CT This this this! 4K Original Restoration Technicolor

Here's my take on the coloring differences. I think that part of the reason for some darkening of different shots is that to Lucas's eye, it still looked fake to him. That he had allowed certain lighting effects through color timing alterations, to give the OT a look that looked more like what can be done digitally, while having a more natural look to him.

 

I'd think that Disney/LFL would want the OT to have coloring consistent with Rebels.

 

Shouldn't it be the other way around?

 

A 1970's film should look like a 1970's film, colors and all. There is no shame to it. In 1997, the film looked good (barring the changes). In 2004, the restoration was rushed and overseen by a man who was trying to turn the film into something it isn't.

 

so Rebels should have a blue tint?

 

It's not about shame. It's about presentation. Some movies and television shows don't hold up as well on DVD, much less Blu-Ray. That's why "Star Trek" and "Star Trek: The Next Generation" were given overhauls in the effects department and strong remastering, in order to look presentable in HD.

Compare the original broadcast...



To the remastered version...



The latter is more consistent with the first films and the later television series and looks more realistic.

Likewise, why many older films have been altered slightly to make them more acceptable for the current formats and for a younger generation that won't appreciate the nostalgia of an old movie and show.

 

Star Wars was not "altered slightly." The colors were way off, with people looking unnatural and bleeds from the saturation being turned up way too much. Then the blacks were crushed and detail was lost, like the star fields.

Your Star Trek example doesn't quite work, because
1. The colors are authentic to the original versions. They actually took care to make them look like they should.
2. Both the original and remastered versions are on the blu-rays. There is a choice.
3. Even with the CGI remaster, they tried to keep 1960's aesthetics in mind. Unlike the Special Editions.

I would argue that the CGI for Star Trek is less appealing than the model work, but its a taste issue.

I would not agree that things need to be altered to appeal to the younger generation. They tend to be ok with vintage things not looking modern. Hell, vinyl is super popular right now as is retro clothing. Yes, you do get the ones who only like things to look the same, but frankly they are usually too stupid to be worth dealing with.

 

I understand what this fella is talking about but what he apparently can't at all understand is that 99.999999999% of actual regular people who watch these movies do not notice any of the color timing changes and 99.9999% of the fans don't either. Outside of a relatively small group of people online I have yet to ever meet anyone in person who ever says anything about the colors being different at all.

They are not attached to them as they are not attached to the movies. They have watched them only a handful of times and so have no great attachment to particular shades of color.

It's also a bit misleading because the base color scheme he's talking about one that you see best with the standard setting. How many people don't simply adjust the TV levels to what you prefer?

When you are doing modern digital grading on HD screens you are doing it just for that. HD. It's a lot like the talk of "crushed" blacks. On a regular CRT that I had before the blacks looked far more "crushed" then when you then saw them on a large HDTV. Suddenly this black crushing isn't so crushed anymore.

The aesthetic look of what looks normal changes over time. The technicolor look of the first film is of that era and not one that fits into the digital age.. On the enhanced commentary for STID you can see some of what JJ actually shot on set and what the final movie looked like. The effect is much the same as comparing the original look of the X-Wing at the rebel base to the BD SE version.

The Star Trek BD's are still greatly veered towards a more modern look than what was originally filmed and would have been "correct" for that time. Not that anyone could ever possibly see that version since they couldn't do what they really wanted to but only the best they could at that time with the technology.

Not many TV series or movies ever get that kind of attention decades after their release.

That is the difference that now you can work directly off the negative and color time the scenes with digital grading to exactly what they want. In that past that was impossible. You had to photochemically color time from the O-neg to the interpositive then copy that to the internegative before making more copies that finally would be set to the TV stations.

The Trek that we all remember from TV and video will never be seen instead we will have to make do with versions from the O-Neg in HD in a virtually perfect presentation.

Would you rather watch the actual versions of TNG which are on DVD or the astonishing post production re-makes released on BD? That is a no contest.

Now in the case of Star Wars I'm sure many people would like to have the true originals on BD (not new originals as we've discussed before).

 

Adventures of Robin Hood, Wizard of Oz, the Red Shoes and a ton of Technicolor films have survived the transition into the digital age looking like they should. A film should not be changed to try and make it look more modern. It never works. You make it look the best it can while respecting the way and time it was made in. Into Darkness was made in 2012/2013. It is a modern film that will use modern techniques. Star Wars was shot in 1976. There is a huge difference.


I don't watch TNG, because it sucks. Its Patrick Stewart and a bunch of lesser actors who would be doing dinner theater in Arkansas if not for the show. But most of all its boring and far less fun than TOS. For every Best of Both Worlds or Yesterday's Enterprise, you have seasons worth of dreck.

