Star Wars Trilogy - bad transfer?
gavr...@synergy.bungi.com
>suprised to see that during a number of special effects laden scenes a sligh
>but obvious, shadow appears around each of the optical elements. This effec
>is especially noticeable in "The Empire Strikes Back". I don't recall seein
>this in the theatre. Any ideas?
It's not a bad transfer... it's simply something that shows up on video that
doesn't show up on film. It has to do with the process of using blue screen
and matte shots - etc... I've noticed it in many other films as well, but it
is particularly noticable in the Star Wars films.
I'm sure there is someone here who could explain exactly why this is... but
I DO know that it is a problem when transfering to video.
Hal Hickel
>
> >I recently purchased a copy of the new "remastered" Star Wars trilogy. I was
> >but obvious, shadow appears around each of the optical elements. This effect
> >is especially noticeable in "The Empire Strikes Back". I don't recall seeing
> >this in the theatre. Any ideas?
>
> video transfer machines need an image that is lower in contrast than a film
> print, movies are usually transferred from low contrast prints or
> interpositives (which are inherently very low in contrast.) The advantage is
> an increase in shadow detail that is closer to what could be seen projected.
> The disadvantage is that in squashing the dynamic range of the image, certain
> defects also become more visible, especially variations in the density of
> blacks. The ghosting you are seeing are the garbage mattes around the models
> that blacked out the stands, lights, etc. This black matte is supposed to
> blend in with the rest of the matte (the hold-out matte) that removes the
> entire background behind an object. But this black on black layering becomes
> more obvious when the image is transferred off an interpostive. To make up
> for this problem, the telecine colorist will usually darken the blacks in the
> transfer. The new "Star Wars" trilogy transfer does this in most cases.
> Perhaps the black level on your T.V. (the brightness knob) is too bright; most
> T.V.'s are set too bright because people watch them in rooms that are too
> bright.
>
> David M.
This post hits the nail exactly on the head, particularly the part at
the end about the brightness of the original posters TV. I've seen so
much mis-information about G-mattes, telecine processes, and their
relationship to this phenomenom that I just had to respond to this 100
percent correct posting. Congratulations.
--
Ciao for now.....H
Blam1
(Laurence Bortnick) writes:
>I recently purchased a copy of the new "remastered" Star Wars trilogy. I
was
>suprised to see that during a number of special effects laden scenes a
>slight, but obvious, shadow appears around each of the optical elements.
This
>effect is especially noticeable in "The Empire Strikes Back". I don't
recall seeing
>this in the theatre. Any ideas?
These are well known artifacts of the optical matting used at the time.
These artifacts did not appear in the theatre, but they do on video. One
of the things Lucas is doing for the '97 issue of Star Wars is to correct
those types of errors in the SFX.
As for ESB, I don't recall seing them on the video transfer, though I can
check my LD set again...
Blaine
Bl...@aol.com
Josh Overholt
>I recently purchased a copy of the new "remastered" Star Wars trilogy. I was
>suprised to see that during a number of special effects laden scenes a slight,
>but obvious, shadow appears around each of the optical elements. This effect
>is especially noticeable in "The Empire Strikes Back". I don't recall seeing
>this in the theatre. Any ideas?
Its a bad matting that does that its in all the movies
Gary Louie
>Lisle Foote wrote:
>>
>> >I recently purchased a copy of the new "remastered" Star Wars trilogy.
>> >I was suprised to see that during a number of special effects laden
(material deleted about seeing garbage mattes, and followup about tech
explanations)
I asked Tom Holman (former tech director of Lucafilm and TH of THX) about
seeing the garbage mattes on the THX Star Wars CLV laserdiscs. The topic
has been argued frequently in the laserdisc newsgroups. He did say that
you must calibrate your tv properly, especially for black level and
brightness. Even then, your TV's D.C. restoration characteristics may not
be good. He said that on their calibrated TV monitors, the garbage mattes
are not visible. Oh well; I think I still see some of them, even after
calibrating (AVS pluge). May be my DC restoration.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Louie/Staff Audio Engineer
Univ. of Washington School of Music/Seattle, Washington USA
Internet:lo...@u.washington.edu
AlenSmithe
during the Cantina part in Star Wars and the part at the begining of
Return of the Jedi where they're talking to Jabba, they put the subtitles
UNDER the picture! This is NOT the way it was shown in theatres, and
during letterboxed movies you're NOT supposed to even be looking at any of
the black areas on the screen! They didn't fix this in the new versions
so I didn't buy them.
