mverta said:
Most of what you're seeing with the Blu-Ray can be categorized by four classes: 1) Exposure issues, 2) Damaged element recovery, 3) Deliberate color grading, and 4) Lowry.
This listing reads like the four layers of Hell to me for some reason.
Doesn't really matter if you go for Harmy or DarkJedi, either way you'll get HairyHen's awesome 70mm sound reconstruction, which is pure gold.
You can't get Mike Verta's version--this is a point of contention for many. He's restoring the movie but not distributing it, for legal reasons.
I love the work DarkJedi's done (GOUTv3, Project Blu), and it's the most faithful thing you can actually get, but it doesn't scale nicely to the size of screen you're talking about. Your best bet is Harmy's projects (Despecialized Editions), which aren't quite as faithful but scale to large sizes much better.
None are as good as a real 35mm version.
Aren't you, like, in school or something? Don't you sleep? What gives? How is this possible?
I'm not sure I have all the facts 100% correct, but here goes. 70mm and 35mm have the same aspect ratio. For SW and ROTJ, I believe the 70mm print is visually just a blow-up of the 35mm print. The 70mm version of ESB has some slight visual differences from the 35mm/home video version. All of the 70mm prints have surround sound mixes which the 35mm didn't.
All screenings would pretty much have to be private non-commercial deals. If you live in Southern California, Mike Verta plans to do private screenings of his personal restoration project. I'm considering letting my local hippie independent theatre know about Harmy's reconstructions (I know they do private screenings and have a AVCHD-capable Blu Ray player, so it's no stretch). But seriously, just get into backyard projection. It's fun, cheaper than you'd think, and you get to know your neighbors. Be your own private screening theatre.
There is no "done" with you.
Heh, see how little we ask of you Harmy? Seriously, though, if you managed to do this I would buy you enough beer to kill you. Er, so maybe you won't want to. Depends how much you like beer I guess.
So does anyone else here want to watch this whole movie or is it just me?
Harmy said:
What do you think?
I like it. I'm sure there's room for improvement still, but it's now clearly the best option so far IMO.
Harmy said:
OK, so I accepted the challenge and put my sources together and came up with this:
1. A frame of the 35mm scan I got.
2. GOUT
3. v1.0
4. v2.0 (unless I get my hands on a better source)
I actually prefer your 2.0 version, but I really think it could be improved in the starfield and in the black crush (most obvious in the shadows on the right half of the frame). Maybe ease up on the black a touch, and copy in the GOUT starfield with boosted contrast to match the blacks?
If this ends up being usable, I nominate this for the Most Awesomest Source Material Used in a Film Restoration Project.
Harmy said:
OK, here's a video with the new matte applied:
Fantastic! And where it's not fantastic, it's still faithful.
TServo2049 said:
Anybody got a 70mm frame of the hangar shot?
Maybe. Do you think it'd be in this 70mm Technicolor IB print I've been using as a paperweight?
Next question: Are you going through the scenes you're working on chronologically? Because frankly if that's true there's more to be excited about than a silly matte painting.
That looks really good to me. If someone with a better memory of the film says it needs to be a touch brighter or dimmer, I'd say there's room for small adjustments either way.
I'd agree with that approach. Would it be possible to try for halfway in-between?
Harmy said:
@ CatBus: Yes, but its a whole original mattepainting, not just the soldiers and I bet that the soldiers are so obvious in the GOUT because of the screwed up black levels - I think they didn't paint much detail on the soldiers because they were meant to be mostly lost in the shadow.
EDIT: TServo beat me to it.
I get that, but I think the shadow in your 2.0 demo is way too dark. Dim is okay, black looks weird.
Have to say I prefer the 1.0 matte. If the goal of this is to re-create the theatrical experience, then startlingly obvious cardboard cutouts are part of that experience.
Harmy said:
And here's a little sample - right is with, left is without:
For what it's worth, that looks a lot better than I thought it would, and it wouldn't be a dealbreaker for me. But I still prefer the no-grain version.
I would still want this sort of effect applied to the credits and other "rendered" grain-free content, though, to help it blend.
Harmy said:
Wow, I never said I was gonna do it folks, just that I was considering it.
And that, exactly, is why I never consider doing anything. It's also a lot easier.
I'm interested in seeing a side-by-side demo, but I have to admit I'm just as skeptical as the rest of the lynch mob.
Mexican Spanish is actually preferable. It's all about making the greatest number of Star Wars fans happy.
PM me with your real e-mail if you think you can help--I certainly could use it!
Actually, having thought about it a bit more, artificial grain seems like a perfectly acceptable way to attempt to restore the feel of a film, if you feel it's been damaged by excessive DNR.
The problem, in my opinion, is that DNR really isn't something I'd say is a big problem with these films. Excessive sharpening, sure, crushed blacks, definitely, but DNR? I don't really think so.
As for adding hairs and scratches, I'm just plain against that. People who want hairs on their film can empty their vaccum cleaner bags on their projectors, and those who don't don't have to. It seems like a bad thing to have in the source image.
I was thinking rather of adding fake grain to frames that have zero grain, such as rendered credits and far, far away text. I'm not interested in adding it where the source (BD) adequately captured the grain of the film.
Harmy said:
Why not add grain and scratches and hairs?
I'm actually seriously considering that. I even already did some tests and I like what I'm seeing.
Yes please. Well, at least grain restoration.
Thanks mavimao, that leaves us with Spanish and Portuguese. non, I'll check that link and see if I can find a way to get some attention. Feel free to canvas your friends and family too ;)
Just a bump. I'm still looking for French, Spanish, and Portuguese, and at this point I'm dropping my requirement for fluency and am just looking for someone with general understanding of basic grammar/vocabulary/spelling and a good dictionary (which is still more than I have on my own).
