Author
|
Topic: Star Wars 1977 Original version Cineavision Scope feature
|
Osi Osgood
Film God
Posts: 10204
From: Mountian Home, ID.
Registered: Jul 2005
|
posted July 03, 2013 12:49 PM
There has been much written about the STAR WARS super 8 Derann feature, but very little about this rarity, the Cineavision style super 8 scope print, so I thought I'd do an assessment of it.
I just received this the other day. My first stop? The leader. Reel one didn't have the original leader, but the other reels appear to. Curiously, some of the reels have a "Cineavision" style leader (that is, the countdown is also in Cineavision). Reels 2 through 6 merely say "Original Negative" (whatever that means), and so I really don't know who did this printing of this title. I have always assumed it might well have been the same person who did the "legal" Cineavsion titles, but since I have no evidence, I'll leave it at that.
OK, before I go further, for those who don't know what "Cineavsion" is, I'll explain.
"Cineavision" super 8 scope prints were prints that were in scope, as so many are in scope, but in the case of the Cineavision print, the image on the film is slightly smaller on the frame. You see, for those who don't know, a true anamorphic cinemascope image, on it's original 35MM, is literally a perfect square image, instead of the slightly retangular image that you find for a super 8 frame.
Therefore, in order to retain the actual anamorphic scope image, the producers of these prints would bring in (or print smaller) the image on the super 8 frame and instead of having black bars on the top and bottom (to give a "Letterboxed effect, maintaining a somewhat widescreen presentation), the blacks bars are instead on the left and right hand sides of the frame, allowing the anamorphic scope image on the super 8 frame to be that nice square image.
While this may not be all that imporatant to the average super 8 scope collector, (as hey, those films still look great projected in scope!), the super 8 scope lover is losing image information on both the top and bottom of the frame. With the cineavision print, very little is lost on the top and bottom, (depending on the projector and what kind of image is projected in the first place).
The Cineavision image is quite nice on this print. As many other have stated, the Derann print has better color saturation that this Cineavision print, (although, there are some shots and sections that appear to have better color on the CIneavision) and in fact, it appears that reel two was printed ever so slightly too bright. It's not washed out by any means, but a few scenes on tatooine are rather bright. That reels seems to suffer from what some early LPP prints suffered from. That is, a little too bluish and slightly overexposed.
Back to the statement about "original negative" ...
I've noticed that at a number of places, you can see the original cement splices of the editor! This is no joke! Just one example, when the pilot says "lock "X folds into attack position" and then the shot of the X-Wings seperating theier wings, right at the join/edit from the shot of the pilot to the shot of the X-Wings, there is an unmistakable cement splice there. I compared it to the Derann STAR WARS and there is not a single loss of a frame of film, (though, no evidence of the cement splice in this later re-edited STAR WARS)
In other words, this isn't a break in the film after the print left the studio, this is the original cement edit/splice. This happens throughout the print!
As stated, this is an LPP print and most fortunate for being so. It's strange that the same person (or persons) who produced this print were also responsible (I'm assuming) for the "Empire Strikes Back" Cineavision print, but that print was KODAK SP, and was already (as of last year when I owned one) ever so slightly turning brown in the blacks. It makes one wonder if this STAR WARS scope print was done after the Empire print OR, the persons involved found that Kodak SP would be cheaper to print on and of course, didn't know of it's fade qualities at the time.
Fortunately, the rest of the print does not have this problem and especially, from reel three on, the image quality is great.
Though not quite as pin sharp as the Derann feature, it is almost imperceptibly less sharp than the Derann. I think the only thing that makes one think it's less sharp is that this print has a little more grain to it and that's probably why.
As has been mentioned in other places, this is THEE 1977 version of STAR WARS. Lucas had no idea at the time if he was going to be able to do the whole number of stories in the STAR WARS pantheon and therefore, the original release of this merely says STAR WARS and then the scroll begins with "It is a period of Civil War ..." It was only in later re-releases of the film that Lucas tacked on the "Episode 4 "A New Hope" before the scroll.
There are other differences, for instance, the subtitles on Greedo's dialogue in the Cantina scene, as well as some other little differences I won't go into. I will listen to the dialogue very carefully in future screenings to see if there are different early "takes" used in the dialogue.
