What's new

Jari K

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 16, 2007
Messages
3,288
Carabimero said:
What amuses me is that fans want the original, but not really: they'll want a 7.1 mix, a product reaching some level of technical perfection that never existed in the first place, some dolled up restoration that only exists because new technology created it.
I see your point, but at the end of the day that's not the point. I mean the problem is not that Lucas wanted to "tweak" his films during all these years. Adding new CGI effects/elements, cleaning stuff, making new audio mixes, etc. Not a problem (well, perhaps excluding the "Han shot first" scenario).

THE problem is that at the moment fans can't choose between the remastered "Lucas director cuts/final cuts" and remastered "original versions". Usually the original versions are ALSO included when these alternate ("better" for some, I'm sure) versions are being released. And I mean released in "remastered", the old non-anamorphic laserdisc masters just doesn't cut it.

And with those "original versions", I'm perfectly happy to get the "original audio" also (not sure what it was at the moment, though?). They don't want to add 5.1 mixes with the original versions? So be it, I can live with that.
 

FoxyMulder

映画ファン
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
5,385
Location
Scotland
Real Name
Malcolm
Jari K said:
I see your point, but at the end of the day that's not the point. I mean the problem is not that Lucas wanted to "tweak" his films during all these years. Adding new CGI effects/elements, cleaning stuff, making new audio mixes, etc. Not a problem (well, perhaps excluding the "Han shot first" scenario).

THE problem is that at the moment fans can't choose between the remastered "Lucas director cuts/final cuts" and remastered "original versions". Usually the original versions are ALSO included when these alternate ("better" for some, I'm sure) versions are being released. And I mean released in "remastered", the old non-anamorphic laserdisc masters just doesn't cut it.

And with those "original versions", I'm perfectly happy to get the "original audio" also (not sure what it was at the moment, though?). They don't want to add 5.1 mixes with the original versions? So be it, I can live with that.
It's not just Star Wars, if i want the original theatrical version of The Last Of The Mohicans, i can't get it, oh sure i can view a DVD but not a blu ray, you could say to someone go and view VHS if you want the original Star Wars trilogy ( yes i have them on VHS ) but i do think original cinema versions should be available along with any new cut of a film.

I guess my point is that there are a number of films being made available on blu ray that do not contain the original cinema version, as far as audio mixes go, well i'd sure like the original 6 track magnetic ( 70mm blow up ) to be used as a source as well as the original 4 track AND a new mix, why should it be one or the other, just give us it all.
 

Yorkshire

Screenwriter
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
1,390
Real Name
Steve
May I ask a question?

I'm not a Star Wars fan, but I think this would be something that would apply across a number of films.

I seem to remember someone saying there were still A+ condition 70mm prints out there (of the original versions) which could be scanned. I then remember RAH saying (and please someone correct me if I'm wrong) that a 70mm print wouldn't be up to it (sorry, can't remember exactly what was said), and you need to go back further.

So my question is this. If you scanned a great condition 70mm print at 2K, 4K, 8K, whatever, how good could it be potentialy be?

Better than the non-anamorphic DVDs?

Better than an anamorphic DVD?

As good as an iffy Blu-ray Disc?

Just wondering (and sorry if my memory has failed me on this one).

Steve W
 

TravisR

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2004
Messages
42,425
Location
The basement of the FBI building
SilverWook said:
That would be news to me.
I took a look at The Sounds Of Star Wars book and I see my error. Ben Burtt did the mono and foreign mixes. What I was thinking of was that Sam Shaw (sound editor supervisor) was hired to do the 6 track and stereo mixes and he and Burtt had disagreements on those mixes.

More about the disagreements on pages 39 and 41 of the Sounds book,
"In the end it was not the most pleasant experience for either Sam or myself" says Burtt. "Sam assumed that he had been hired to do all the sound on the picture, and it was difficult for him to deal with me, because I had coauthority. In fact, I overruled him... on any sound effect that I'd made.

"Although Sam and his people worked very hard, and they worked incredible hours, month after month, the biggest problem was the creative aspect of their work," says Burtt. "Generally speaking, they did not always choose the best effect for the right spot in the film. I would listen to what they did and then consult with George to see if he agreed that we should change something. If he said yes, then I would try to fix it by recutting that sequence or just making new tracks altogether for a substitute. And of course, there wasn't time for me to do that in every area that I felt needed it. So in the end it was a compromise.

