Jump to content
filmmusic

Star Wars ORIGINAL UNALTERED trilogy possibility(?) in HD!

Recommended Posts

Got excited when I saw the thread title, was disappointed when I saw the content. :(

 

Extrapolating from that article, this was just a pristine 40 year old print of the 2.0 version of Star Wars (with Episode IV in the crawl). Have never understood why no one has scanned one of these immaculate prints and distributed them online? It would just need a pass or two of dust removal/digital noise reduction and it would come up a treat. Don't the owners of these prints want to future proof them? They will eventually disintegrate...

 

Maybe this indicates a slight softening from Lucas though. The further divorced he becomes from Lucasfilm, the less strict he might be around releasing the UOT?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You wouldn't want to scan the film for release off of an answer print, no matter the size of it. You need the original camera negative.

 

Besides, a Star Wars film carrying the name "Episode IV: A New Hope" is anything but unaltered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

You wouldn't want to scan the film for release off of an answer print, no matter the size of it. You need the original camera negative.

 

Besides, a Star Wars film carrying the name "Episode IV: A New Hope" is anything but unaltered.

 

True, but it's just one change -- and it's gone after the first minute.

 

And a second generation scan done with modern telecine couldn't look any worse than the existing HD masters Lowry worked on. Processed and colour graded to within an inch of their lives; they looked OK for standard definition but they were not fit for high definition formats. The amateur grading reveals itself on the Blurays.

 

If nothing else, the answer prints (especially the technicolour ones) would be fantastic references for accurate colour reproduction for a future OCN scan (because presumably the OCN has been mishandled so badly that colours have faded into disrepair... but the sharpness won't have disappeared).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From people who were there: the print was torn at the DS explosion the first time it was viewed, therefore it has never been projected or submitted to light since. It wasn't faded, not very dirty, and colour-wise it was really damn close to 4K77. It was said it was shown with special permission from George Lucas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It can't be long before Disney release whatever 4K master they've been sitting on. It's been finished for years, since at least Rogue One. We even had clips from the showreel of whichever company worked on the restoration. Seems inevitable they'll release a 9-film 4K set of the entire saga next year.

 

Apparently it's a hybrid version of the film though -- the DVD and Bluray changes have been ditched (as they were made to the existing digital master of the SE), but the SE changes remain (because apparently those changes were edited into the OCN itself).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, crumbs said:

(because apparently those changes were edited into the OCN itself).

 

How does that even work? I alway presumed duplicates would be used for SFX editing and compositing work. Like I doubt the 1997 cartoon Mos Eisley would have been made into a camera negative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The blurays look shit even without comparison.

 

 

Reportedly, for the SE, they made digital scans of the master copy they had, printed the new shots on the same kind of stock, took the old shots out of the master copy and spliced the new ones in. There was no colour grading fuckups in that batch until the DVD (and the bluray which further bastardises the DVD master), so it was possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Holko said:

The blurays look shit even without comparison.

 

Good point.

 

9 minutes ago, The Original said:

How does that even work? I alway presumed duplicates would be used for SFX editing and compositing work. Like I doubt the 1997 cartoon Mos Eisley would have been made into a camera negative.

 

Fragments of the camera negative would have been scanned for VFX shots (then printed back out once ready) but my understanding is that these new shots were then cut into the OCN master, essentially sabotaging the original cut of the film from existence.

 

All SE answer prints were then struck from this newly minted version of the OCN (after meticulous cleaning). This was all pre-AVID and digital editing; they couldn't just insert new scenes into a digital master back then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Holko said:

The blurays look shit even without comparison.

 

 

Reportedly, for the SE, they made digital scans of the master copy they had, printed the new shots on the same kind of stock, took the old shots out of the master copy and spliced the new ones in. There was no colour grading fuckups in that batch until the DVD (and the bluray which further bastardises the DVD master), so it was possible.

What about the Pink tint?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Were the 97 SEs pink already? I thought that came in with the 04 DVDs along with the crushed blacks to hide matte boxes instead of properly addressing them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A quick search found a reference to the home video release version of the SW (ANH) SE being pink tinted. 

I grew up with a VHS recorded TV broadcast of the SEs, but my memory doesn't spread that far. Sebastian Shaw was Sebastian Shaw, that I know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/15/2019 at 5:05 PM, crumbs said:

It can't be long before Disney release whatever 4K master they've been sitting on. It's been finished for years, since at least Rogue One. We even had clips from the showreel of whichever company worked on the restoration. Seems inevitable they'll release a 9-film 4K set of the entire saga next year.