It totally blows my mind that for the new tapes they had the balls to do
them in pan and scan! The ads even said "Last chance to own the original
version" and what does it say on the back cover? "THIS FILM HAS BEEN
MODIFIED FROM ITS ORIGINAL VERSION. IT HAS BEEN FORMATTED TO FIT YOUR
SCREEN." More living proof that the THX certification for videos is more
marketing hype than anything else, and an excuse for companies like MCA to
raise their laserdisc prices!
--------------------
AlenS...@aol.com
--------------------
There's nothing we wanna watch on TV tonight, but we're still gonna watch
something great- with our RCA VideoDisc player and VideoDiscs! Just flip a
switch, and on OUR TV we see Airplane or The Pink Panther, The Godfather
or Grease, Muppets, monsters, Mickey, MASH and 100 more, starting as low
as $15! And the player costs less than 500! Put it this way; we're
watching a GREAT MOVIE! And you're watching- us.
BRING THE MAGIC HOME ON RCA!
Lisle Foote
>cannot imagine that 'invisible' SFX in theatre become 'obvious' on video
>since the later has less resolution, color, etc. But I remember to notice
>SFX on tv that I didn't see in theatre.
>All this is really strange. Does anyone know why ???
I already answered this a couple of weeks ago... Video transfers are usually
made from a low contrast source (an interpositive or a low-con print) since a
normal release print has too much contrast to transfer well to video. (Prints
have to have a certain black density to overcome to washing-out effects of
being projected onto a white screen - this contrast is measured as GAMMA. The
gamma increases everytime an image is duplicated. Therefore the original
negative has the lowest gamma or contrast. The duplicating stocks used as an
intermediate step have the next highest gamma. Release prints have an even
higher gamma.) Major releases are made from duplicates to protect the
original negative. The stages are:
NEGATIVE -> INTERPOSITIVE -> INTERNEGATIVE -> RELEASE PRINT
In the '70's, by the way, it was usually:
NEGATIVE -> C.R.I. -> RELEASE PRINT
The C.R.I. (camera reversal intermediate) used reversal film to duplicate the
negative so that this copy would also become a negative. Then you could make a
positive from it. C.R.I.'s were kind of harsh and were dropped when Kodak
improved the interpositive stock.
Since this I.P. is low in contrast and had to be made for release prints
anyway, it gets used for the video transfer. The flattened-out contrast of
this image makes variations in black density visible when they were invisible
in the higher contrast of the release print. So the black garbage mattes
printed over the black hold-out mattes used in optically printing travelling
matte shots sometimes become visible on TV. The newest transfers of the "Star
Wars" trilogy minimized this problem by making the blacks darker during the
transfer session. But if your TV has its brightness levels too high, then
this problem will re-appear.
David M.
Christophe LABOUISSE
: These are well known artifacts of the optical matting used at the time.
: These artifacts did not appear in the theatre, but they do on video.
I'm really puzzled by such things even if I believe it to be true... I
cannot imagine that 'invisible' SFX in theatre become 'obvious' on video
since the later has less resolution, color, etc. But I remember to notice
SFX on tv that I didn't see in theatre.
All this is really strange. Does anyone know why ???
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
! Christophe Labouisse !
! SNCF Direction de la Recherche Tel: (33-1) 53-42-92-87 !
! Departement RP Fax: (33-1) 53-42-92-17 !
! 75379 PARIS Cedex 08 email: labo...@sncf.fr !
! FRANCE !
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lisle Foote
>during the Cantina part in Star Wars and the part at the begining of
>Return of the Jedi where they're talking to Jabba, they put the subtitles
>UNDER the picture! This is NOT the way it was shown in theatres, and
>during letterboxed movies you're NOT supposed to even be looking at any of
>the black areas on the screen! They didn't fix this in the new versions
>so I didn't buy them.
This is because the film was transfered from an interpositive made off the
original negative that doens't contain subtitles. These are added later
because each country would need a version in their own language. Do you
expect foreign language films on laserdisc to have their original subtitles
over the picture? This would require that they use a print for transfer
instead of a higher quality original or intermediate dupe. Since these
original elements don't have subtitles, they have to be added later in video.
With older movies, this sometimes allows newer, more accurate translations to
be written (as with some of the Criterion Kurosawa discs).