...

Shaw oversaw the stereo mix and again conflicts ensued. "I started showing up at the mixes and playing my hand, and pretty soon there were some sparks," says Burtt. Part of the problem was that neither Lucas nor Kurtz had fully explained Burtt's role to the mixers. "I was just an intruder," Burtt says. "But by the time we finished the stereo mix, it was obvious to the mixers that I was originator of the sound effects and that I represented George's ideas when he wasn't there. They began to rely on my judgment."

It sounds like they weren't all that satisfied with the results of any of the mixes (which fits right in with Lucas not being satisfied with the original version of the movie and not being able to stop tinkering with it). On page 41:
"...So we compromised. George and I agreed in the end on the overall balance, although we thought the sound was about thirty percent successful in view of what we had intended."

The missing seventy percent was mostly due to the fact that Burtt and Lucas had to rely on surrogates during the mix-Don MacDougall, Ray West, and Robert Minkler-who rose to the occasion but were short of time.

"Mixing is a performance," Burtt explains. "You sit down at the console. You're alert, and you're playing parts in the picture; You're a robot, you're a door, you're a laser gun. And you get into it; you should be breathing and sweating when it's over with. Getting that performance out of the mixers is difficult, because they're not used to that.

"They have a lot of integrity and they try very hard, but if we could have done it ourselves, gotten in there and pushed the knobs and dials, we would have gotten what we wanted. We may not have gotten as good of a picture, perhaps, I don't know, but we would have gotten what we wanted and lived with that."
I picked up The Sounds Of Star Wars a few months back at Barnes And Noble on clearance. It comes with a 'sound effects box' that contains like 250 sounds from the movies and then gives commentary on them. If you're interested in sound effects, it's pretty interesting.
 

Dave MJ

Second Unit
Joined
Feb 26, 2001
Messages
329
Carabimero said:
If you do release the originals, what do you change? Which sound mix do you use? (I believe there were three original mixes: mono, stereo, and one mullti-channel)

What amuses me is that fans want the original, but not really: they'll want a 7.1 mix, a product reaching some level of technical perfection that never existed in the first place, some dolled up restoration that only exists because new technology created it.

So what to do, what to do? What's okay to change and what isn't?
The best way to handle it would be to use a Criterion approach: Remaster the original version as if it were some obscure film from 1977. Do a new 4k scan of the original negative elements and provide the best possible and most accurate picture quality (matched to dye transfer prints) along with the original mono, 4 track and 6 track mixes. Don't fix matte lines or make any other visual or audio changes. If the film is accurately graded to reflect what was seen in theaters, the mattes won't be that much of an issue. Fans can (and will) make their own versions from there.

If Disney was smart they would hand this off the Criterion to lend credibility to the project and remove themselves from the inevitable controversy. Then it would be done correctly and marketed to film buffs as a high end restoration. It would be separate from the mass marketed SE versions and there wouldn't be much chance of your average movie watcher picking it up by mistake and wondering what happened to CGI Jabba.
 

Yorkshire

Screenwriter
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
1,390
Real Name
Steve
Dave, Criterion are not beyond a tiny bit of revisionism.

TG's Final Cut of Brazil was a brand new creation for them (as far as I'm aware it doesn't, never has, and never will exist outside the bounds of the Criterion releaes). On a similar note, not Criterion I know, but TG (again) cleaned up one small error that's always niggled him on the recent Time Bandits.

As I've said before, if I were Disney I'd "do a Blade Runner". Put the original cut unaltered (as you've suggested), and a 'cleaned up' version - effectively the original versions with a few small errors put right (I understand there are things like sound effects going from left to right when they should be right to left).

Stick these out there - we already have the 'much doctored' versions - and I think everyone would be happy.

Steve W
 

FoxyMulder

映画ファン
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
5,385
Location
Scotland
Real Name
Malcolm
Yorkshire said:
May I ask a question?

I'm not a Star Wars fan, but I think this would be something that would apply across a number of films.