But the "reel" pleasure is seeing this in it's original format and as originally seen by a certain 11 year old at the time, standing in line three times a day for, no kidding, about a month (Yeah I had it BAD from the beginning!).
This is the actual experience I had when I first saw it, and that means the world to a fellow like me!
LONG LIVE SUPER 8!!!!!! [ July 28, 2013, 09:01 AM: Message edited by: Osi Osgood ]
-------------------- "All these moments will be lost in time, just like ... tears, in the rain. "
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Osi Osgood
Film God
Posts: 10204
From: Mountian Home, ID.
Registered: Jul 2005
|
posted July 04, 2013 11:56 AM
Nope, this is an anamorphic scope print, needing a scope lense.
In a matter of speaking, the Cineavision prints were the only super 8 scope prints that were truly "anamorphic" scope prints as, the average scope print is not truly anamorphic, or, to put it more accurately, the actual aspect ratio is not true as, the average super 8 scope print comes in on the scope image to fill the whole super 8 frame, so, with missing image info on the top and bottom, your missing some of what gives it that aspect ratio in the first place.
If I can find someone who has one of those cool cameras that can actually come in that close on two strips of unprojected super 8 side by side, I'd love to show a comparision between the Derann scope and the Cineavision scope STAR WARS, just to show how much is missing.
A friend of mine, (who can identify himself if he wishes to) stated concerning this cineavision print that, (that it might be a non sanctioned but actual Cineavision print) that, "it seems an awful lot of effort to put out, seeing that it takes more effort to make a Cineavision print than to just make your standard scope super 8. I personally agree as well.
-------------------- "All these moments will be lost in time, just like ... tears, in the rain. "
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Osi Osgood
Film God
Posts: 10204
From: Mountian Home, ID.
Registered: Jul 2005
|
posted July 04, 2013 03:57 PM
Don't get me wrong, I own both, and I won't part with the derann one either but yes, I am most happy with this Cineavision print.
One thing I would to hear, if one could verify this, is if saomeone has the Cineavision version of STARWARS paer two scope digest, as that title was put out both in the common Ken Films scope digest, and the Cineavision scope digest.
From what I have heard, the Cineavision is the same edit as thew Ken Films digest, but in Cineavision. One would at first assume that the CIneavision would be from the same master material/negative as the Ken Films one.
Having this scope digest as well, I've noted that, while it still has very good color (getting to be a rarity with this digest), it is quite grainy, (though not as grainy as the flat version), and it seems like a lot of work to make a brand new negative for CIneavision for just the same digest.
Any thoughts, ladies and Gentleman?
-------------------- "All these moments will be lost in time, just like ... tears, in the rain. "
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Osi Osgood
Film God
Posts: 10204
From: Mountian Home, ID.
Registered: Jul 2005
|
posted July 04, 2013 05:10 PM
That's a good idea! I'll try that!
In the meantime ...
I was comparing the two "scrolls" In the original, the "STAR WARS" logo is not completely gone in the background before the scroll begins. In the re-issue with the "Episode 4" the STAR WARS logo is completely gone a for a few seconds, (eprhaps four seconds) before the scroll begins.
The CIneavision print was done a little brighter than the Derann, which maes projecting with a lower output lamp much better. I was comparing the two during the "Rebel Blockade Runner" sequence and noted that while the Cineavsion print has walls that are a lovely white, (and this is evident that it was what George oreiginal intended as you see the interior of that same Blockade Runner in the end of Episode 3), while the Derann print has walls that are a dingy brownish color. Part of this could be the grain as well, but the Derann print, while it does have gorgeous color, appeara to lean slightly to the green spectrum.
It shouldn't surprise that the Cineavision print would have color close to the original release, as I wouldn't be surprised if it was a first year print of the film, or a negative made from a first year 35MM.
It should be noted however, that the Cineavision print does have more wear to the original source of the print, but it is only at reel changes. I'm sure I'm kind of silly about this, but I kind of like having wear to the reel changes, as it's evidence of actual reel changes. Perfect reels from start to finish always feel a little unreal when it comes to projections.
-------------------- "All these moments will be lost in time, just like ... tears, in the rain. "
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Osi Osgood
Film God
Posts: 10204
From: Mountian Home, ID.