With 'scope movies, I think it's much better to move these letters off the
picture area and into the black borders. Then you can see the picture better
and read the subtitles easier. It also allows the use of larger print than
was originally used for subtitles since the image is no longer being projected
onto a large screen. I don't think this alters the artistic intent of the
filmmakers - if it did, do you think Lucas would have allowed it?
David M.
Trawby
I agree, in principal, but those subtitles below the image sure are hard to
read when you are using front projection and have black masking at the top and
bottom. Those subtitles are a touch difficult to read when projected onto a
black material. Of course you can have some fun with it. I ran Star Wars for
my ex-wife a few years ago and she didn't realize that there were even
subtitles being shown but I could just make them out. She was amazed that I
could translate what Greedo was saying. That was only one of the reasons why I
dumped her.
There is one problem with a couple of transfers from anamorphic films. Both
"The Longest Day" and the original LD release of "Return of the Jedi" placed
the image in the upper third of the frame. Considering how little video
information we are working with on those letter boxed discs the film is being
placed outside the area of sharpest resolution on the set. My video projector
is especially bad at the top of the frame anyway and it can't be corrected.
----
Tra...@ix.netcom.com
George Petras
<gavr...@synergy.bungi.com> wrote:
>>It totally blows my mind that for the new tapes they had the balls to do
>>them in pan and scan! The ads even said "Last chance to own the original
>>version" and what does it say on the back cover? "THIS FILM HAS BEEN
>>MODIFIED FROM ITS ORIGINAL VERSION. IT HAS BEEN FORMATTED TO FIT YOUR
>>SCREEN." More living proof that the THX certification for videos is more
>>marketing hype than anything else, and an excuse for companies like MCA to
>>raise their laserdisc prices!
>
>that the THX theatre alignment program doesn't have some merrit, but when a
>theatre is paying THOUSANDS of dollars a year to call one of its auditoriums
>"THX" and then the THX fees go WAY up - knowing that said theatre had only
>been aligned by the THX people ONCE in FIVE years... needless to say some
>people got a bit pissed off.
>
>The original idea of THX was a good one - a much needed one. Unfortunately,
>it seems that THX has become little more than a marketing ploy these days.
>
THX is not just marketing hype -- it _is_ a certification program and
a quality assurance program which is (surprise, surprise) _not
perfect_. Wow, what a revelation! Something in this world that isn't
perfect.
Just because the program isn't perfect doesn't mean it is total
garbage and total marketing. They have clearly improved the standard
in laserdisc quality. For example, any randomly chosen THX-approved
laserdisc will likely be better than a randomly chosen non-THX
approved disc. And when they screw-up a laserdisc (like Stargate),
they make a concerted effort to fix it. This is a clear improvement
over the pre-THX days.
As far as their "balls" to introduce a THX pan&scan video -- do you
really expect people with 19" T.V.'s built in 1983 to watch a
letterboxed movie in VHS? I find the best letter-boxed movies to be
barely acceptable on VHS when viewed on a modern 20" set. I think the
tapes are probably some of the best VHS tapes ever put out even if
they are pan&scan and if any VHS tapes should say THX, these are
them. Plus they also put out a set of letterboxed tapes anyway.
>My theatre no longer has a license to play the THX trailers - yet all of our
>equipment in 3 of our auditoriums (including the rooms themselves) is THX
>certified. So what's the difference? Absolutely nothing except that the
>company saved a whole bunch of money.
>
Doesn't the certification fee go in part towards a yearly inspection?
Theatres can change after all -- new heating/cooling systems, new
doors, new noise sources outside the theatre, and equipment problems,
can change the quality of the theatre. With inspections, they can
verify that this is not the case. Lifetime certification would not
make sense.
Now you are implying that they merely take the money without
re-inspection -- that is pure marketing if they are not verifying the
theatre is still good. However, if they do the inspection, that's
acceptable even if the fee is unacceptable..
gp.
Gecko Media Fusion
> I recently purchased a copy of the new "remastered" Star Wars trilogy. I was
> suprised to see that during a number of special effects laden scenes a
slight,
> but obvious, shadow appears around each of the optical elements. This effect
> is especially noticeable in "The Empire Strikes Back". I don't recall seeing
> this in the theatre. Any ideas?
This phenomena occurs because many transfers to video are struck from the
Internegative and not from the release print. The contrast ratio of
release prints helps to diguise the effect of garbage mattes around flying
tie fighters and such, but the interneg isnt meant to be looked at
directly and contrast in the blacks is more noticeable.