 

But whether it’ll be native 4K remains to be seen. You can’t pull native 4K off of second-generation film (technically, you can't pull native 4K off a 35mm negative, either, but never mind). And, of course, the later two prequels were shot in 1440p (1.5K), some of which is inevitably lost in the filters of the digital camera.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

 

But whether it’ll be native 4K remains to be seen. You can’t pull native 4K off of second-generation film. And, of course, the later two prequels were shot in 1440p, some of which is inevitably lost in the filters of the digital camera.

 

That's incorrect. Due to the primitive nature of digital photography back in 2000, all live-action photography on II + III was shot at 1080p so those two films are now locked at that resolution (the modern smartphone has a higher resolution!)

 

I don't know whether the effects shots were rendered at 1080p or 2K (1440p), but considering the live-action elements were 1080p...

 

Either way, only the OT can ever exist in "true" 4K -- ironic, considering the so-called 'technological advancements' in the four decades since. Even the sequel trilogy has likely been rendered at only 1440p, barring IMAX sequences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I meant was, the HDCAM used on the prequels doesn’t use all of the pixels across: Instead of 1920 (per 1080p or 1.9K resolution), it uses 1440 and the filtering loses mean that you're actually getting even less, plus the digital files were compressed for post-production, which also takes a toll on image quality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plus they cropped the image after shooting, so basically 1/4 of the vertical resolution was thrown in the bin. I guess the theory was that shooting "open matte" gave them room to move for their VFX shots.

 

As for the awful magenta tint to ANH, I thought that was introduced at the DVD stage. Supposedly Lowry handed the finished restoration to Lucasfilm, then Lucasfilm handled the colour grading internally... :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, crumbs said:

Plus they cropped the image after shooting, so basically 1/4 of the vertical resolution was thrown in the bin. I guess the theory was that shooting "open matte" gave them room to move for their VFX shots.

 

For home video, it really doesn’t matter: the image doesn’t become any less sharp or detailed because you crop it’s edges, in much the same way that shot through a door frame isn’t any less sharp than a landscape shot.

 

It does prohibit the size of the screen which can accommodate the film, but that’s the thing about shooting digitally: the lack of grain means that - watching it on a huge screen - you won’t become as acutely aware that you’re watching something which has been magnified.

 

A 1.5K shot from Attack of the Clones would look better in IMAX than a blowup from 35mm, even though the latter has almost twice the detail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, crumbs said:

Have never understood why no one has scanned one of these immaculate prints and distributed them online?

Many people have... haven't you heard of 4K77? Or the Silver Screen Edition? They are restorations of the original print, in amazing quality. 4K83 (Return of the Jedi) has also been made, and 4K80 (TESB) is currently being worked on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dieter Stark said:

I prefer the Special Editions. Star Wars especially has such a slapped together low budget look in the Tatooine scenes. Mos Eisley looks terrible. The SE is how you would imagine it being, not a little ghost town with a blob covering the wheels on the car.

 

They should remake it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, gkgyver said:

At this point, I really couldn't care less about original original original versions.

These movies are 35-42 years old.

I say take what's available and move on.

 

Gyver calls for historical revisionism?

 

No surprise!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean, I'm at a place where I can take the special editions. But, out of principle, I always think the original cut of any film should be available.

 

But then, no one seems to be losing any sleep about the inavailability of the original theatrical cuts of 2001, The Shining or Lawrence of Arabia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair. 

 

But in both cases, there was a cut of the film which was shown to wide audiences, which we cannot watch today. In both cases, the director went out of his way to ensure that cut will never be seen again.

 

Star Wars was being changed constantly: it didn't start with the Special Editions. The various sound mixes are different, some shots in the film as shown in the limited release were different to the wide release, the re-release was different (namely, in the inclusion of the subtitle Episode IV: A New Hope), etcetra.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Stefancos said:

The original cut of 2001 was shown only once I believe. Thats not even remotely the same as with the original trilogy.

Sadly I have seen 2001 way more than I ever wanted to see that cold film.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never liked the pacing of that film, but to think it was twenty minutes longer is just mind-boggling. Although maybe something in those twenty minutes would have made the ending a bit less cryptic. As it is, you need the book to really understand what's going on and, in that regard, that film is not a standalone experience.

 

But I do think the original cut of the film should have been made available. Just out of principle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...