I seem to remember someone saying there were still A+ condition 70mm prints out there (of the original versions) which could be scanned. I then remember RAH saying (and please someone correct me if I'm wrong) that a 70mm print wouldn't be up to it (sorry, can't remember exactly what was said), and you need to go back further.

So my question is this. If you scanned a great condition 70mm print at 2K, 4K, 8K, whatever, how good could it be potentialy be?

Better than the non-anamorphic DVDs?

Better than an anamorphic DVD?

As good as an iffy Blu-ray Disc?

Just wondering (and sorry if my memory has failed me on this one).

Steve W
I don't have a clue but i would have thought a blowup 70mm would have more prominent film grain and look softer.
 

Stephen_J_H

All Things Film Junkie
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2003
Messages
7,871
Location
North of the 49th
Real Name
Stephen J. Hill
There are so many variables to scanning a 70mm print, I really don't know where to begin, but here goes:
1) Wrong aspect ratio. Because of 6-track magnetic sound, the aspect ratio is limited to 2.21:1, slicing portions off the side of the image.
2) Elements used to create the 70mm print. If the print was created off the OCN, not so bad (but bad for the OCN); if not, dealing with multiple generational loss, resulting in grain buildup and softening of the image.
3) Method of creating the 70mm print. Most 70mm prints were optically printed, meaning that any dirt, dust and negative damage would be "baked in". Not fatal, but serious cleanup would need to be done.
4) Fading. Unless the print used was stored in optimal conditions, shrinkage and fade would be issues.
5) Contrast. This goes hand in hand with generational loss; the further away from the negative we are, the greater the likelihood of contrast being crushed due to generational loss. Contrast is also problematic for the handful of 35mm dye transfer prints produced in Europe; while they look fine in a theatre, a scanner is less forgiving, and issues unique to dye transfer make this a less than viable option.
6) Colour. There is no guarantee that a 70mm release print would reflect the properties of a properly timed answer print, especially given the number of times Star Wars and its sequels were printed,reprinted and run. Many of these prints (including 70mm) would be worn out by now.
In short, while a scan of a 70mm element may yield something that looks "better than DVD," we shouldn't have to settle for such a low standard.

I think that what all of us are really hoping is that GL was smokescreening us in saying the originals are dead, and that archival materials were properly prepared and stored following the 1997 SE releases, as major cleanup and restoration were required at least for Star Wars [not calling it Episode IV] when the SEs were created.
 

Worth

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2009
Messages
5,227
Real Name
Nick Dobbs
Stephen_J_H said:
I think that what all of us are really hoping is that GL was smokescreening us in saying the originals are dead, and that archival materials were properly prepared and stored following the 1997 SE releases, as major cleanup and restoration were required at least for Star Wars [not calling it Episode IV] when the SEs were created.
Even if the original negative was re-cut to create the SEs, there are surely IPs and INs that still exist.
 

Moe Dickstein

Filmmaker
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2001
Messages
3,307
Location
Las Vegas, NV
Real Name
T R Wilkinson
So far as i know Gilliam just removed one line from Brazil from earlier versions. Sam's reaction to his mother's surgery mold "my god it works!" It's on the Universal Blu of the US cut.
 

Yorkshire

Screenwriter
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
1,390
Real Name
Steve
Thanks everyone.

Now this might sound like a daft question, but here goes.

If you found the best print available (70mm or 35mm) of a film and scanned that at the highest resolution available, could you then produce a Blu-ray Disc that looked pretty much the same as if you went to the cinema and watched that print (not withstanding the limitations that Blu-ray Disc has on any film)?

Steve W
 

Jari K

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 16, 2007
Messages
3,288
"Do a Blade Runner" would be the smart way to release these films. You know, let the audience decide.I would love to watch the "original versions" with the audio (solo) commentary by Lucas. He could explain why he wanted to change some of the scenes, effects etc.
 

Worth

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2009
Messages
5,227
Real Name
Nick Dobbs
Yorkshire said:
Thanks everyone.

Now this might sound like a daft question, but here goes.

If you found the best print available (70mm or 35mm) of a film and scanned that at the highest resolution available, could you then produce a Blu-ray Disc that looked pretty much the same as if you went to the cinema and watched that print (not withstanding the limitations that Blu-ray Disc has on any film)?

