Quality of Picture - Between TESB and ROTJ

Okay you guys might call me weird or crazy, but judging from the SE / SE DVDs of TESB and ROTJ, for some odd reason, the picture quality of TESB looks better, it has this greater, clearer quality to it. I don't know why, it just seems that way. I remember George Lucas saying in the Audio Commentary of ROTJ that for ROTJ he didn't need to make any technical strides cuz ROTJ is a rather personal story, so may be that's why? Perhaps it's the fact that TESB's original film negatives were cleaned up better than the ROTJ ones? Has anyone else noticed this? Ideas, thoughts?

Hmmmmmm.

 

I haven't noticed that much of a difference. What i have noticed is a scene that is in the Endor forest isn't as bright/clear as say a scene in a more monotone setting such as Hoth or in space. Though that may be just a contrast issue.

One things for sure, the older version looked more lifeless than the SE/DVD versions before it was cleaned up.

 

I sort of noticed the same thing. I don't know why
ESB looks better....

 

I think it has to do with scenery, to be quite honest. When I think of ROTJ, I can remember each scene as clearly with the color tones as much as I can with the action. The first part of the movie takes place on Tatooine, so it's brightly colored and appealingly varied, but the rest of the movie has dull or dark tones. From Endor, which is mostly muted forest coloring, to the space and Death Star battles, which are mostly black/grey/white footage. ESB, on the other hand, takes place in several locations with lots of different settings, characters, and action, so there's alot more flow between color combinations that makes it more visually appealing.

 

Empire does seem to be more cleaned up than Jedi. I guess GL cares about the better film. When watching the VHS a few years ago, it seemed like they were all on the same level. Empire's transfer is definitely worth every bit on what I paid.

 

ROTJ seems to have much "fuzzier" lighting. I have a hard time explaining it, which sucks because I'm a film student. ESB is set up almost as a noir film, with similar lighting, whereas the lighting in ROTJ is much more diffuse. I've noticed the difference in visual tone since I was a kid.

Also, the dominant whites, blues, and blacks of ESB give it a much crisper feel than the earthtones of ROTJ.

 

I think it has more to do with the footage shot than anything involving transfer or technology.

Peter Suschitzky (sp?) > Alan Hume



Rick McCallum loves you!

 

I think they both looked equally great, but yeah, ESB really looked very impressive, especially the space sequences.

 

It should also be noted that ROTJ had a different director of photography (Alan Hume) from ESB and ANH. So the DOP's vision for how it should be shot and lit is going to be different. ROTJ seems to be lit in a more classical, television style of lighting with minimal use of gels and lacking the film-noir usage of shadows that ESB had.

Secondly it's likely that ROTJ was shot with a different kind of film stock than ESB...or at least a vastly different batch.

Film is made from cellulose - organic plant matter. Because its organic, film cannot be fully controlled in terms of the quality of its print and how it reacts to light.

Even today, twenty years later, whenever a DOP gets a case of blank film, from the same batch, he will crack open a canister and run a few dozen feet of film to test and see what the grade of THAT batch of film looks like. He might find that the particular batch has too much of a green or blue look to it, or that it isnt' as responsive to light as other batches, or that it looks more grainy.

Movies are usually shot using film with identical batch numbers of film...or at least batch numbers that have been tested and are known to "react" the same way. Of course ensuring that the batch numbers "react" in a similar manner BETWEEN movies made 3 years apart is just impossible.

It's possible that ROTJ was shot on an inferior grade batch (hence its graininess), or that the DOP wanted it to look that way or - possibly - that they were shooting it on a new KIND of film emulsion which meant a range of unpredictable variations in image quality.

It is possible that Kodak had actually developed a new range of film that was being used which had replaced the 1979-80 stock used for ESB. Personally I've found that a lot of films made around the time of ROTJ have the same fuzzy, grainy, unresponsive look to it.

Just my two cents.

 

i agree the picture quality does seem a lot clearer, could this be due to the snow in the hoth scenes providing greater clarity??