David Plank
--
Gecko Media Fusion
258 Wallace Ave
Suite 207
Toronto, Ontario
M6P 3M9
Chuck Skinner
eri...@ucla.edu (Lisle Foote) wrote:
>The C.R.I. (camera reversal intermediate) used reversal film to duplicate the
>negative so that this copy would also become a negative. Then you could make a
>positive from it. C.R.I.'s were kind of harsh and were dropped when Kodak
>improved the interpositive stock.
Actually, I believe CRI stood for Color Reversal Internegative.
Chuck Skinner
Cinematographer/Lighting Director
par...@gate.net
http://www.gate.net/~paradox
Film and NTSC & PAL Video in Florida
Stereo Boy
asked the manager of one of them recently when the last time was that they
had been recertified for THX. He has been manager since the theater
opened and he said that it has NEVER been checked since the inital
opening. I have also been to many theaters that had been recently
checked, and I find it hard to believe that they passed muster. They were
so bad that I wouldnt allow that kind of quality in my own home.
THX means nothing anymore.
Ty Chamberlain
DiscoVision - THE WORLD ON A SILVER PLATTER!!
Ster...@aol.com
Gecko Media Fusion
LABOUISSE) wrote:
>
> I'm really puzzled by such things even if I believe it to be true... I
> cannot imagine that 'invisible' SFX in theatre become 'obvious' on video
> since the later has less resolution, color, etc. But I remember to notice
> SFX on tv that I didn't see in theatre.
> All this is really strange. Does anyone know why ???
Comes from video being struck from the interneg...more contrast between BG
and garbage mattes used in effects.
Dave
Lisle Foote
>Actually, I believe CRI stood for Color Reversal Internegative.
It was a typo - it is actually Color Reversal Intermediate. (This is from
"Eastman Professional Motion Picture Films" Catalogue, 1982). I typed
"camera" instead of "color" by mistake. It was a reversal stock, not a
negative stock. The idea was that by using reversal film, a negative could be
printed off an original negative, thereby skipping a positive stage and
avoiding the additional grain from making another generation. Unfortunately,
reversal film is inherently harsh and when Kodak succeeded in making an
interpositive/internegative stock that was finer grained, they dropped
C.R.I.'s.
David M.
Laurence Chiu
>
> >I have the older letterboxed versions and was EXTREMELY irritated that
> >during the Cantina part in Star Wars and the part at the begining of
> >Return of the Jedi where they're talking to Jabba, they put the subtitles
> >UNDER the picture! This is NOT the way it was shown in theatres, and
> >during letterboxed movies you're NOT supposed to even be looking at any
of
> >the black areas on the screen! They didn't fix this in the new versions
> >so I didn't buy them.
>
> With 'scope movies, I think it's much better to move these letters off the
> picture area and into the black borders. Then you can see the picture
better
> and read the subtitles easier. It also allows the use of larger print
than
> was originally used for subtitles since the image is no longer being
projected
> onto a large screen. I don't think this alters the artistic intent of the
> filmmakers - if it did, do you think Lucas would have allowed it?
>
I wholeheartedly agree with this policy. While I can't remember where the
subtitles are in the LD version of ROTJ which is the only Star Wars LD I
have at the moment, it was quite obvious when I purchased Hunt for Red
October. Since the black areas below the image serves no useful purpose I
think it's great that they put the subtitles there. Of course there were
grumblings from those who have front projection systems and who take the
trouble to mask the screen to the correct aspect ratio so that the subtitles
now project into the mask but I think they are a vocal minority.
--
____________________________________________________________
Laurence Chiu : Sydney, Australia
lc...@zip.com.au : Tel (wk) (02)312-1886
Laurence Chiu
wrote:
>
> >It totally blows my mind that for the new tapes they had the balls to do
> >them in pan and scan! The ads even said "Last chance to own the original
> >version" and what does it say on the back cover? "THIS FILM HAS BEEN
> >MODIFIED FROM ITS ORIGINAL VERSION. IT HAS BEEN FORMATTED TO FIT YOUR
> >SCREEN." More living proof that the THX certification for videos is more
> >marketing hype than anything else, and an excuse for companies like MCA
to
> >raise their laserdisc prices!
>
> Of course! That's what THX has always been anyway! Now, I'm not saying
> that the THX theatre alignment program doesn't have some merrit, but when
a
> theatre is paying THOUSANDS of dollars a year to call one of its
auditoriums
> "THX" and then the THX fees go WAY up - knowing that said theatre had only
> been aligned by the THX people ONCE in FIVE years... needless to say some
> people got a bit pissed off.