Registered: Jul 2005
|
posted July 06, 2013 12:21 PM
OK, I'll try to answer all your questions Micheal ... By answering the one I forgot to answer before ...
1. Yes, Han Solo fires first. It doesn't have the shot where Lucas tried to make it look like Greedo took the first shot and Han was more accurate.
Now ...
2. It's very sharp, just not quite as sharp as the Derann print and as stated earlier, this may be because the grain on the CIneavision print is a little stronger.
3. It's actually only the outdoor shots on Tatooine that suffer from being a little bright. just the slitest touch too bight and it might well be, as you said, graded or timed wrong, not taking into account those few areas and, only on reel three, not the whole first half of the feature, basically, just those few scenes on reel three, (mopst notably when Luke and Obiwan discover the slain jawas and Luke heads to his home to find his family are a bunch of crispy critters!).
4. It's certainly not lacking color. The color is very strong but much more identical to the original release color than the Derann, which is from a newer negative, (well, it does have the Episode 4 scroll, which obiously makes it a newer generation negative, while the Cineavision print is from the first year or two of release) as well as the Derann leaning ever so slightly to a greenish look.
5. I'm betting the digest is from a dupe. I wonder which scope digest came out first? The CIneavision digest or the Ken films? My bet is the CIneavision, as Ken films didn't even touch the scope market except for this scope part 2 digest, (unless there are other classic era Ken films digests in scope?)
6. I do plan on doing some side by side comparisons when it comes to the differences between the two prints, but don't hold your breathe for any time soon, as I'm bogged down with a myriad of things.
-------------------- "All these moments will be lost in time, just like ... tears, in the rain. "
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hugh Thompson Scott
Film God
Posts: 3063
From: Gt. Clifton,Cumbria,England
Registered: Jan 2012
|
posted July 08, 2013 11:05 AM
If anyone on here knows screen ratios ( me, if it's on film, I'll have it ), it's Rob,well done that man. Just a query, Does a TV print of a film, dictate purchase, I'm speaking of screen ratioi, not edit?
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Rob Young.
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1633
From: Cheshire, U.K.
Registered: Dec 2003
|
posted July 08, 2013 01:20 PM
Oh crickey! Here we go with the can 'o worms that is screen ratio!
So Star Wars was 2.35:1 ratio on original 35mm release and 2.20:1 for the 70mm prints (so if you saw it in glorious 70mm, you were missing extra side bits! lol! Unless, of course, the negative afforded extra info top & bottom of frame, then you were gaining vertical picture info...see how you can go crazy unless you have film prints infront of you!!!)
Now Lucas may well have re-framed things for the special editions, etc.
But the ratio remains 2.35:1 for DVD and Blu-ray release.
Osi, as I'm sure you know, a CRT TV will cut off a certain degree of image top, bottom and sides with overscan, but I wouldn't expect it to be too severe; depends on the set though...
Although, my 8mm print of Raiders of the Lost Ark does seem to have a little more picture info left and right compared to the DVD version, but sometimes this extends to white negative bars during effects shots, so I suspect it is printed with a little too much side frame picture info, in order to salvage some headroom with the 8mm scope image (non cineavision style!)
Generally, whilst different versions may have a little extra / less info left and right, I don't think it would be significant??
On an HD display (TV / Projector) the image should be pixel perfect for HD Blu-ray, if set up correctly.
Since all HD displays are 16:9, the 2.35:1 image is presented with black bars top and bottom, so the 2.35:1 image is totally intact.
However, whether or not that image has been re-framed is a different matter, but I can't see that it would be altered dramatically, or headroom, etc. would start to suffer.
Of course, Lucas likes to tinker so much that I wouldn't like to compare any of the Star Wars films shot by shot.
Audio wise, there were different mixes even for the original release; full 6 track magnetic for the 70mm & Dolby stereo for 35mm optical, with centre, left, right and surround encoded.
Hugh, yes, normally it would be a deciding factor, although most films now are presented on DVD / Blu-ray in their original aspect ratios.
I once bought Hammer's Brides of Dracula in 4:3 because it was the only version available...rubbish...I can't wait for the proper HD version out soon!
| IP: Logged
|
|
|