 

That is hardly a serious comparison. You are talking about actual technicolor films being done with the actual cameras of the 3 strip process which were purposely done in an archival preservation manner to make them look to near optimal perfection (that once again wasn't possible to deliver to the audience of the time that way).

It happens all the time though. Look at the Bond movies. A Bond fan friend of mine goes on about all the changes made for the remastered editions and the various other films he is a fan of like the Langella Dracula which he says looks totally different than the one he knows. For me who never much saw this Dracula except on TV I would know of no difference but that's what he sees.

I don't disagree with that sentiment but the point is that unlike most other films the Star Wars movies are going to be seen over and over again and released time and again across DVD, BD, digital, TV and the like. I can see why Lucas wouldn't want them to stand out as artefacts of another time but try to get them as close as possible to being in line with not only the prequels that he was doing himself but with the standard of movies of the digital age as opposed to the optical age. This is even more important now with the new era of movies coming.

Going from episodes I-III before IV-VI then the new movies would make the OT look downright weird in comparison. It's already going to look dated and small in comparison all the other movies but to have colors that make it look that different plus the lesser VFX work that the original theatrical presentations are in comparison is something that needs to be lessened as much as possible while still remaining mostly faithful to the original work.

This is what Lucas did. He certainly could have done all sorts of other changes for the 04 DVD's and 11 BD's.

As I have said over and over I wish he had adjusted the SE versions even more than they were and make those the canonical cuts but then make archival preservation cuts available at the highest quality achievable and released on BD.

 

But episodes I-III don't have a blue tint, crushed blacks, green C-3PO, or pink lightsabers.

 

Two of them were shot completely with digital cameras and the other film was made with newer and advanced technology compared to the originals. They were able to get the look that Lucas wanted, compared to the look of the OT on film. If Lucas was dissatisfied with the coloring, he would have changed it for the Blu-Ray edition.

 

Don't forget the blue snow!

 

I'll never forget the blue snow.

 

Better than yellow snow.

 

AOTC has an ugly teal tint throughout the whole thing. http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/61153/picture:2 check out shots 3 and 4. It's jsut as bad as what was done to IV-VI. You don't need to be a videophile to see it.

It boggles my mind that people think the color timing on the DVD/BDs is acceptable. It's garbage. I cannot possibly comprehend how an overly dark image that loses all its detail to the shadows, with everything being blue looks remotely good.

 

I did some more research on this guy - his Star Wars credentials are insane.
He did the CG R2-D2 for the Complete Visual Dictionary: http://mikeverta.com/wordpress/visuals/vfx/cg-r2-d2/
and built his own real one: http://mikeverta.com/wordpress/otherstuff/building-my-own-r2-d2/
And his music sounds like John Williams:
He even fixed the new LFL fanfare in 10 seconds:

Anybody know if he's at Celebration? I can't imagine he's not all over that.

 

Can he just do all the things?

Or at least restore The Star Wars Trilogy in 4K?

 

He may not be working on the other movies, but we are (Not in 4k yet) .

We still don't think 4k versions will officially ever happen. But if you want to see some 4k frames scanned from Return of the Jedi, go here:

===================================

http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/to...ails-and-Updates/post/708913/#TopicPost708913






More here:
http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Team-Negative1-Return-of-the-Jedi-1983-35mm-Theatrical-Version-Release-Details-and-Updates/post/709362/#TopicPost709362
http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Team-Negative1-Return-of-the-Jedi-1983-35mm-Theatrical-Version-Release-Details-and-Updates/post/709581/#TopicPost709581
http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Team-Negative1-Return-of-the-Jedi-1983-35mm-Theatrical-Version-Release-Details-and-Updates/post/709868/#TopicPost709868
http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Team-Negative1-Return-of-the-Jedi-1983-35mm-Theatrical-Version-Release-Details-and-Updates/post/710020/#TopicPost710020
And finally:
=======
http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Team-Negative1-Return-of-the-Jedi-1983-35mm-Theatrical-Version-Release-Details-and-Updates/post/710162/#TopicPost710162


The vast majority of people don't currently have 4k moniters, or any way to play back media in that format. You could stream it at 4k, but you would need a lot of bandwidth to do it.
We'll see if we can post a 1-2 second clip in 4k to test it.
Team Negative1

 

We have scans of Star Wars, and Empire Strikes Back in 4k. The resulting restorations will be worked on in 2k, and downsampled to 1080p.

Team Negative1

 

This is amazing (I've never seen such a clear image of Sebastian Shaw). Good to know the sources for Empire and Jedi are in place and that project is underway.

 

I say this with all sincerity, from the very bottom of my heart:

grow up

 

As I've been saying for a long time. If Lucasfilm doesn't ever release a properly remastered OT... the internet will take care of it for us

Man, I can't believe how awful the Blu-ray scene looks