%, for a slightly wider aspect ratio of 1.90:1.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2K_resolution


No, there were a lot of video transfers done either explicitly for DVD resolutions, or done in HD for DVD mastering (usually 1080, sometimes 1080p, but also sometimes 1080i). The thinking was the HD masters could be used for current DVD releases, then re-used for a future HD disc release. The improvements in transfer technology, however, means that many studios are re-doing transfers for Blu-ray releases, either in HD or at a higher resolution like 4K.

The 2005 Bond DVDs were new transfers, but only the first 9 films were mastered in 4K, the rest were mastered in HD (presumably 1080p).
From:
http://commanderbond.net/2878/all-20...-new-dvds.html
The Blu-rays were apparently taken from those masters.

I'm always skeptical of the claims of intentional revisionism when looking at transfers that are universally re-tinted a certain color/amount for the whole film. This doesn't seem like revisionism, and more likely a mistake, like the person doing the color timing had their monitor improperly adjusted.

bluetoast

EditDroid was one of the early digital non-linear editing systems. Walter Murch talks a bit about them in his book on editing 'In the Blink of an Eye'. There are some videos demonstrating the features, pretty interesting. Not sure how the disc would demonstrate the EditDroid's capabilities though, unless the clips were edited on it, which is a possibility. One could edit from the disc, but I'm not sure what you'd gain from that if it's just random clips.

rocket1312

It's not just random clips. Most (all?) of the footage is from the Luke/Yoda scene from RotJ. It is comprised of multiple takes from different angles. It's exactly the kind of footage that would be used to show off editing.

bluetoast

Oh in that case that makes way more sense. For some reason I thought they were random.

John Pannozzi

So, hanshotfirst, what are your feelings on Greg Weisman co-exec. producing the new Star Wars Rebel animated series. Personally, my own fears are that like so many of Weisman's other shows, it'll only last two seasons

Anyone else interested in Infinites line of Star Wars comics that aren't canon (the Infinities versions of the OT, Tales, Tag and Bink, the Sergio Aragones one-shot, etc.)? Lots of cool comics creators worked on them.

milo bloom

I loved the Infinities take on the OT. One of my most re-read set of graphic novels (after the Dark Empire trilogy).

I had to look up Weisman, I didn't recognize his name, but I recognized the shows he's worked on. I'd say that's a pretty good pedigree.

hanshotfirst1138

There's one and only one Star Wars project I ever have interest in paying for at the moment, and until that comes out, my interest in any other stuff is limited. But at the moment, I'm just thrilled that the rest of Gargoyles came out, I thought that was a lost cause if ever there was one.

He's worked with Disney before on their acclaimed Gargoyles animated series in the 1990s. He worked on The Spectacular Spider-Man and Young Justice (Did either ever get full DVD releases?), both of which were pretty well-regarded. His fellow Rebels producer David Filoni also worked on Avatar: The Last Airbender, an excellent Lucas-esque animated action series in a similar vein. Apparently he also worked on The Clone Wars series, but I'd divorced myself from all things Star Wars at that point and don't know much of anything about it. Wiseman has written a lot of stuff here and there for other genre shows too.