8mm Forum: Star Wars 1977 Original version Cineavision Scope feature

This is topic Star Wars 1977 Original version Cineavision Scope feature in forum 8mm Print Reviews at 8mm Forum.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://8mmforum.film-tech.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=000518

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on 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 ]

Posted by Moshe Yitzhak (Member # 2718) on July 03, 2013, 03:00 PM:

breath taking review.
well done. [Smile]

Posted by Akshay Nanjangud (Member # 2828) on July 03, 2013, 03:22 PM:

Osi, did you really watch this (give or take a few) 90 times in a month? I take it 'standing in line three times a day' means you bought tickets for yourself.

Posted by Adam Deierling (Member # 2307) on July 03, 2013, 03:39 PM:

Glad you liked it!

Posted by Michael De Angelis (Member # 91) on July 03, 2013, 10:44 PM:

Fantastic review.

I'm not clear. Does this film need an anamorphic lens, or is it already printed in widescreen scope and no additional lens is needed?

In this release, did Han Solo shoot first?

What's interesting is that when the film opened, it was truly a sleeper and only through word of mouth did people take notice.

Long live the force.

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on 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.

Posted by Fabrizio Mosca (Member # 142) on July 04, 2013, 02:58 PM:

Osi, in reality "anamorphic" is the optical process that squeezes the pictures into the frame, regardless the final image ratio on the screen. In this respect all what we call "scope prints" should be named as "anamorphic" prints, but Cinemascope is the most famous one (and so the short name).

So, your Cineavision is a truly Cinemascope print (2.35:1 ratio), while the Derann one is "only" an anamorphic print as it doesn't respect the Cinemascope ratio (same for most of the 16mm ones).

Apart from the wording issue, you're a lucky guy!!

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on 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?

Posted by Akshay Nanjangud (Member # 2828) on July 04, 2013, 04:37 PM:

Osi, to take pics of unprojected film you can use a magnifying glass. Place the two frames side by side under a magnifying glass, and click. Perhaps you feel even this won't give enough detail?

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on 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.

Posted by Hugh Thompson Scott (Member # 2922) on July 04, 2013, 06:23 PM:

Osi , God love Ya, you're a Jedi Knight, we know. why not get
these films on 16mm.

Posted by Laksmi Breathwaite (Member # 2320) on July 04, 2013, 07:53 PM:

MAY THE FORCE BE WITH YOU OSI! [Smile]

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on July 05, 2013, 12:41 PM:

Hugh ...
I have seen the available prints of this in scope 16MM, and while the Cineavision isn't quite as good as the Derann, my Derann print certainly outweighs what I have seen on 16MM.

Posted by Michael De Angelis (Member # 91) on July 05, 2013, 07:18 PM:

In a matter of detail, what is specifically lacking in the Cineavision print?

Is it only the first hour of the film that suffers in appearance?

Is the printing too light throughout the feature film?

Is it lacking color?

Are the scenes on Tattoine too light because it's not graded or timed correctly. Does the film have a grainy appearance?

If the digest is grainy, then it's more than likely a dupe or very good reduction.

If you have the time, is it possible to take identical digital picts from each version for a side by side comparison and post it here?

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on 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.

Posted by Michael De Angelis (Member # 91) on July 06, 2013, 03:26 PM:

Hey Osi,

Thanks again.

Michael

Posted by Pete Richards (Member # 2203) on July 06, 2013, 08:38 PM:

Thanks so much for the review Osi, you are lucky I missed the end of that auction or one of us would have ended up paying much more for it [Big Grin]

Can you tell if it is the original mono audio track? The klaxon on the tantative are quite different when you listen between the original mono and the later stereo tracks.

Posted by Rob Young. (Member # 131) on July 07, 2013, 05:14 AM:

Nice review, Osi.

Did you ever get the Star Wars cover email I sent?

There have been quite a few slight dialogue and effects changes with every release, so you should have a load of fun playing audio "spot the difference" with this print!! [Smile]

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on July 07, 2013, 08:34 AM:

Before I project it, I'm going to do a some "restoration" cleaning on it. There was some very "Gummy" stuff during the beginning credits and I'm going to check the rest of the print before I project it again, as it did have a few "stutters" during the print, and that's usually because something got on the print, so I'll make sure of that.