>
I don't know about the US releases but in Australia the new THX Star Wars
tapes are available in both P&S and in Letterbox format which is unusual. I
myself have purchased the LD versions - I think they are probably the best
versions to get at this point in time.
Hal Hickel
Yes but this is not because of fault with THX, it is because the vast
majority of theatre managers are cheap bastards who don't care at all
whether the movies they show look or sound like crap. It's the same
reason why more times than not when I go to see a film, the image is
unsteady or worse yet the shutter and pulldown in the projector are
slightly out of phase causing that annoying "streaking" of light objects
against dark backgounds. It's because the theatre managers don't know
anything about films, and they don't care. They don't want to pay for a
repair person to come around more than once every 6 months and they
don't want to pay the THX folks anything either. So they leave that
little THX sign up and hope no one will check into it. But you can damn
well bet that if the Popcorn machine breaks down they'll have a guy in
there in 2 minutes flat.
lad
>
>2 THX certified theaters near me are just horrible in their quality. I
>asked the manager of one of them recently when the last time was that they
>had been recertified for THX. He has been manager since the theater
>opened and he said that it has NEVER been checked since the inital
>opening. I have also been to many theaters that had been recently
>checked, and I find it hard to believe that they passed muster. They were
>so bad that I wouldnt allow that kind of quality in my own home.
>
>THX means nothing anymore.
>
>
>Ty Chamberlain
>DiscoVision - THE WORLD ON A SILVER PLATTER!!
>Ster...@aol.com
Don't suppose you'd care to elaborate on what you didn't like about THX? It
they're set up properly, they're pretty spectacular from a sound standpoint.
They do need re-certification on a regular basis tho and the theatre needs to
be constructed to THX's spec to get the best out of the system.
Steven F Kraus
>Actually, I believe CRI stood for Color Reversal Internegative.
My Eastman Kodak paperwork from 1981 calls it Color Reversal Intermediate
(Emulsion 5249 / 7249) for making dupe negatives from color negs in one
step.
There was also Color Intermediate II (5243 / 7243) to make both the
master positive and the duplicate negatives from ECN, as well as
Color Internegative (5271 / 7271) which is used for making internegatives
from reversal originals.
AlenSmithe
think it's great that they put the subtitles there
So do you think they should take credits off the screen and put them in
the black area too? Why not put ALL text in the black spaces. Heck, why
not even remove the actors from the picture so you can see the whole
background, and put them under the picture?
Eric Carter
>2 THX certified theaters near me are just horrible in their quality. I
>asked the manager of one of them recently when the last time was that they
>had been recertified for THX. He has been manager since the theater
>opened and he said that it has NEVER been checked since the inital
>opening. I have also been to many theaters that had been recently
>checked, and I find it hard to believe that they passed muster. They were
>so bad that I wouldnt allow that kind of quality in my own home.
>THX means nothing anymore.
If you know of problems with any THX-certified theatres, please report
it to Lucasfilm at http://www.thx.com
-Eric
Laurence Chiu
>
> Since the black areas below the image serves no useful purpose I
> think it's great that they put the subtitles there
I agree entirely with that but there are those people who have front
projection systems who carefully mask out the screen to the film format. So
if something is outside the area masked they don't see it. A small but vocal
minority for a small problem.
Laurence Chiu
If you look carefully at the most complex flying scene in ROTJ you can see
not only garbage mattes but a Tie fighter flying inside an Imperial Cruiser.
I recall seeing a documentary on the optical mattes for Jedi and the guy who
did the compositing admitted to the error but said because it was on screen
for such a small amount of time you wouldn't see it unless you were looking
for it. And he didn't want to fix it given he was down to his 15 or 16th
composite at the time!
Laurence Chiu
> LABOUISSE) wrote:
>
> >
> > I'm really puzzled by such things even if I believe it to be true... I
> > cannot imagine that 'invisible' SFX in theatre become 'obvious' on video
> > since the later has less resolution, color, etc. But I remember to
notice
> > SFX on tv that I didn't see in theatre.
> > All this is really strange. Does anyone know why ???
>
> Comes from video being struck from the interneg...more contrast between BG
> and garbage mattes used in effects.
Plus most of the TV series SF shows these days use digital compositing so
you are unlikely to see garbage mattes.