Steve W

Sure. Release prints struck from an IN are typically softer than blu-ray already, so there wouldn't be any advantage to scanning at anything higher than 2K. 70mm blow-ups in the 70s and 80s tended to be very grainy, so you'd probably get better results going from 35mm.
 

Yorkshire

Screenwriter
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
1,390
Real Name
Steve
Some people may feel that'd be settling for second best.

But to get on a little £10 disc at home a picture pretty much as good as on a good print at the cinema would be a damn fine second best.

There are people who collect(ed) 35mm print for years who spent an awful lot more than that on each of them.

Steve W
 

Lromero1396

Supporting Actor
Joined
Dec 19, 2012
Messages
640
Real Name
Leon Romero
To echo the other info that has been posted, the best approach would be the 'Criterion' for Star Wars:
4k, 6k or 8k scan of surviving, usable, unaltered portions of OCN (Lucas may have altered them for the '97 SEs, but no one can be certain). Yes, an 8k may be overkill but with the film elements must be preserved at the highest possible quality.
Equivalent scans of YCM seps and any dupe elements that must be used.
Color graded against a dye-transfer IB Tech print.

Leave the matte lines/special effects errors as they are to preserve originality and save money in restoration.

On the audio side, include remastered (as in digitally cleaned up: no retooling) 70mm 6-track, Dolby Surround (Dolby A Stereo), and Mono mixes.
DolbyTruHD for the 6-track and Dolby mixes, and LPCM (or TruHD) for the mono track.
Access original print masters for these if they survive. Worst case scenario, use intermediate sources.

For Empire and Jedi, the same should be done in terms of the image source.
Audio-wise, 70mm 6-track and Dolby Stereo tracks should be provided.
I understand 6-track cannot be completely replicated with today's HT setups, but the mix should be restored and included for the sake of completeness.

The restoration should then be recorded back to 35mm film, with new audio elements of both the digital and analog varieties created as well.

I'm all about restoring and preserving for the long term, that's why I support at the very least a restoration of all audio mixes and returning to the original picture negs. I doubt Disney would bother with this kind of detailed work, but if they want the best response from fans and the best sales (although I'm sure fans would buy any edition of the unaltered trilogy), they should follow this template.
 

Dave MJ

Second Unit
Joined
Feb 26, 2001
Messages
329
Worth said:
Even if the original negative was re-cut to create the SEs, there are surely IPs and INs that still exist.
The negative most definitely survived beyond the 1997 SE versions. Several of the altered scenes were completely re-done with new CGI for the 2004 DVD version, so the negatives (or good copies of them) must have existed in 2004. Several original versions of shots are also featured on the DVD bonus disc along with numerous outtakes. I suppose Lucas could have ordered the negatives destroyed after the 2004 version, but that seems extremely unlikely. If nothing else there are probably the 1080p digital scans used to create the 2004 version.
 

Jari K

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 16, 2007
Messages
3,288
Dave MJ said:
I suppose Lucas could have ordered the negatives destroyed after the 2004 version, but that seems extremely unlikely.
There's no way that Lucas "ordered" the negatives to be destroyed. That's absurd. The original version are "out there" (from the LD masters), so it's too late.
 

Tommy R

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2011
Messages
2,155
Real Name
Tommy
All I want is something better than the '06 "bonus features" for the OOT. Watching those on my old tube tv is fine, but on my HDtv it looks GOD AWFUL because I have to blow it up to fit the screen better. I'd of course love to see it in the best possible picture typical of Blu-ray, but I'd totally settle for SOMETHING better than watching the non-anamorphic DVD, even if it was standard-def quality. I'd just like it to fit on the screen right and look decent.

I haven't watched the special editions for almost a decade, and if I have to I will put up with the '06 DVDs for the rest of my life.
 

Worth

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2009
Messages
5,227
Real Name
Nick Dobbs
Tommy R said:
I'd of course love to see it in the best possible picture typical of Blu-ray, but I'd totally settle for SOMETHING better than watching the non-anamorphic DVD, even if it was standard-def quality. I'd just like it to fit on the screen right and look decent.
There's no reason why Star Wars shouldn't look at least as good as the original Battlestar Galactica on blu-ray.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
356,808
Messages
5,123,523
Members
144,184
Latest member
H-508
Recent bookmarks
0
Top