As Rob said, I'm a gonna be a listening!

Posted by Graham Sinden (Member # 431) on July 07, 2013, 01:22 PM:

Great review Osi and explaining the Cineavision style.

This may be a sore question on this forum but the DVD's and Blurays out there on Star Wars, Do they show the full 2.35:1 image like on this print or are they cropped in any way?

Just curious to know if you could see what not many other people are looking at, even with a top HD video projector.

Graham S

Posted by Rob Young. (Member # 131) on July 07, 2013, 02:24 PM:

The DVD and Blu-ray releases are 2.35:1 as per theatrical release.

Posted by Graham Sinden (Member # 431) on July 07, 2013, 03:26 PM:

Thanks Rob

Posted by Hugh Thompson Scott (Member # 2922) on 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?

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on July 08, 2013, 12:18 PM:

Rob ...

I would have to disagree on the correct ratio on DVD and Blu-ray ... UNLESS an old fashioned 27 inch TV doesn't give the whole letterboxing, (and a plasma or digital TV does) ..

as, I have watched all the film on our regular TV, and there is a good deal of information cut off on the left and right.

This becomes even more apparant when Larry Arpin sent me a copy on DVD of the original 1980's "Empire Strikes Back" on DVD but taken from a first issue laserdisc of the original unretouched/restored version of the 1980 classic, and the laserdisc on DVD had much more screen info on the left and right of the screen.

Image quality wasn't the best, but it was just being used for the original stereo mix of the soundtrack for my super 8 print of "Empire".

Posted by Rob Young. (Member # 131) on July 08, 2013, 01:20 PM:

Oh crickey! Here we go with the can 'o worms that is screen ratio! [Smile]

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! [Smile]

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! [Smile]

Posted by Michael De Angelis (Member # 91) on July 08, 2013, 10:35 PM:

I saw the original Star Wars and it was not yet titled: Episode IV. It was during the second week of the initial run in the summer of '77. It must have been 70mm because the screen was extremely tall and the fast action of Tie fighters swooping into space in the midst of stars against a black background was breathtaking.

I returned later in the summer and it had been retitled to Episode IV and in flat 35mm, it was boring.

Darth Vaders lens in his helmet was not yet completely black.

Incidentally, Raiders of the Lost Arc was boring the second time around too.

Posted by Hugh Thompson Scott (Member # 2922) on July 08, 2013, 11:57 PM:

Is there anytihing more to say on this film, except that Peter Cushing wore carpet slippers in his role of Moff Tarkin,as the
boots were far too small, as he said "they were agony ivy".

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on July 09, 2013, 01:18 PM:

That's a neat little bit of info Hugh! [Smile]

Rob, LUV to open cans O worms! [Razz]

It still doesn't explain why the "Empire" laserdisc had a good deal more info on both sides. I wonder if perhaps the 'Empire" laserdisc was taken from a 70MM print? Just curious.

Hugh, I could never speak upon STAR WARS too much, (in my personal opinion!)

Posted by Pete Richards (Member # 2203) on July 09, 2013, 07:27 PM:

A lot of Super8 gates cut off some picture as well.
I widened my gate, but it still is slimmer than the picture on the Derann Star Wars.
This is a sequence from my Derann print, how much more image does your new acquisition have Osi?
http://we.tl/92ZFj2CSl4

No the Empire LD was taken from a 35mm, not from the 70mm. I think I have every LD released of the original trilogy, if you ever need any soundtracks, let me know!

Posted by Hugh Thompson Scott (Member # 2922) on July 09, 2013, 07:34 PM:

Osi, whenever "Star Wars " is mentioned now, I AUTOMATICALLY
think OSI. You are now in my psyche, you little mindworm you.
PS.Are you coming over for the convention in Ealing?

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on July 10, 2013, 12:49 PM:

IF I CAN EVER GET MY BLOODY MUSIC LAUNCHED!!!!!!

(ehem, excuse me ... it's just a sore note at the moment in my life! Can write you privately if you'd want to hear "the rant")

UBB.classic^TM 6.3.1.2